Thoughts on 377a repeal

[malcontent]

Yup, but I think another problem is the fact that the ability to buy public housing (oftentimes) hinges on marriage, when in fact there are many who can’t, or don’t want to ever get married. Do these people not need homes?

The providing of low cost housing is not a must, and should probably be reserved for those who are have the highest potential to contribute to society. To be fair, couples who are infertile, empty nesters or DINKs should probably get lower priority, pay back subsidies or be forced to downgrade if they can’t conceive.

Hey, new policy ideas are badly needed to get more babies!

What! A persons right to housing should never be tied to their potential to contribute to society, human rights should be independent of all else.

How can we define this potential? It’s subjective and entirely arbitrary.

A doctor could determine the potential by checking that the sperm, the eggs and the overall plumbing is in order. How is that arbitrary?

[Lisafuller]

The providing of low cost housing is not a must, and should probably be reserved for those who are have the highest potential to contribute to society. To be fair, couples who are infertile, empty nesters or DINKs should probably get lower priority, pay back subsidies or be forced to downgrade if they can’t conceive.

Hey, new policy ideas are badly needed to get more babies!

What! A persons right to housing should never be tied to their potential to contribute to society, human rights should be independent of all else.

How can we define this potential? It’s subjective and entirely arbitrary.

A doctor could determine the potential by checking that the sperm, the eggs and the overall plumbing is in order. How is that arbitrary?

Now, I don't know whether or not to take you seriously. Just in case you're not kidding, you must know that that's incredibly intrusive, discriminatory against those who may not be in the pink of health, and impractical.

[Lisafuller]

On progressive indoctrination day, I might have missed the lesson on privilege and guilt.

So let me get this straight, to “be privileged” it doesn’t mean that I actually benefit or realize any privileges… it is merely the idea that I could that makes it a reality? Let me ask, do I have to “identify as privileged” for this to work?

LOL! No Mal, my point is just that you can never remove yourself from your privilege, so it is easy to see why you don’t view yourself as privileged.

I think I’ve got a pretty good idea of what it feels like to be denied the privilege to a legal marriage… the > 10 year gap from the start of our committed relationship to our legal marriage was not by choice. I don’t want to get into all the details on this forum, but suffice it to say we were not allowed to, because I wasn’t the right race.

How do you think that made me feel? You probably think it must have been horrible. Maybe for some people it would have been, but for me it was completely immaterial. I was committed to her, under God, and that is all that mattered. Even if we were denied up to this day, we’d still be together. Of that there is no doubt.

Fair enough, but having lived this experience, wouldn't you want to make sure that nobody else has to go through that?

[malcontent]

LOL! No Mal, my point is just that you can never remove yourself from your privilege, so it is easy to see why you don’t view yourself as privileged.

I think I’ve got a pretty good idea of what it feels like to be denied the privilege to a legal marriage… the > 10 year gap from the start of our committed relationship to our legal marriage was not by choice. I don’t want to get into all the details on this forum, but suffice it to say we were not allowed to, because I wasn’t the right race.

How do you think that made me feel? You probably think it must have been horrible. Maybe for some people it would have been, but for me it was completely immaterial. I was committed to her, under God, and that is all that mattered. Even if we were denied up to this day, we’d still be together. Of that there is no doubt.

Fair enough, but having lived this experience, wouldn't you want to make sure that nobody else has to go through that?

Honestly, I see life thru a different lens, whatever God has in store for me, I accept it, no matter how unfair it might seem. Is that always easy to do? No, but I can’t imagine the depths of misery I’d have gone thru otherwise. Life is not fair, but how you deal with that makes all the difference. Being denied a legal marriage, with zero hope of ever being allowed to was a big blow, but at the time I told my SO, the only thing that matters is that we are together, and we proceeded to stay together for years not knowing if we would ever be allowed to marry. It’s what’s in the heart that matters, not what’s on some piece of paper.

[Lisafuller]

I think I’ve got a pretty good idea of what it feels like to be denied the privilege to a legal marriage… the > 10 year gap from the start of our committed relationship to our legal marriage was not by choice. I don’t want to get into all the details on this forum, but suffice it to say we were not allowed to, because I wasn’t the right race.

How do you think that made me feel? You probably think it must have been horrible. Maybe for some people it would have been, but for me it was completely immaterial. I was committed to her, under God, and that is all that mattered. Even if we were denied up to this day, we’d still be together. Of that there is no doubt.

Fair enough, but having lived this experience, wouldn't you want to make sure that nobody else has to go through that?

Honestly, I see life thru a different lens, whatever God has in store for me, I accept it, no matter how unfair it might seem. Is that always easy to do? No, but I can’t imagine the depths of misery I’d have gone thru otherwise. Life is not fair, but how you deal with that makes all the difference. Being denied a legal marriage, with zero hope of ever being allowed to was a big blow, but at the time I told my SO, the only thing that matters is that we are together, and we proceeded to stay together for years not knowing if we would ever be allowed to marry. It’s what’s in the heart that matters, not what’s on some piece of paper.

I'm glad thingd worked out for you both, and yes, at the very end of the day love is love, and all that matters is that two people love each other, but if we can agree on that, I'm confused as to how we can't agree that they should be allowed the same rights.

[malcontent]

I'm glad thingd worked out for you both, and yes, at the very end of the day love is love, and all that matters is that two people love each other, but if we can agree on that, I'm confused as to how we can't agree that they should be allowed the same rights.

The only way we will ever get on the same page is if we can first agree on the separation of rights from marriage, and the person from the activity.

Saying the person can’t be separated from the activity is like saying you can’t be bisexual without being polygamous.

Saying that rights can’t be separated from the marriage is like saying church can’t be separated from the state.

Today, rights are associated with marriage and the person is associated with the activity, but that does not mean that one cannot exist without the other.

[x9200]

Legal rights can easily be awarded without desecrating marriage.

But nobody is desecrating marriage, there is no intent to tarnish the definition, rather people just hope to expand it to reflect the reality of relationships today: one that no longer exists exclusively between man and woman.

Desecrating of marriage is like in religious context and I believe all we here discuss is limited to the civil rights. But if this is more about personal believes that what is granted as the civil marriage is also sort of sacret then I still see no reason why the relationship of for example, two women is any worse than for a man and a woman.

[malcontent]

Legal rights can easily be awarded without desecrating marriage.

But nobody is desecrating marriage, there is no intent to tarnish the definition, rather people just hope to expand it to reflect the reality of relationships today: one that no longer exists exclusively between man and woman.

Desecrating of marriage is like in religious context and I believe all we here discuss is limited to the civil rights. But if this is more about personal believes that what is granted as the civil marriage is also sort of sacret then I still see no reason why the relationship of for example, two women is any worse than for a man and a woman.

Should the state be allowed to conduct civil ceremonies for all 7 holy sacraments… without regard to the religious significance? Why not burn the holy book while we’re at it?

The fact is, rights can be achieved without desecrating marriage, so if this is only about rights, then I don’t see why the insistence on redefining marriage.

[Addadude]

Being denied a legal marriage, with zero hope of ever being allowed to was a big blow, but at the time I told my SO, the only thing that matters is that we are together, and we proceeded to stay together for years not knowing if we would ever be allowed to marry. It’s what’s in the heart that matters, not what’s on some piece of paper.

So you lived in sin together?

[malcontent]

Being denied a legal marriage, with zero hope of ever being allowed to was a big blow, but at the time I told my SO, the only thing that matters is that we are together, and we proceeded to stay together for years not knowing if we would ever be allowed to marry. It’s what’s in the heart that matters, not what’s on some piece of paper.

So you lived in sin together?

We didn’t “live together” before marriage, if that is what you mean. She stayed in her parent’s flat with her sis and BIL, I rented a place outside.

First 2.5 years it was a common room in a 5 room HDB flat for $450/mo. Then post-Asian crisis I got a deal on a room in bungalow for $550/mo for another 2.5 years. I then had a 7 month assignment in the US, but we saw each other at least once a month through that time. When I came back, I got a studio apartment for $1,200/mo, which is where I stayed until we were suddenly and unexpectedly allowed to marry.

[Addadude]

We didn’t “live together” before marriage, if that is what you mean. She stayed in her parent’s flat with her sis and BIL, I rented a place outside.

Wow. Admirable self control.

[x9200]

But nobody is desecrating marriage, there is no intent to tarnish the definition, rather people just hope to expand it to reflect the reality of relationships today: one that no longer exists exclusively between man and woman.

Desecrating of marriage is like in religious context and I believe all we here discuss is limited to the civil rights. But if this is more about personal believes that what is granted as the civil marriage is also sort of sacret then I still see no reason why the relationship of for example, two women is any worse than for a man and a woman.

Should the state be allowed to conduct civil ceremonies for all 7 holy sacraments… without regard to the religious significance? Why not burn the holy book while we’re at it?

The fact is, rights can be achieved without desecrating marriage, so if this is only about rights, then I don’t see why the insistence on redefining marriage.

I am not a religious person and I don't see any reason why marriage should be seen only as a part of a religion. If one prefers to get married with the help of a priest or an equivalent and believes this makes it sacret, I have no objections, and no my business tbh, but to me it does not mean any other marriage is desecrated. Personally I think if there is a sacret component in such union (and I believe often there is) it comes from the two people rather than some rules they were told to follow and usually they don't follow anyway. Or in other words, marriage is not (R)(TM)marriage owned by some organization or institution.

[malcontent]

Desecrating of marriage is like in religious context and I believe all we here discuss is limited to the civil rights. But if this is more about personal believes that what is granted as the civil marriage is also sort of sacret then I still see no reason why the relationship of for example, two women is any worse than for a man and a woman.

Should the state be allowed to conduct civil ceremonies for all 7 holy sacraments… without regard to the religious significance? Why not burn the holy book while we’re at it?

The fact is, rights can be achieved without desecrating marriage, so if this is only about rights, then I don’t see why the insistence on redefining marriage.

I am not a religious person and I don't see any reason why marriage should be seen only as a part of a religion. If one prefers to get married with the help of a priest or an equivalent and believes this makes it sacret, I have no objections, and no my business tbh, but to me it does not mean any other marriage is desecrated. Personally I think if there is a sacret component in such union (and I believe often there is) it comes from the two people rather than some rules they were told to follow and usually they don't follow anyway. Or in other words, marriage is not (R)(TM)marriage owned by some organization or institution.

I totally understand your perspective. Without any religious background it would be hard to understand how anyone or anything could have a monopoly on marriage. But for believers, marriage is something ordained by God for all mankind, not just the faithful.

You are absolutely right that the sacred aspect doesn’t come from any rules, but from two people together with God, even if they don’t believe in God. No priest or justice of the peace required (go back far enough in history… there was none).

It might seem like an overreach that any religious view could apply universally to all mankind, but that is what was ordained and is fervently believed by many — and anything contravening that is seen as offensive.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Is it personal anecdote time yet? (I've had a full life to say the least)

[malcontent]

Is it personal anecdote time yet? (I've had a full life to say the least)

But we are having so much fun already.

Don’t you want to know what the Catholic Church in Hawaii has to say about it?

https://www.catholichawaii.org/media/22 ... armful.pdf