Ain't Nobody's Business

On the last post I pointed out one way (of many) that failing to legally recognize same-sex marriage hurts the people in question. I have, to date, never heard anything approaching a compelling argument on the harm caused by recognizing same sex marriage. Feel free to include your compelling reason in a comment if you'd like, but note that I'm apt to rebut and the level of sarcasm is inversely proportional to the intelligence of your reason. If you have a thoughtful well-reasoned reason, my answer, though likely counter, will be similarly thoughtful. (Note that anything religious as a reason is a null answer for legality as far as I'm concerned.)

If it's asinine, expect no gentleness. Consider yourself duly warned. I believe everyone is entitled to express his/her opinion and to live with the consequences of that expression, including ridicule if it's stupid enough. Just because everyone can state an opinion does not make those opinions of equal worth or veracity. I'm sick to death of readily disproved nonsense being trotted forward and given credence no matter how idiotic because we are all afraid of calling nonsense what it is in this world of free speech. I am willing to back my opinions with data and examples and logic. If you can't do the same, you might want to rethink airing it in this forum.

Note also that the subject at hand is "right to marry and legal sanctions against gays." People can find same-sex sex as personally distasteful as they like as long as they don't express said opinions by force or use them to discriminate. As soon as you use your opinion to cause harm, I lose all sympathy with your free speech. I'm sure that snuggling up to a big-breasted woman or a beefy hunk o' man turns the stomach of various members of the gay and lesbian community, but I've never heard of any pushing to make it illegal. Or even trying to convert anyone.

It would certainly be easier on most of them if they were straight; they're not because, well, they're not. And I think most of them consider their state immutable, a part of who they are. They don't want to deny themselves who they are; I don't think they should have to.

Anyway, I've digressed mightily from my original point (stupid soapbox!), which was examining what Shakespeare commented on the last post and my reply to her. There were two aspects. One was that people are born gay/straight. I've read some compelling evidence, genetically, that argues that can be true. I don't know if it's true for everyone who considers themselves gay, if people are always born one way or the other or if some aren't hardwired and can change direction over time. I don't see why it matters. People are individuals and genetics are pretty complicated; maybe there's more than one right answer. I can tell you one thing; far more people have experimented with the notion at one time in their life than will readily admit it. I did, and, though I'm quite firmly in the heterosexual camp, I don't regret it. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter for me personally.

But I think "the cause" is beside the  point. Whether you're gay because your physiology gives you little choice or whether you just like it like that, who should care? Some do, I know, because they want to "cure" it, but, since I don't have any interest in doing so, I don't care if you were born to be gay, if you were traumatized by someone of the opposite sex (or even your own) and that triggered your preference, if you happened across your same-sex soulmate and switched, or if you chose your sexual orientation with a drunken bout of darts.

Ain't none of my business, who someone else finds sexually attractive. Ain't none of yours either. Which leads to the second point. Why the hate?

Well, undoubtedly some are as Shakespeare noted, disgusted by the notion, convinced it is sinful or otherwise unnatural. However, the stigma attached to this particular "sin" is given a disproportionate amount of importance and reaction. I mean, Muslims and Jews both eschew pork and have for centuries (and for a far better reason), but when was the last time you heard of a pork farmer dragged behind the truck of irate rabbis?

I'm skeptical that the notion that someone is sinning (in ways that affect no one else in their daily lives, other than their lovers) would really engender this level of hatred and condemnation in most normal people given that few of us have gone through our lives without impinging on some of the commandments or sins of whatever religion we favor ourselves. I mean, shouldn't we be sin-free before we start gathering rocks? I know I'm not (sin-free or rock gathering).

I have my own ideas on why there's so much hatred here, theories, speculation and observations. But I'll save those for next time.

Read more...

Unequal Treatment

There are a number of people out there who have a considerable issue with homosexuality, often to the point of rabid ranting and even violence. I won't pretend to understand such vehement hatred, particularly given that whether or not someone loves (or is sexually attracted to) individual(s) of the same gender is unlikely to have the slightest effect on anyone other than the parties in question and, notably, is unlikely to have the tiniest effect on those same rabid haters.

Personally, I think this world never has too much love and don't see any reason why people can't go about finding it however they choose, as long as everyone involved is a responsible party and consenting. But that's just how I see it. I don't care if someone wants to see it differently, but that opinion (no matter how extreme) should not have an effect on the parties in question given that who people love in the gay/lesbian community has pretty much no effect on us.

I think most people think much more moderately than the vocal anti-gay community, whether it personally gives people the willies or not. Most people are not so ungenerous as to wish ill on others, even if they don't understand their sexual preferences. Or, I certainly hope that's the case. However, that laissez faire attitude is currently allowing real and appreciable harm to these same individuals.

In good conscience, I think it's important to be aware that, as long as our federal government refuses to acknowledge gay marriage, a sizable portion of our populace suffers real and appreciable damage, measurable damage, that effectively make them second-class citizens. People, who have done us no ill are suffering unnecessarily and to no benefit for the rest of us. I don't see why this should continue and thought I'd point out some of it, for those of you who might have thought this was a non-issue, one of semantics only.

Even if it were semantics only, of course, I'd be against it. Our government is expressly forbidden from making laws based on religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And there is no legal reason adults couldn't choose any other consenting adult as a lifetime companion to marry. Ironically, it's the same yahoos yelling for smaller government that demand the government dictate who we are and aren't allowed to love (as well as wanting the government to dictate what pregnant women can do to their bodies, but I digress). So I'm against precluding gay marriage on principle.

But, given the real damage it does, the harm and pain it causes, I can't see how people in good conscience can let those restrictions continue. Or how, with our constitution, they could be legal.
Let's start with taxes, since I played with these numbers while I did the other tax problems:

Think marriage doesn't make a difference? Here's a gay couple, with each partner netting:
1/2 income	Joint income	Tax	Married Tax	Difference
8500	17000	2125	1700	425
34500	69000	13375	9500	3875
83600	167200	40433	34885.5	5547.5
174400	348800	100001	92558.5	7442.5
379150	758300	244381.5	235920.5	8461

Any gay couple making professional level salaries can expect to pay thousands more in taxes every year because they aren't "married." They will not get social security survivor benefits. Insurance companies do not have to include them on policies as "family" (though this and some of the other aspects might not be true in states that permit or acknowledge same sex marriage). They may not be permitted to make end-of-life choices (despite written requests) or even visit their loved ones in the hospital as they aren't acknowledged "family."

When people wed, they put their lives in the hands of another. They agree to share their lives with another, their worldly wealth, their trust, their world with the person they love.

Shouldn't every citizen have the right to decide for him/herself who it is they are willing to trust with so much? Don't they have the right to have those choices respected by the rest of us? Right now we respect those rights for knocked-up teenagers and drunken strangers who meet for the first time the morning after in Las Vegas.

Why can't we do it for people who truly choose with their hearts?

Read more...

RS Classic: What Kind of World Do I Want to Live In?

Before I delve into the discussions of God and what I think is rational or not, I thought I'd take a trip in the wayback machine to a post I wrote on this same topic (Prop 8) back in November 2008. What do you know, my opinion is the same. You may be seeing that quite frequently. Just goes to show the more things change...

Our new President-elect and the different statewide referendums against gay marriage got me to thinking. Actually, it doesn’t take much; I like thinking. See, I’m like completely colorblind (race-wise) and have been since childhood, in fact, ever as far as I know. Couple reasons for this, not the least of which is the logical way my mind processes things (like why I never smoked. High school friends ask, “Hey, want a smoke?” I respond, with perfect sincerity. “Inhale smoke. On purpose?” - my lack of popularity is probably pretty easy to explain by now.). Why treat any human being different based on something as unimportant as race?

But it occurs to me that there might be some other factors. One of them could be my interest as a youth in science fiction. Think about it. Growing up on Star Trek (the real one) and Heinlein and other science fiction tales, where races of sentient beings extend beyond human, where marriage can be considerably more complex than the standard here, why would someone being dark or tall or oddly hued or mixed race or anything else throw one. Remember, Kirk made it with a green girl. Everything we see in reality is relatively tame by comparison.

It should probably not surprise you, kind reader, that I favor any human being having the right to choose their own life partner. I feel very strongly about a separation of church and state and I’m at a loss as to why people think they have the right to vote away the rights of others. When I’ve discussed this on gather, where I often discuss many of the things I rarely discuss here, I was challenged if we allowed this, what was to stop incest or polygamy?

What indeed? My line is and has always been: consenting adults choosing a lifetime companion hurts no one. Incest has two problems, the genetic one and the fact that, in general, incest involves an adult and a child. I sure as heck don’t condone that, but there are cases where everyone involved is an adult. As for the inbreeding and reinforcement of bad alleles, but steps can be taken to preclude harm. Why, then, must it be precluded automatically if we meet those criteria?

Polygamy/polyandry has a similar problem. The examples we currently see can involve underage girls, pushed by parents, oppressed by men, or situations where one spouse secretly has more than one household. But does it have to be that way? If a group of consenting adults are so close they consider themselves a family, where everyone is cognizant and agreeable to the situation, where’s the harm? The key for me is consenting and adults.

I do read a lot of older and/or classic novels. There’s a tendency to think they’re all clean and filled with regular marriages. Well, not so much. It wasn’t that long ago when first cousins often married and infidelity was considered standard operating procedure.

Then there is science fiction and fantasy. I think back to The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein with its polyandries and line and clan marriages. Heinlein was nothing if not unconventional and many books included “marriage contracts” of a limited duration and creative marriages. It didn’t faze me. Star Trek, as mentioned, has half-breeds and all kinds of race interactions, none of which cause me the slightest hiccup. One of my favorite series of books of all time are those in the Liaden series by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller (which I highly recommend) where matters of race and the mixing of said race are repeatedly a topic, where marriages are nominally contracts and “life-mate” means something special. Other books I’ve read and movies I’ve seen blur the lines frequently. J.D. Robb (aka Nora Roberts) mixes heterosexual and homosexual relationships almost indiscriminately and includes people of all shapes, sizes and proclivities. Actually, the kinds of books I read frequently challenge what’s “normal.” I presume some people like that sense of difference, but, for me, I feel at home. Apparently my “normal” is a little different than many.

Now that I’ve thought about it, it occurs to me, I’m not sure if I’m open-minded because of the books I read or if I read the books I do because I’m open-minded. But I do believe, absolutely, that the world would be a better place if we would stop getting worked up on things that other people do that don’t hurt anyone and could be tolerant of people that might be just a little bit different.

Read more...