свинство.

[aphar]

Человек, снимающий с приятелем жильё один год, может оформить "domestic partnership" и дать руммейту мед.страховку от своей работы.
А я жил у своей сестры, и не было НИКАКОЙ возможности дать ей страховку от моей работы.
Так что если понятие брака будем расширять, то я настаиваю на полном расширении.
Т.е., любое количество единиц любых объектов могут вступить в брак.
Скажем, брак (1)телевизора, (2)холодильника, (3)кошки, (4)козы, (5)собаки и трёх мужиков: (6)сын, (7)отец и (8)дед.
Нормальная, здоровая семья из восьми членов.
А если холодильник сломается, ремонт будет оплачивать медикэр (гос.мед.страховка для стариков) деда.
Нет. Медикэр на членов семьи не распространяется.
Ну ладно, отец работает - его страховка пусть и платит.

Comments

[aphar.livejournal.com]

Человек даёт медицинскую страховку не руммейту, а партнёру по домашней жизни
Гос-во не проверяет, трахаются руммейты, или нет.
Живут в одной квартире, говорят, что они "партнёры" - вперёд, есть страховка.

Более того, понятия брака расширяется на то КАКИЕ люди, но не на количество людей
А почему? Почему ты считаешь, что можно поженить двух мужиков, но нельзя поженить трёх мужиков? Тебе найти группы из трёх человеческих существ, которые будут бить себя пятками в грудь и вопить, что жить друг без друга не могут и их троица и есть самая настоящая семья? Не будем пока жениться на пылососах, ты мне пока объясни, за что мормонов сажают.

[mhmeln-57.livejournal.com]

Живут в одной квартире, говорят, что они "партнёры" - вперёд, есть страховка.
You can claim that your sister is your domestic partner - government doesn't check your blood relationship and you can claim that you two just have the same last name.

Почему ты считаешь, что можно поженить двух мужиков, но нельзя поженить трёх мужиков?
i didn't say that you can't marry them. But i don't think it's rational to dispute marriage of TWO people on the grounds that we can then allow marriage of any number of people and items. Мухи в одну сторону, котлеты в другую.

i am not quite sure what Mormons are prosecuted for, but i would imagine for violation of monogamy-type laws.

[aphar.livejournal.com]

You can claim that your sister is your domestic partner - government doesn't check your blood relationship and you can claim that you two just have the same last name.
There are laws against incest. If I claimed domestic partnership, I could have gone to jail.

i don't think it's rational to dispute marriage of TWO people on the grounds that we can then allow marriage of any number of people
If you want to extend the notion of "marriage" to more than 1m+1f, I challenge you to explain why you are stopping at 2 humans. Your position is logically untenable.

i am not quite sure what Mormons are prosecuted for, but i would imagine for violation of monogamy-type laws.
yep. so, why is it OK to marry two guys but not a guy and 2 gals?
what is so sacred about number "2"?

[mhmeln-57.livejournal.com]

1. There are laws against insurance fraud. If you claim a roommate is a domestic partner you could also go to jail.

2. i am extending the notion of "marriage" from 1m + 1f to 1 p(erson) + 1 (person). Explain why those are not interchangeable.

3. i don't think there is anything sacred about number "2", i just don't care to challenge it. i do care to challenge sanctity of 1m + 1f as opposed to 2 persons.

[aphar.livejournal.com]

1. There is no way to prove that a roommate is not a DP. if I claim my sister is a DP, I am going to jail right away.

2. There is a long and venerable human tradition to call "marriage" a sexual alliance between 1M and 1(or more)F with M taking economic responsibility for offspring. About 2,000 years ago our culture started to disparage the "or more" part, limiting the marriage to 1M+1F (with the same notion of M taking the economic responsibility for the joint offspring). However, the de facto situation of "plural marriages" for the rich and powerful persisted.
You are trying to extend the notion of marriage to something which has not been traditionally called such. This is fine by me, but you are refusing to take the next step and accept plural marriages.
This is like a WASP saying "okay, I accept that the Irish should be treated as human beings, but not the Jews and certainly not the Blacks".
The burden of proof is on him to say that "at least the Irish are Christians, but the Jews are not, and the Blacks have a different skin color". Then his position can be considered logically tenable (although, by the modern standards, immoral and unacceptable),
Now, the burden of proof is on you: why 1M+1M is OK, but 1M+2F is not?
This is not a moral or legal issue, just a logical issue.
You must demonstrate that your position is consistent.

[mhmeln-57.livejournal.com]

With all due respect, i must do nothing of the sort you are describing. You are trying to replace the burden of explaining and accepting this M+M situation from yourself, which is where the real conflict is, to me, and you are inviting me to play by some self-imposed rules that you call logic - rules which i don't find particularly appealing to play by. So i invite you to explore a much more important question (at least to me) of WHY this logical proof is so necessary for you, or better yet, why telling me (and the world) that there is no logically acceptable proof so appealing to you.

On the specific questions you are asking, which i think are just barely the surface of what's really important to talk about, here are the answers:

1. There are mechanisms that we have designed to weed out fake "green card" marriages. There are similar mechanisms for DPs, therefore saying that there is no way is denying a certain reality and creating an alternative one. Now, are the mechanisms perfect or even barely functional - that's a good question. How would you improve the DP screening process to make it more comparable to your sister-DP situation and therefore more "fair" in your eyes?

2. You rely on 2000 (or more) years of tradition of what marriage is, to deny that M/F can be equal to person and you cite prevalent rationales for that tradition at various times. i guess i just don't feel obligated to follow the precedent, because it's from a "different" jurisdiction. So i don't see it as a burden of proof situation, cause i don't care whether you agree with me or not - i was giving you feedback in the hope that the view of the "other side" would become less conflicting to you.

And to answer your question - i didn't say 1M+2F is not ok - as far as i am concerned, all of that is ok and the sooner we get to how superficial our notion of marriage is, the sooner we will seek a greater meaning for that experience. So i don't think i agree with you that i refuse to take the next step of accepting polygamy...i just don't care to take this step and try to prove something to you. Now, is this the step that you would like to take? Cause if that's important to you to extend the notion of marriage to that relationship, i'll be happy to support you in that. :-)

i feel somewhat uncomfortable with not knowing who you are, especially given that we have apparently met. Would you care to reveal that, please?

[aphar.livejournal.com]

People who introduce an innovation (e.g., the change in the definition of "marriage") should justify their innovation.
Those who think that "2P" is OK, but "3P" is NOT, have to explain why.
If you think that "3P" is OK too, but "23P" is not, you have to explain why.
If you think that any number of consenting adults can enter into a marriage, you are fine in that area, no further questions asked.
Except that now you will have to explain why it is not OK to marry one's pet. :-)

as for my RL identity - I am happily married to uzheletta, so the issues of plural marriages and pets are purely academic to me.

[mhmeln-57.livejournal.com]

1. Who said that they "should"? Why are you imposing on others something that YOU need?

2. Is "i want it" a sufficient introduction of an innovation? I.e. you come to dinner and you are served tea and you say that you want coffee, then you get up and make it for yourself. What's the necessary justification, what's the sufficient one?

3. Again, i don't have to explain any "why" - but if you feel the need to force me to explain, we can explore where that need comes from and how you can satisfy that need..short of forcing something on me.

4. What we are discussing is a concept of marriage in how we define it. i think it is important to remember that whatever we define it as, and whatever rationales/reasons we give for it, those definitions are ultimately individual, subjective and therefore, arbitrary. So i don't see the point of disputing something that is not finally resolvable because we don't have an objective standard or a source of ultimate definition, or even the rules of discussion. Personally, i don't share your fascination and attachment to logic, so i don't feel bound by its rules.

Glad to finally realize who you are! :-) Now, do you agree that these "purely academic" discussions are more or less intellectual masturbation sessions? And if so, do you want to talk about the more meaningful question of why do you feel threatened by marriage extending to M+M?

[aphar.livejournal.com]

Who said that they "should"?
The innovators want the rest of us to accept the change in definition.
It is not like they want to change something for themselves only.
They want all of us to change how we view something.

Is "i want it" a sufficient introduction of an innovation?
If you want to remodel your apartment - yes.
If you want to remodel a public street - no.

those definitions are ultimately individual, subjective
I wish this were the case.
But, alas, it is not.
This is a legal matter: marriage is an institution regulated by States, and, as such, has a definition in law of the land.

do you want to talk about the more meaningful question of why do you feel threatened by marriage extending to M+M?
Please stop playing a shrink.
Otherwise I will start asking you why you feel it necessary to advertise to me what you do in the privacy of your bedroom. :-)
As to the specific question, I am not threatened by anything.
I am merely disgusted by the aforementioned "Italians are now fine but Irish are still not" people, and I firmly place in that category all those who want "2P" but not "3P" or "33P" marriages.
As I already said quite a few times, I am perfectly fine with extending the notion of marriage - just that I demand a logically tenable, consistent position.

[mhmeln-57.livejournal.com]

They want all of us to change how we view something.
Ok. So what is it that they are asking you to change in how you view something? How are YOU affected by what they are asking for?

Is "i want it" a sufficient introduction of an innovation?
If you want to remodel your apartment - yes.
If you want to remodel a public street - no.
It is sufficient to start a dialog for remodeling a public street. i am entitled to ask (demand). You can say 'no', but that's your choice. i don't need a logical reason to ask.

Just because marriage is a legal institution, it doesn't become less subjective or less arbitrary. Just because there was a legal process that created this notion doesn't mean that the notion is OBJECTIVE! Hitler and German Parliament passed laws that discriminated against Jews. Those were laws - were those objective and legitimate?

Please stop playing a shrink.
Do you want me to stop playing the role of a shrink or do you want to avoid going into the more substantive part of this discussion and hide it under a layer of legalese bullshit?

You can ask me anything you want, though the bedroom question is not really for me. Have you asked a gay person why they are trying to get these rights?

How do you deal with situations when you demand something and you don't get it? Cause this is the situation - you perceive the situation as "unfair" and demand a logical explanation, and i don't think anyone cares to give you that. Sorry. :)

[uzheletta.livejournal.com]

Marik, I read the discussion, and I think you completely misunderstood aphar's point, sorry.
he doesn't have a problem with gay's rights.
he has a problem with rights being given ONLY to gay people.
that's it.
for example, when he and N. lived as the same household, and shared everything except the bed, he couldn't legally extend his health insurance to her and her daughter. he was told that he wasn't married to her, and so, they were not a family. now, of course, they were a family for all practical purposes (except sex).
this is something that he perceives as unfair, to the rights given to gay people.
i do think that extending the definition of marriage should apply to all varieties, not only to gay couples, and not only to couples.
then, everything should be accepted (incest, polygamy, you name it).
гулять, так гулять :)

[mhmeln-57.livejournal.com]

Jen'ka, thank you for intervening and explaining this! Love your suggestion for a redefined marriage. :-)

Ok, in that case, i think his issue is in the statement "rights being given only to gay people". Civil rights are not granted, they are asserted. So the reason these rights are "given" to gay people is because they are TAKING them. And if he wants similar rights with regard to his sister, then he can champion the fight for those rights and those people. Which is slightly different from simply expressing frustration over that in his own LJ. :-)

On a separate note, have you ever done a t-group?

[uzheletta.livejournal.com]

i think lj rant is all he needed for now. thanks!

[aphar.livejournal.com]

you are not getting it, are you?
you want a change.
if you want my support for the change, you have to make it logically consistent.
if you don't care about my support for your cause, we will just have to agree to disagree.
which part of the above is unclear or disagreable or unreasonable?