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]

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?