Re: MD Marriages: To Beget or Not to Beget

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 30 2005 - 03:40:51 BST

  • Next message: Arlo Bensinger: "MD Digitized LILA (CORRECTIONS)"
  • Next message: Sam Norton: "MD philosopher genealogy"
  • Next message: C.L. Everett: "Re: MD WORLDS WORST APOLOGY"

    [Platt]
    Now I know you avoided my question. Incidentally, I have no objection to
    civil unions between gays. Do you disapprove of such arrangements?

    [Arlo]
    Firk! Why didn't you just say this? Although I'm not sure how you differentiate
    "marriage" from "civil union" in your belief that same-sex unions threaten
    society. But, yes, for the record, I think civil unions, provided they confer
    the same privileges to same-sex couples (regarding inheritance, estate, life
    decisions, tax breaks, loan rates, etc.) as conferred to heterosexual couples,
    are all I'm arguing for.

    Quickly (I'll try, I promise), I stand corrected. My dichotomous decision was
    inadequate. :-). You offered a third choice, that same-sex marriages open the
    door to incest and all other unions. I think this type of slippery slope
    argumentation, though, is always hollow. After all, we do allow cousins to
    marry (in some states) and this has not opened the door to brothers and sisters
    being married. You know, it is this slippery slope argument that undelies all
    this foolish dichotomy in this country. We either have unlimited, unrestricted
    assault weapon ownership, or we become commie, reds who outlaw all guns. I had
    an interesting talk with a guy in Canada (in Haliburton) on my trip. He said
    his opinion of the political scene in America was that this was our biggest
    problem. In Canada, for example, they outlawed (going on his words here)
    assault weapons and hollowtip bullets and all that, but still have a
    unrestricted, and culturally supported, hunting culture that has not
    "disappeared down any slope". His words, "the slippery slope argument is
    nothing more than a manipulation of fear." Amen.

    Just to wrap up one other point. Do I approve of children out of wedlock? Mu. I
    approve of children being brought into loving environments with caregivers who
    want them. I disapprove of children being brought into environments where they
    are abused, neglected, unwanted and unloved. "Wedlock" for me has no bearing on
    this fault-line.

    If you and your "partner" brought a child into this world, loved her, cared for
    her, treated her with respect, and made her your world, why should I care if
    you were "married" or not? You've mentioned your daughter had passed away from
    cancer, Platt, and I offer my deepest, deepest sympathies. But let me make my
    final point this way. Do you think, when she knew her time was coming, that she
    thought "thank god my dad and my mom were married", or "thank god I was
    surrounded by so much love and caring in my life"? I bet the former never
    crossed her mind, while the latter likely meant the more than the world. And I
    know you, Platt, well enough to guess that the love she received was not a
    product of "wedlock", but a product of your heart.

    Arlo

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 30 2005 - 04:47:13 BST