Well that is a different topic. Thankfully because I'm tired of the gay marriage debate. :/
I'm tired of the gay marriage debate, too. As for this being a different topic, I don't know what you've been discussing <g> but the condition of civil marriage is what I've been trying to discuss, with no success, I might add.
Once again for the record, I am not advocating gay marriage, although I'm not averse to it. Nor do I think restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is unconstitutional. We should rename this thread Straw Man City. No matter what I say, the response is routinely an argument against gay marriage, as though I were advocating same. Funny how that works. My head hurts for all this bashing against walls.
I think the people you refer to as those who believe in "white picket fence" marriage DO disparage this state of affairs. Its just that you, as I, probably don't listen to them very closely.
Actually, I'm sympathetic to them just as I am to gays, both disenfranchised minorities. I'm a real sucker for a disenfranchised minority as I mentioned in an earlier post. It hurts me to watch both of them slit their throats with this hostility, distrust, and intransigence.
I've learned a few things about problem solving and system development in my time, the most basic of which is that people who present proposals rarely ask for what they really need. They have a problem. Rather than present their problem for solution, they present their best guess of the solution as though that were the actual problem. In order to solve the problem you have to probe beneath to identify the actual problem. (The "five whys" is a simple and effective technique.) Gays are asking for same sex marriage. Their problem isn't that they can't marry. Their problem is something else. I infer that they have a need for bennies and for the affirmation of equal treatment, although I cannot be sure without probing them. They do not need marriage, in all likelihood. Marriage is but one of many possible means to meet their need. Everyone confusing the need with the means to meet the need is not helpful.
White picket fencers have needs, too. They are presenting their need as saving marriage by drawing the line at gays. They, too, aren't serving themselves well by confusing their need with their perceived means to meet the need.
The reason I've been trying to talk about the state of the civil marriage institution is that I think both of their needs can be met and that the answer is somewhere in the analysis of that institution as currently configured. If I were facilitating a problem solving session between those parties, that's where I would be leading them. They, too, would probably resist going there. My skills for getting them to go there do not translate well from the conference room to the message board. Hence my frustration.
I would characterize the current practice of civil marriage to be a "six" maybe.
I would give it maybe a three. But that's just a guess. There's no data. It would be fun to do a study on it. I'd do it for free. The basic objective of marriage, I assume, is to manage sex, breeding, and child rearing. If one were to scientifically study and assess our current civil marriage against that objective, I'd be surprised if it got a three.
I understand your position now that I realize that you don't have a particular problem with how marriage now works and that you do have a problem with including gays. Your postion makes sense. There's a big difference between a six and a zero.
So, in summary, I'm not talking about gay marriage but rather about the state of civil marriage because I believe that somewhere in there is a win-win for the gays and the picket fencers. But clearly that is a topic for a different venue. |
