RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
jkpotter's comments:
on Changing Child Sex Crime Law
I felt the same way for years -- my family was full of little girls, I was the oldest and probably the first abused, but not the last. If I had reported it all the other girls would have been spared, etc., etc. Years of therapy and a better understanding of the dynamics of this abuse have helped me come to terms with it.
I'm about your age, and I know that the culture we grew up in valued the appearance of harmony and the perfect life much more than hearing the truth. We were not heard.
It's not your fault. All this man's victim's are not your responsibility -- they're his, and the culture that oppressed children's voices and gave him safety.
I wish you peace.
posted 2 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Ben:
If the institution that carries the special legal rights and privileges is called marriage, then it needs to be redefined. The civil unions that exist are not the same as the legally recognized marriage, which is restricted to heterosexual couples.
I see two possible solutions, as I've said before: do away with the legal institution, which is currently inequitable, or change it to include gays as well as straights. If we're a country and a culture that values our equality, that goes out of our way to ensure that we all have equal rights under the law, then let's do that. If we mean, "equal rights, except for the people we don't want to have them," then we're in bigger trouble than we think.
We're saying the same things over and over. We disagree. Let's leave it at that.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Ben B:
My definition of marriage involves the structure itself, not the people who are in it. There are probably good reasons to restrict who gets to participate -- your comments about close relatives is a good example -- but gender certainly is not one of them. The fact that something is done in a particular way for a long time doesn't give it value, or make it true.
You define marriage in a particular way. I accept and respect your opinion, and your right to conduct your marriage, should you choose to have one, according to your beliefs. All any gay person is asking is for the acknowledgement that one person's opinion, or one side's, is only that: opinion. It should not carry the weight of law.
I see no inherent downside to allowing gay people the same legal rights as everybody else. I see plenty of upside, and plenty of downside to the "majority rules" criterion being applied to civil rights. I speak as a beneficiary of the striking down of laws based on what "everbody knows is true" regarding voting and ownership of property.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
I agree with your statement. I disagree with Ms. Gallagher about the effect of gay marriage on children.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Actually, what I advocate is separating the two concepts that are tangled into people's feelings about this issue. You say, "Marriage is a specific thing, with boundaries," but that's a relatively recent development. Marriage has been redefined throughout human history, always because of cultural or environmental changes that render part of its former meaning unnecessary.
Many people are using the old "marriage is for procreation" argument. In the beginning of human history male/female partnerships, however fleeting, were necessary for the survival of the species. Later in our history, conditions dictated many offspring, which gave rise to multiple wives. Still later, for reasons that aren't clear to me :), the cultural "norm" evolved into one man/one woman. There's information available indicating that homosexuality might have existed throughout our history, negating the "homosexuality is an aberration" argument.
Long story short: if the advantages of marriage are found to be beneficial, then the legal institution must be open to all. It's possible that simply striking the one man/one woman restriction will be the only change necessary to make it equitable; all other restrictions (age, mental competency, etc.) could remain.
If we're talking about the legal institution, I still don't understand why the lack of narrow definition removes the necessity for the legal contract. Not everyone who is allowed to marry wants to; that will likely be true if the "definition" of marriageable adults is altered to include gay people. What's the problem?
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Ben B:
I agree, if a proper legal institution were to be created it would have to be defined carefully and specifically. Right now, there are age restrictions (which vary state to state, I think); those should probably remain. As far as your statement that "Marriage can't be all things to all people "all who wish to marry", or it won't need a legal institution," I don't think I understand. Currently, heterosexual marriage is available to all who wish to marry, with some restrictions (multiple spouses are generally illegal, etc.); does that render institution unneeded? Why are exclusions necessary per se, according to you?
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
SH:
Well, I congratulate you on splitting a hair so finely that no one else can see the point. Looks like we've come full circle, right back where I thought we were the first time I read your post.
You define marriage as man-woman. Gays can marry -- as long as they do it your way. Only in your universe does that amount to an equal right.
For the record, I don't agree that one person being allowed to marry whomever they want is "forcing" anybody to do anything. You might not like it, you might decide to further split the definition hair, but that's your choice. It's not being forced on you.
I look forward to the day when everybody understands that the only difference between marriage between gays and straights is the genders of the participants.
Peace out.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Ben B:
I'm not proposing any restrictions or limitations; that's a different conversation. I'm proposing that if the legal definition does not include all who wish to marry, then the legal institution should not exist. The current argument is about civil rights, IMO. Making it a legal institution available to all eliminates all the baggage. The personal/religious/emotional beliefs about marriage aren't subject to legislation; as we know, being legally married often has little to do with the actual success of the marriage.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
SH:
Okay. You're saying that "marriage" means man and woman, right? Or are you saying that a gay marriage is "different" because it means two of one gender, and "marriage" is one of each?
If I'm reading your post correctly, gay marriage is marriage between two of the same gender. Marriage is between two of different genders. Otherwise, they're the same. Right?
Still unanswered: my question about your stating that gays have the right to marry. They don't, not most places. That's what started the whole thing: the movement to give gays that same right.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Really? You're equating sexual activity between consenting adult homosexuals with the rape of children? Seriously??
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
SHIMH: I'm having a lot of trouble following your posts.
You said:
"I believe problems get worse when rights are not guaranteed." in response to my comments about doing away with the legal institution of marriage." I'm still not sure what you're concerned about. Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post.
I believe that when people's personal beliefs are made into laws (gay marriage isn't right, etc.) then others are harmed. That's what I meant about the problems caused to others; that's why I said we shouldn't seek to force others into our beliefs about marriage (or anything else for that matter).
You seem, in this and other threads, to be stating that gay people have the right to marry, and therefore aren't being discriminated against. Since for the most part they clearly DO NOT have that right, I'm at a loss to understand where you're coming from.
My having the right to marry isn't a problem for anyone else; my not having the right to marry because someone like Maggie Gallagher thinks I shouldn't, is a problem -- not just for me, but for anyone wishing to live in a free society.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Now I'm really confused.
In a few states, gays are allowed to marry the way straights are. In most of the country, they aren't. I can't figure out what you're saying, or decipher the differences between this post and your previous ones.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
If marriage is a commitment between two people who want to spend their lives together, then that's what it is for each couple who undertakes it. No legislation can change that. If it's a legal institution which carries rights and privileges, it must be availalble to all adults. I think it can be both, but not one to the exclusion of the other. That has nothing to do with the personal meaning marriage has for each individual; that can't be legislated either.
By "baggage" I mean the differing value and meaning people place on the word. Marriage means so many different things to different individuals; how can that possibly be the law of the land?
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
How does the fact that gays wish to marry discriminate against straight marriages?
Legislating a legal state which carries many privileges, and denying those privileges to a group of people based on their gender, is exactly analogous to denying people the right to vote because of their race or gender. Bigotry. Discrimination.
Gays want the right to marry whom they wish, not just to marry. You know, just like straight people do.
By the way, having people you disagree with gain rights and privileges that you don't think they should have, doesn't mean you're being discriminated against.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Again, I'm not sure what you're saying. What rights are you concerned about losing if there aren't civil unions?
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Not sure what you're asking. I think we should either have a legal, civil institution whose rights and privileges (and responsibilities) are available to all adults, or we "delegislate" and do away with the thing altogether, and let churches and religious/spiritual groups have whatever commitment rituals they wish.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
I propose instead that we start calling the legal, civil institution something else, and accord its rights and privileges to everybody who wants to partake. The word "marriage" has too much baggage attached to it for its use to be fair and impartial -- as evidenced by your post.
I think others have posted suggestions about personal rituals -- having some sort of ceremony marking the couple's commitment and intent to move forward together. This would be religion/belief specific; there wouldn't be the clashes between groups ("mine's real and yours isn't!"); there would be a place and time for the couple and their loved ones to celebrate their commitment; and it would be in addition to the legal contract. Couples could have both, or just one, or neither.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
I understand (I think). I'm disagreeing with your definition of marriage. I respect your opinion; I just have a different one. Neither of our opinions should be legislated, especially when that causes such problems in others' lives. We should live our lives as we see fit, and stop short of thinking we know best for others.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
How do you define "intolerance"? You seem to believe it's synonymous with "disagreement"; please correct me if I've misunderstood you.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
It sounds like you're defining marriage in biblical/religious terms, which is your right. The basic argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that the institution as practiced in this country is a LEGAL one, with rights and privileges attached. It therefore must be available to any adult couples who wish it. Either that, or remove legal advantages of being married, and let the churches fight it out.
None of this has any relation to "the truth". It's a very recently created, culturally convoluted, religiously biased construct.
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context
