Quote:
Originally posted by Fugee
I'm going to talk to the few folks I know here who are quite vocally passionate about "protecting traditional marriage." ...
I think I will test that by asking about civil unions... Their responses should be interesting.
|
I will be interested to hear what they say. I have a feeling that, to some extent, the religious objection, though real, is also a convenient way to avoid admitting that they just think it is squicky.
Seriously, I have real hopes that Queer Eye and Will & Grace will result in an entire generation that, regardless of how provincial or closeted their immediate community is, will not have a total lack of familiarity with the idea of gay people, and the idea that gay people are not scary and even admirable. I note that even my Archie Bunker-esq father, having gone into a business recently that has him dealing with large numbers of gay men, has come firmly down on the side of "they are good people, and reliable customers/associates, and they should do whatever they want and no one should give them any trouble about it - so long as they aren't looking at my butt." (Well, he's come a long, long way.)
This reminds me of a discussion I had with some distant relations in Canada when Ontario first punted legalizing gay marriage. This woman was just IRATE about the idea - not on religious or "sanctity" or "tradition" grounds, but purely because "I don't want those gays taking up all my benefits." I'd never actually heard an anti- person take that position before so I pressed her on it a bit. She didn't seem to understand what I was asking until I posed it as: "why should ANY couples, including hetero couples, get the gov't benefits just because they are married?" she stopped dead and got a blank look with her mouth hanging open and held it for about 20 seconds. I'm pretty sure I didn't change her mind, but I apparently gave her something to think about. At least she was honest about her self-interest in denying benefits she already had to others to prevent the dilution of her benefit (though I think she imagined she had stumbled on a more sophisticated justification that, again, just covered her thinking it was squicky).
FWIW, club, I may be even more "liberal" than you on this, and, as I can come up with no convincing argument for why polygamy should be banned, either, other than Sidd's purely practical "how do you deal with the tax/benefits issues with more than two people?" I have given some thought as to how to structure those benefits for 3+ marital units. No answers yet, but I'm thinking about it. I keep toying with some sort of definition of "household" to determine who gets bens ....
Also, FWIW, per recent clinical research on the issue, children born to first cousins do not, through 2 generations of such interbreeding, show significantly increased rates of birth defects. Sibling and parent/child couplings do, but not first cousins. (I've not heard any studies involving aunt-uncle/nephew-neice pairings.) I vaguely recall that most states currently ban first-cousin marriages (including first cousins, removed), but permit marriages between second cousins.
BR(and we should legalize drugs, and seriously means test SS and medicare (but extend medicare to all minors), and have voucher programs, and the FCC should dissolve itself, and shift to a national consumption tax (excl. food, children's clothing, housing costs under caps determined by location, some other stuff) instead of an income tax ... oh, I have all sorts of stuff on my wish-lists)C
