Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

Ugh... sorry mod. I saved yours for last and now I am out of time. I really doubt I'll be back tomorrow.I have read your entire post, and I think you sort of missed my argument. Okay I see that IF it is legal THEN marriage should be okay. So you want to argue waiting for one until the other.But my point is that gay marriage was going on as an issue well before gay sex was legalized everywhere. And the idea that such acts are legal (as compared to some other minorities) is only because of political pressure that was INCONSISTENTLY applied just for homosexuals.In other words you didn't address my main point, and I apologize if speed killed the clarity of my argument. IF the people supporting gay rights had been as consistent as you are all claiming those against gay rights should be, THEN the others would have been legalized just the same.Using the inconsistency of gay rights activists as a way of excusing their inconsistency on both sexual and marriage rights is circular and quite unfair.The evidence is just as much in on other sexualities as it is for gay sex, and as I have stated homosexual activity fares worse statistically. That people supporting gays do not look at the evidence and accept teh evidence does not help their case. If antigay activists must look into ALL other issues possible to be knocked then gay rights supporters must look into ALL other issues possible to be supported using the same criteria.I might note that the "bad procreation" argument against incest is loaded as many heteros that aren't related can also have badly deformed children as a result of their genetics. It is picking and choosing to attack all incestuous people, especially if they explicitly can't have children.The infertile couple example is a two edged sword in this case. If you use them to defend homsoexuals, then why don't they count for infertile incestuous relationships? Heck, what about homosexual incestuous relationships?And about harming minors physically during sex, that is true but it is also true for adults with parts that do not match up. Care for one's partner's physical limits must be assumed, otherwise why should we allow ANY relationship? Anal sex alone can be damaging to lots of people (gay or straight). Do we disallow relationships based on THAT potential? How about that pregnancy is dangerous physically, even to adult women?Hell we could even go into sex between mentally and physically handicapped individuals which cross both reasons you cite against incest and minors. Yet they are allowed sex and marriage... why?One can always refer to the slight descriptive differences between each type of sexual minority activity, to create a seeming distinction, but that does not create a legitimate difference for exclusion. Otherwise gay sex can be cancelled the same way. There is a statistical difference in mental and physical health between gays and straights. Thus it poses a danger? You may say no, I may say no, but someone else can reasonably take what you just argued to say YES.On the marriage issue, polygamy would be no different from corporate law involving multiple business owners. It would not add any complexity that does not already have precedence their, or involving rights from divorced individuals (oh custody issues are horribly complex in that regard and a product of not allowing polygamy).As it is people could use gay marriage to get around tax, immigration, and custody issues.Okay, sorry I have to leave it there. You get the last word (unless I luck out and can sneak back on monday).

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Whew, an interview took less long than I expected and I find I have some time to get back to this discussion. And I'm glad because I realized I didn't emphasize the morality angle... which is all I really meant to discuss in this thread.I'll start by addressing something we need to get out of the way... I understand we do not hold vastly opposing positions. I apologize if it seems I am thinking something else, I think its an artifact of how I attack your arguments which involve chasing down possible positions others might have stemming from any given argument. You don't have to hold such a position, nor do I have to think you hold such a position, to try and cut it off. Hope that makes it more clear. This I have a problem with. Remember I started by addressing the main argument of this thread which was that those opposed to gay marriage needed to use logical and consistent arguments against gay marriage... otherwise their position is suggested to be bankrupt.I am turning the tables to show that that line of reasoning is fallacious, and your own argument above indicates a double standard.You say any minorities that are equivalent of homosexuals should be legalized but you don't know of any that haven't been. Of those other minorities I mentioned, what is the logical and consistent argument which rules them immoral compared to homosexuality? What is the criteria being used? (side note: to be on topic it should be both moral and legal judgement. So lets talk about your criteria for morality and legality.)I have a hard time understanding what the difference is between homosexuality and ANY of those other minority groups. Other than the physical description, there is no criteria I can think of to base a reason for different moral or legal standing.You even seem to admit that the legalization process was biased (inconsistent), which would then suggest you should agree that bible thumpers are fine with applying their stated criteria unevenly. If not, why not? You've made an error. For any given couple with specific genetic problems they may be more predisposed to having deformed children than any specific incestuous couple. As it is it has been found that it takes more than one generation of inbreeding to bring out the issues you are discussing, and the problems created often result in no birth at all, or short lived. And ultimately, what does the possibility of healthy offspring have to do with regulating any and all sexual activity?If your above stated standard is to remain consistent, we should regulate sex and marriage based on probability for birth problems, then you'd need to create a eugenics oriented program that has little to do with incest per se (and might even mandate it in some cases). If you don't believe sex and marriage should be regulated according to such issues, then logically there is no reason for you to be bringing it up against incest. Actually it is about the moral and or logical arguments made against homosexuality. Part of the argument is that for those arguing the Bible as a reason to be antigay, they are being inconsistent by not being against alot of other things. I am pointing out that the progay side is being JUST AS INCONSISTENT.Whatever the moral and or logical criteria being used to be progay, if it is consistent it would HAVE to force that person into being pro-sexual minorities in general. I have yet to see any argument in support of gays that would not cover the other sexual minorities, and I have seen no argument against the other sexual minorities which is not the result of patently inconsistent criteria being applied to them.In fact I can construct a more logically valid argument for the immorality and illegality of homosexuality than the other minorities.1) From a Bible perspective, they view homosexuality as inherently leading to negative health effects as God said it would. This can be seen as statistically true. Therefore they have evidentiary support for their belief and want to protect people from its effects.2) From a nonbible perspective, a person can view homosexuality as inherently leading to negative health effects. This can be seen as statistically true. While the SC struck down anti gay laws as a Constitutional inequality, because oral or anal sex between heteros is the same as between gays, this is NOT TRUE AT ALL. If you are familiar with risk factors (and you can check just about any disease info center to back this up) male homosexual behavior (oral or anal) contains much more risk than for heterosexuals. It is quantifiably different such that it is treated by medical professionals as different. They even have to use different programs (usually more aggressive) to combat spread of problems. And if you look at statistics regarding homosexuals vs homosexuals commiting sexual criminal activity you will find that they are higher as well. Given that many argue viewing certain porn should allow people to be arrested because they MIGHT commit other crimes, we have even greater statistical evidence that gays might. Whoops.Now in either case you can start arguing how these might be the result of societal pressures or coincidences to a specific population, and not the inherent result of the behavior.That is to say just engaging in homosexual sex does not mean one inherently faces such risks, or end up commiting coercive sexual acts. Care may be applied by any individual to eliminate these possibilities. It breaks down on the individual level.Okay, you can say this, but then the same goes for every other sexual minority given the criteria you listed against them!You may also want to ask where the evidence is for my claims. Well its been given at evc in the past so I know it is here for you to find, and there is more out there for you to find as well. My press for time means I am not about to look the stuff up again. You can believe me or not (though I think the differential std stats are known well enough). But on the flip side, I'd have to note that not one shred of evidence has been given on the other side against other sexual minorities, yet you have allowed such arguments to be considered valid.Therefore, since you accept the possibility of logical arguments against other sexual minorities (even if you don't necessarily agree with them or have all the evidence), then here you have just as solid an argument against homosexuality!If I have not constructed a logically valid argument for both moral and/or legal proscription of homosexuality then I'd like to know why not (the criteria). And if you are going to reject it, then shouldn't you logically be fighting all other proscriptions? Think outside the box. Sex can be limited by consent, rather than age, tightening the rules for consent based on age. Until recently pressured into changing their sex laws, Holland allowed sex between ages 12-16 with allowances for kids or parents to complain (even afterward). In that way molesters could use the excuse that the kid allowed it at the time. This could be made from 0-16 just as easy, with other qualified individuals being able to complain from 0-12 (such as doctors and teachers who are in a place to know the activity took place and there are signs of nonconsensuality/injury). What's to wonder? It already happened and was an extremely high profile case. There was a teacher named Lateurneau (sp?) who had sex with a 12 year old student, repeatedly. She eventually became pregnant by the student. We locked her away for years and took away their child despite the fact that they both said they loved each other. She was released only to "reoffend" with the same boy and get pregnant again. Eventually she served her sentence and tried to comply with state requirements that she never see the guy again. He turned 18 or 21 (I forget which) and filed to have all the restrictions removed from her. They are now happily married, though she is still a convicted sex offender for having "raped" him repeatedly.In a similar case (more recent) a woman got pregnant by a minor. She then attempted to marry the minor using existing law which allowed for the marriage of a minor if a pregnancy was involved (the assumption was usually that it would be a guy that had impregnated a girl). Despite its legality on the books, they squashed the marriage and arrested the lady for molestation. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the kid is willing to wait throughout her incarceration to marry her as happened in the previous case.I might add that given the diversity of age and marriage requirements across nations and states, what is a valid logically consistent moral and legal position against it?After all there are still plenty of laws against homosexuality around the world. If the presence of some laws against other sexual minorities means there is a potentially sound reason for their existence (and laws against marriages which involve such practices), why does that not work for homosexuality?Indeed homosexuality is sometimes only allowed in Western nations given a totally different age than hetero sex (usually higher). Is that fair simply because such differential regs exist? Honestly, the reason why almost any sexual practice is banned is that people do not like it, and they search until they find some plausible possibility (generalization) which can be used to demonize it. No one really cares to do the investigation as the possibility is deemed enough given the level of hatred for it.The only exceptions are those involving blatant violence. Yet even in recent times, viewing or reading porn and simply masturbating to internal fantasies has been treated as immoral and criminal. There is no criteria which separates homosexuality from these others, unless one bases it only on the difference in physical description. Something potentially negative can always be said about something, even homosexuality.I have presented two such generalizations based on health issues above. As long as one does not care to investigate, or in this case deconstruct how this effects the individual, then they are both valid arguments. If one chooses to investigate or deconstruct, then there is NO reason not to do so for other sexual minorities, where the results will be the same, except that one has less interest in helping other sexual minorities (or more interest in helping gays).Hope this works. Oh yeah, don't think I'm upset or even slightly put out personally by your arguments. I think you and others have been doing a good job advancing your position so I can't complain. I just disagree on the points in question and am trying to present those counters to equally provoke thought on the subject.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I wasn't planning on writing for a while, but I saw an article on CNN and thought it was yet another perfect example for you, regarding the above question (although it throws in polygamy as well). From this CNN article...The evidence, including scientific evidence, is that minors can and do have sex with adults and do not necessarily find it bad, or get angry with the person who had sex with them. Noted gay columnist Dan Savage (the guy that coined "santorum") has repeatedly written about his own positive experiences with an older man when he was 13.It happens, it just usually gets swept under the rug, just as what happened to gays throughout the last few centuries and most specifically the late 1800s when gays became more open yet were still criminals.(note to admins: When I came to evc today I found myself automatically logged in as a "guest", I'm not sure if that indicates some sort of hacking with my account or a mistale based on ISP recognition?)

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm assuming no such thing. Your claim was that sex had NOTHING to do with marriage. Remember you even went on to say it wasn't a license for sex.I was rebutting that claim and pointed out that in fact marriage licenses started as de facto sex licenses (without it sex WAS a crime), and sex remains a critical element in choice of marriage partner as well as the existence of such a license affecting which sexual partners you can have. Now you've skipped over my argument. They want to deny support for a sexuality they view as harmful, just as with denying some sort of legal support for other mental or physical illnesses.As an example, as nice as typhoid Mary was and as well meaning as she might have been, was it an intentional denial of ALL RIGHTS others enjoy (ability to get positions and licenses for preparing and serving food) when they denied her ability to do this?IF gay sex is considered harmful to them, even potentially risky (as we can see with frivolous claims to tax incentives for polygamists or genetic damage to incestuous couples), then it can be denied.At least that's the precedent, and it is logically constructed even if I find it repulsive and inconsistent with other beliefs I hold. It is in fact consistent with many underlying principles liberals are espousing these days. The difference between the two camps is who they happen to like. They would if they could I'm sure, but they don't have the numbers for that kind of Constitutional tampering.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean to say gays were responsible for the bias in calling for sexual rights. What I was trying to say is that the process which led to all sorts of changes (social and legal) culminating in sexual rights for gays was biased in and of itself. The push came from mainly liberal quarters (gay and nongay elements) and was biased against other sexual minorities.Some of the bias, or the success of maintaining such a bias, may have been due to the coincidental rise of the feminist movement at the time. Manifestations of heterosexual sex were getting villified all the time, and so advances for "deviant" hetero practices were likely not to find support.In any case, it can be said that the gay movement as a whole is rather biased. When challenged regarding the rights of other sexual minorities (for example Scalia's challenge within the very decision that legalized gay sex in the US) they notoriously deny the rights of others. They usually flippantly (or callously) point to some physical difference in the other act and suggest that must provide a possible reason, though there is no actual evidence to support such a position.Indeed that very same reasoning can be used against gays. There certainly IS a difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, or other cases of "rights" issues, and so a plausible reason to suggest they be treated differently. Yet when this is done the gay camp is up in arms.There is a vast irony to a movement that appeals to the civil rights movement for blacks, as well as the liberalization of interracial sexual activity, to support their own cause, while denying any other sexual minority the same appeals (including precedents set by the gay movement). You need look no further than EvC to find gay activists doing that very thing. I think that is a very convenient statement. It is an argument to deny other sexual minorities their rights via apathy, while moving forward with gay rights.In fact, I can offer an equal non sequitor that sexual rights are identical with practical physical differences marking how each should be handled on an individual level and not on the legal level. And it is much harder to push for sexual rights in a piecemeal fashion (getting progressively harder for each remaining minority than the one before).But lets say I agree with your argument. Then why should anyone (at least the vast majority) give a crap about gay rights at all? Since most people are not gay and or do not engage in such activity, why shouldn't they view it as practically different than hetero sex (since it is) and so not worth advancing until the "subtleties" related to its practice are all worked out (presumably by someone else at some other time)? Why "lump it in" with other civil rights issues?Many in the black civil rights community actually argue that position, only to be shouted at by those in the gay movement. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot? Step on the other people's toes! Why can this not be said about gays? Or more accurately, why can people NOT continue to claim issues must still be explored just the same as with other minorities? I don't know how many times I'll have to deal with this favorite liberal excuse for not allowing polygamy. The first thing I should note is that the only real change has to occur in textual law is allowing for it on the forms. The rest is set by CASE LAW. The idea that complexity must be worked out in advance before allowances are made is not consistent with the reality of how US law works in general.With that in mind...1) All legal issues related to gay marriage have not been ironed out, yet it is being argued to go ahead with that. It is NOT the same as hetero marriage in that people (like friends) could "cheat" the system for tax or immigration purposes more broadly, and there will be an increase in complexity for child custody issues. There may be analogies to complex hetero marriage arrangements but new case law will have to emerge.2) The supposed complexities in polygamous marriage have analogies to set business contracts (involving multiple partners), after all these are simply legal contracts, as well as OTHER NATION'S LAWS. Polygamy exists legally in a majority of nation's around the world. That stands in stark contrast to the number which allow gay marriage. My guess is there is plenty of legal precedent we can copy directly... if we need to do such a thing.3) The gay movement appealed to the fact that other nations, and specifically the Netherlands, allowed gay marriage to argue that it SHOULD be accepted within US law. As mentioned above, polygamy exists in a majority of nations and just recently the Netherlands allowed it to happen here... no not me. It is with an incredible inconsistency and irony to then reject polygamy's appeals. That is generally the case. Ahhhhh, the next well worn concept. Informed consent is simply a newly invented term, now overworked, to conveniently differentiate the sexual/marriage practices of minors from gays, despite no evidentiary support or logical consistency... but it sure sounds good.1) Minors are able to engage in pretty much all other acts and enter all other legal contracts, as long as they have their parent's consent. Unless you are claiming that kids can give informed consent on all subjects except for sex, in which case I'd like evidence for that claim, there is no consistency in arguments denying sex or marriage to minors on that basis.2) That argument works equally against people without full mental capacity. Thus if your stated criteria is accepted, the mentally handicapped could not have sex or enter marriage. Unless age allows for informed consent, regardless of mental capacity? Given that the mentally handicapped are allowed this right, and no one is arguing it should be denied to them, there appears to be a major hiccup in logic here.3) It is not impossible for a person to argue that homosexuals are not able to give fully informed consent. After all do they truly understand the consequences of their actions? I mean what person in their right mind would engage in activities as risky as gay sex (there is a vast statistical difference for male homosexual activity not to mention clinical mental health issues associated with all gay activity)? And what about larger societal and perhaps spiritual issues? Can anyone truly say they are truly fully informed about such aspects? Obviously I don't believe this argument, but a form of it was successfully used against gays for many years. It nice to see it resurrected to some degree by liberals fighting for gay rights, against the "potential threat" of other minorities.Just to make sure you understand, I am not blaming you for creating this argument. Its become quite popular. Its just fatally flawed, and I find it personally intellectually insulting.There is a difference with the legal rights of minors and adults, but it is an arbitrary and self-created issue, and not an inherent one. That sex is written off entirely for minors compared to other activities with much greater risk (6 yo's can fly planes for pete's sake) suggests something else is going on.I personally agree with some level of parental right over the rights of a child, but I do that with the acknowledgement I am acting selfishly and over the will of children who might know very well what they want and not face grave danger. Its a question of the reality that kids have to be physically taken care of for a period and so live under someone's roof. Granting that caretaker some additional power to shape that child's personal character makes some sense.But that is a conflicting rights issue and merely asserting an age barrier to any and all activity is not consistent with that sort of discussion. So assuming cases of parental approval, the sexual/marriage rights of minorities SHOULD mirror that of gays. The ice cream scenario is something I use myself to show why statistical correlation does not mean causation. You are correct that this is pretty much the kind of statistical evidence we have showing that homosexuality is harmful, or potentially harmful. And of course that means we are probably in complete agreement that it isn't a very valid argument. I personally despise the fact most people don't seem to know or care about the difference between correlation and causation.Unfortunately, it is the EXACT SAME statistical/logical argument being used against other sexual minorities, and embraced by some large factions of those who support gay rights. Given their acceptance of such arguments against other minorities (thus it is considered logical) that means it is able to be used by others against homosexuality.When people like the original poster ask for logical arguments for the immorality or illegality of homosexuality, I like to toss it into the mix.But I should add one other note, there remains the reality of an actual statistical risk in engaging in such an act, and its relation as a factor to the spread of disease. While it is not causative, it is higher in risk due to the numerical realities on the ground. Given that we control behaviors with less inherent populational risk or logical connectivity to harm (lets say watching porn leading to rape or some other problem) there seems to be a valid argument created to protecting public health along those lines.Heck, smoking pot is truly statistically less risky to one's health than engaging in homosexual sex... so why couldn't it be restricted? I hope you don't take my response as being too hard or angry. I thought you wrote a good post. Its just I disagreed strongly with the conclusion (that they should be treated differently) as well as a couple of the arguments used against specific minorities. Hopefully I've presented a reasonable argument against them.To underscore the thrust of my position vs your conclusion, look at that last sentence of your in the preceding quote. I am forced to ask what differentiates homosexuality from all other sexual minorities, in that you are open to be shown a reason you might not be aware of for them?Given the amount of research out there, it seems odd to suggest the physical differences between other minorities and homosexuality makes it plausible for you to hold out on advocating or supporting their quest for rights... yet the physical difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality does not make it plaausible for others to hold out on advocating or supporting their quest for rights.In fact homosexuality is equal, or perhaps slightly behind, other groups as far as its understanding. Certainly homosexual marriage is. We've had all of human history including recent societies filled with polygamous, incestuous, and minor marriages (as well as sex). There is no historical info on the impact of gay marriage to people within a culture, or openly gay sexuality within recent societies. There is logically then more room for "fear" of the consequence of its acceptance than acceptance of the other minorities.I don't know when I'll be back again, but when I do I'll check any responses. Hope I gave you something good to chew on.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Point taken. I can agree with that. Actually I understood you weren't saying polygamy shouldn't be legal. I was noting that the point you were making is used by those attempting to keep it illegal. Its a tired and errant argument I've faced many times by those types, as well as many well meaning people that suggest their may be some grain of truth in there.Legal status of children can't be any more complicated for polygamists, than with divorced parents, adoption, and surrogates. The forms of cheating may become more broad, or simply cases that end up in legal court. The concept of common law marriage would have to apply to same sex couples as well, and that would open up a pandora's box of potential cases. Were they just dorm mates as the defendent claims, or were they longtime lovers as the litigant claims? They will inherently involve the most complex situations as children must come from other relationships, adoption, or surrogates. In addition new case law would likely emerge as homosexual couples may have to deal with differential custody where their sexual orientation or the manner of marriage is in question (legality in one state or nation will not guarantee it in all). This is not to mention issues where adoptions or surrogates go bad for a couple based on legal status of their orientation/marriage. You raised the issue of "informed" consent which is what I was responding to. You are correct that no ability to consent at all is an issue and that's clearly what separates a person in a coma from a minor. The point I was driving at was that no matter parental consent or no, sex is barred for minors. I think prosecution for sexual relations with minors should be related to the minor's desires as well as parental consent. After all such prosecutions are always in a legal framework anyway. I think the parent and child should make the call more than the gov't by using strict bars based on age. I do think we got tripped up trying to discuss both sexual and marriage rights, unfortunately it sort of gets mixed up as bars to sexual acts also tend to act as breaks to marriage. As was discussing earlier with mod, without homosexuality gaining legality, discussion of legal homosexual marriages are moot.On the consent issue, that is definitely a separate topic and one I've addressed before and likely won't have the time to address in the future (I've found I had a break this weekend which I didn't expect but the next two weeks will become increasingly busy and I may not be able to respond at all past monday).I'll leave it with this short statement on the issue, there is a difference between consent an the concept of "informed" consent. Minors are usually addressed by appeals to informed consent, because it is now pretty clear they can and do consent. Unfortunately the informed consent issue devolves along the lines I was discussing. It has no consistency with the fact that we do not consider it important in any other case except sex, and we do not apply it to any other group with similar capacities.To this it is accurate to point out one can, as people already have in the past and some still do, that homosexuals may be people incapable of giving informed consent. It can be argued they have a sort of deficiency which makes them susceptible to homosexuality. For similar cases you can point to treatment of pedophiles or people that like fantasy material involving sex with minors. Who is to measure whether gays are truly capable of knowing the consequences of their activities?Obviously I don't agree with this point of view, but it all starts opening up when we use informed consent as a measure beyond simple consent. The "answer" in my mind for potential child molestation is to increase the "value" of a child's claim to nonconsensuality, and an acceptance of the parent's right to refuse consent over the wishes of a minor.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I completely apologize for having missed this post earlier. I hope its not too late for you to catch. I don't think I've mentioned this exact possibility, though I think something similar came up in a discussion about marriage (somebody else may have thought of it).I think it is an interesting concept. I'd be for it thought there would be issues related to immigration which might have to be ironed out. I'm not sure what you mean by conjugal rights. Do you mean for exclusivity to a certain partner? I agree with you were are unlikely to see such a change in our lifetimes.Personally I like the sound of it and wish it was the way our systems worked. I guess it seems more empowering to individuals and small communities. Most certainly gays would have had marriages a long time ago.That said I would never be dogmatic enough to insist on it. I think I prefer to advance the one you mentioned earlier (flexible civil unions, leaving marriages to churches) unless I found myself in a community that was ready for a larger shift.Since you said you didn't like the idea, what do you find troubling about it?On a side note... though somewhat related... I have mentioned the interesting system that the Netherlands has. There are three forms of recognized relationship. The marriage (which is just like the US, except gays can use it too). The Partnership (which has all the rights of marriage, just not the name). And the living together contract, which has a few less protections than marriages/partnerships.I am currently going through a trial, and the other side (actually I am unsure if I am the defense or prosecution), used the fact that I am in a partnership to try and hurt me and my partner. That is to say to draw a legal distinction and remove our rights. The court slapped the other side down, only to have an issue raised that because I am an American the laws of Netherlands should not protect me... even though the partnership is their own.This is perhaps a refutation of my own argument that names are not important as long as all rights are guaranteed by law. If we had been married there would have been no problem. Then again, the real name that made any importance is that I am an American. If I had been dutch, the partnership would have posed no problem.It'll be interesting to see how the case goes. The judge said she'll have to consider the argument that my being American creates a difference where there is none considered in their own laws. Not sure if my case will end up being precedent setting, or there is some obscure case the judge will follow.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

While July was super hot, August seems to be nonstop rain and clouds, blech. Unfortunately my time is just much shorter these days because of trying to do a bunch of work. And it can come without warning, preventing me from coming back for weeks at a time. As my avatar and sig show, I'm reduced pretty much to a lurker, with short bursts of activity when time allows.I agree with what you said happens in that mode. You come back to find most people have already addressed anything you'd want to, or you don't have any time remaining.Enjoy the good weather. Now that you bring this up, why hasn't this been created for normal marriages IN ADDITION to things like prenups? Granted infidelity can be grounds for divorce, but what about agreements for extra damages should a partner stray? Hmmmm.I do think this could work. It'd be like any other contractual arrangement for fidelity of "service". While I'd be comfortable with the nihilist option, I'm seduced I suppose, I always like to look at what other people are comfortable with or desire. No matter what I'd like to see, it seems many people want to have relationships sanctioned by a state authority in some form, even for personal reasons (leaving their mark in public history perhaps?).In that case I'm more than willing to have a state fulfill that sort of function, but then be as neutral as possible about it so as to maximize the variability of relationships people would want. This may be how you feel about it as well. Note to anyone ending up in a dutch courtroom: speak dutch. If you speak anything else in the courtroom they are barred by law from responding in kind, even if everyone is highly fluent in your language. No one told me this and after I spoke in English the judge proceeded to ignore me, never really answering my question, or allowing me to do anything else despite the fact that it was my case and about my fate.I felt like I had shifted into some bizarre nightmare, until afterward my lawyer mentioned only dutch is allowed to be spoken (at least by the judges) in a dutch courtroom. If I had known I most certainly would have tried to stick to dutch.While I hope for the best, I can't say I find much to recommend about dutch "justice". When there's a decision I'll definitely mention something.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well the decision to my case came back unexpectedly. None of our plans took such a sudden and negative finding into consideration, as at the very least dutch wheels grind very slowly.The decided I should be tossed out on bureacratic technicalities regarding economics. That means they did not address if being an American changes how they would treat their own laws on partnerships v marriages.This has thrown my life into a bit of turmoil. In fact I figured I wouldn't be able to post much for quite a while, for both practical (I'd be moving) and emotional (I'd be a wreck) reasons. Without any sense of the dramatic, the decision has factually put me and my gf into a position where we'd have to separate, and essentially end our relationship (I don't want to go into all the practical details which explain this latter point). With a sense of the dramatic, we have been together for over 6.5 years with no separation beyond a few days here and there during that time. We are extremely close, and it would be devastating.We went into an emergency session last night and talked with our lawyer this morning and may have some rather expensive avenues around this current decision. It puts me in limbo for a while, but at least we can stay together and make plans for moving elsewhere in a timely fashion which will not wreck her career.For better or worse it also means I can keep typing here at EvC. Of course some freelance work activity may still kick me out from time to time as it has for the last several months.So things are really shitty, but we feel we have survived an axe swing which would have thrown me out totally unprepared, as well as breaking up our longterm stable relationship.Let me wrap this up by bringing this back somewhat to topic. While the dutch gov't did not decide whether they could treat their laws differently because I was an American, while contacting the US gov't in our emergency planning session last night I found out some interesting info.Apparently the US gov't does not see a difference between legal partnerships and marriages as long as the foreign nation gives them equal weight according to their law. That means that they already have in place a concept that different names does not necessarily mean different treatment, if the underlying legal bond is the same.Don't quote me on that if you go into a court case. Laws change and the US agents I have talked with may have been errant. Find out for yourself at the time of your case. All I am saying is that of right now Immigration and Tax agents of the US gov't treat them as identical.However, just as gays who get full marriages here cannot get recognition in the US same goes for gays who get partnerships. The key thing is that while a foreign nation may legally recognize all sorts of different relationships (differing contracts), the US does not recognize any legal contractual relationship involving anything but a single man and a single woman. This restriction comes from DOMA, and if DOMA is repealed my guess is the US would have to allow gay marriages and partnerships.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That is possible, though it might be that US officials do so by admitting them as "legal relationships", rather than count as marriage. Thus same rights but different name.It'll be interesting to see if the gay community will accept that solution. And I guess I should ask if you would? This logic is something I'd have agreed with, and is why my mind was sent reeling when opposing counsel argued that the Netherlands didn't have to recognize its OWN laws because I was an American. Thanks. We think we've found a solution that will at least work long enough for us to get out of here together. Ironically we left the US when we were living very well, in order to go to a land of greater freedom and tolerance. Turns out we should never have left. Despite all the crabbing, the US really does offer many more opportunities for success and access to foreigners.Repatriation may end up being a very appropriate term.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)