hanging my tomorrows on the bones of yesterday

In addition to the already listed concerns, other institutions are notoriously able to enforce their paradigm biases (e.g., hospitals are still quite heteronormative) upon the individuals with whom they interact/serve, and this discrimination will at times even be defended by a government aegis when similar bigotry would be blocked, at least in theory.

The idea of using intricate contracts for alternate lifestyles had been in practice in America long before Heinlein ever used it in his fiction, and while I do feel that it is the superior model, the market place (either of ideas or competition) has yet to uproot the traditional, mixed-religious-and-ownership union

From:

But is gay marriage really going to force its way into the mainstream without doing it the hard way? Het marriage has a longstanding history in our culture, and to 'normalize' gay marriage, we're going to have to have icons where people can see them.

George Michael should get married. Here in Dallas. *daydreams*

From:

daddio914.livejournal.com

I was going to specifically mention insurance and taxes, but tanniynim covered taxes.

So, unless the state recognizes same-sex partners, you can't insure them as your "spouse". You have to either get them classified as a dependent (most insurance companies cut this off at age 25 with or without full-time school) or take out separate policies still.

Overall, not a bad idea. I've seen a lot of poly advice saying that a live-in group should have some sort of property contract covering who gets what of what was brought in and stating how collective purchases will be divided in the event of a break-up. Sure, it's a binding contract, but it's also not exactly marriage.

On your second item, I'm not sure there will be a statistical incidence specifically because of closeting. The fact is people can choose gay sex but still live as hetero -- a lot of men do this without even their spouse's knowledge. In a lot of places it's much easier to be in the closet than out. There's where you should look for your statistical incidence, imo.

From:

Contract law is something I know a lot more about than institutions I have sworn off such as marriage and insurance. I should look up these practices, though, to better know my enemy.

I said to throw out the bi people, which these guys count toward, as they have sex with both genders. Their ambiguity screws up the flat curve I'm trying to point out.

From:

daddio914.livejournal.com

Well, insurance companies being insurance companies, it's only the states (NY, I believe, is like this) that recognize same-sex partnerships and have passed legislation requiring the insurance companies to do so where a same-sex partner can be insured in the same way as a 'spouse'.

And for clarification sake, I'm primarily talking about 'health insurance' when I say insurance above. It's a subject I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

Buying insurance is a gamble. On both sides. The insurance company gambles that you will pay in more than they have to pay out for you and you gamble that you'll pay in less than what they pay out for you.

If it were a level playing field, insurance would be a fairly good thing -- it's basically socialism in practice (everyone shares the costs of caring for everyone).

Unfortunately, politicians are still more interested in getting the big campaign contributions from insurance companies and their investors than they have been in cleaning up the mess that that sort of thinking got us all into in the first place.

Okay. Enough of the side-track. On to the statistical incidence. I think I get what you're getting at. I'm somewhat surprised that you'd try and come at it from this angle, though (or are you trying to say that it can be statistically proven that sexuality is not a choice?)

From:

I am saying that sexuality is not a choice, yes. If it were there would be a large percentile difference in the number of "path of least resistance" personalities in the gay communities.

From:

daddio914.livejournal.com

Well, there is a 'viable' option for those 'path of least resistance' people in the community, too -- closeting. Then again, if being homosexual was a choice, there'd be no need for closeting. You don't have to hide what you can choose not to be, even if it's 'frowned upon'.

From:

This is true also.

Maybe we should write a letter to The New Yorker . . .

From:

th0rshammer.livejournal.com

I'm straight, and not because of any laziness on my part. I don't think there will be any solid statistical evidence to support the second item. It seems to make the assumption that everyone is potentially gay, an idea that I don't support. I'm not gay, because I don't feel attracted to other men, not because I'm afraid to come out to friends and family.

In my own opinion,contrary natures are just as often responsible for hindrance of progress as they are for overachieving.

From:

xenoix-13.livejournal.com

I think she meant to say that it is the view of the "straight majority" that "only contrary people are gay" -- and therefore being gay is just a statement or somehow invalid.

She did say she was dizzy, but when she said "I see no such statistical incidence anywhere." it led me to believe that the whole paragraph before it was a postulation that she was disagreeing with.

Hmm. You have a good point with, "In my own opinion,contrary natures are just as often responsible for hindrance of progress as they are for overachieving."

I think the problem with really contrary people is 'their level of frustration' VS 'how strongly they are compelled to act to affect the system'. Most truly contrary people are just too much of a ball of frustration to commit constructive acts of iconoclism. Indeed, this much to the detriment of their cause, and often tends to "prove" to the people they are trying to change "how crazy their views really are".

Truly, it's a shame.

From:

th0rshammer.livejournal.com

I got the part on the assumptions of the straight crowd, and registered a counter assumption that being straight is a "path of least resistance". I realize that this is the case for some, depending on their upbringing and social environment. Thinking back on my own upbringing, I'm damn glad I wasn't gay, cause I would have been hemmed in by a totally homophobic atmosphere at a hick high school in Fort Worth Texas. I feel for anyone who's circumstances put them in any such position.

I was speaking more to the paragraph than to her, and realize that she was throwing it out for discussion.

From:

I was trying to point out that sexuality is NOT a choice, because if it were a choice the ONLY people who would be gay are the "path of greatest resistance" personality types. That there is no such trend in the stats indicates that it's not a choice.

From:

xenoix-13.livejournal.com

I think the whole world should make you The Decider.

I'm too lazy to be lazy. It's too much hard work.

Why did you exclude the bisexuals from your little analysis?

"In further news, I still can't pin down the ideas on how to turn down offers." --> You can try saying what I say, "I appreciate the offer, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass." It seems to work really well. It's very P.C.. Plus, it only rarely makes people get upset -- as far as I know.

I just think you're so addicted to the 'people drug' that saying 'no' just isn't in your 'world view' -- like it's not even an option. Like Blue and eating vegetables -- they're not even real food. It's not even a real option. ^.^ I love you. *kiss*

...I also think that when you're The Decider, you should decide to have thousands of th mal populace line up outside your palace to contribute their 'emissions' to your own designs, like that one lady who ruled back in the day did.......'cause that was just Hot....

From:

I said to throw out bisexuals because they screw up the flat curve I was trying to point out. If there were a choice, there would be more of one type of person on a side, rather than an even distribution. Bisexuals tend to pass as straight better, and thus cannot be sufficiently distinguished from a straight population.

From:

It's not really that most people who genuinely do their research are having problems getting their rights (at least among the folks I know). If you are legally savvy, you can work around all of that. The real problem I've run into and heard talked to death is that they shouldn't have to.

It's not fair that it's harder to be straight than anything else. It's not fair that some people are allowed this nice tight little bundle called marriage while everyone else has to claim their rights individually. They shouldn't have to. But I'm still tired of listening to it. Act, or submit. It's up to you.

About the second part, I think I already explained the intensity vs intimacy thing to you, and it makes me sound prejudiced... sort of. Anyway, I've already had a long 'make me sad' argument about prejudice this week, so I'll let it lie.

From:

Intensity vs. intimacy thing? In regards to it being easier to be straight? I don't think you have, actually.

From:

So, with wariness, I make a public post and direct you to it. Please give me the benefit of the doubt. I have thought a lot and questioned more.

http://bardkris.livejournal.com/92837.html#cutid1

From:

Even with legal savvy, same-sex divorce (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/01/AR2008010101734.html?nav=rss_nation) is still a sticky wicket

From:

Divorce is always always always messy, same-sex or otherwise.

From:

The lack of established precedent makes means that same-sex divorce will face a greater extent of that messiness, even if the break-up is amicable. The logistics alone are more challenging in basically every area.

From:

It is messier. There are more hoops to jump through, and very little precedent, as you said.

Still, if you know anything about law, there is always an time in which precedent is built before we can have something to refer to. Whenever a newer situation is legalized, there have to be cases to establish said precedent. This time is a necessary messiness to establish precedent, and to solidify gay marriage's (and gay divorce's) legal standing. The more established precedent, the harder it will be for reactionaries to 'erase' gay marriage from the law books.

In short, the longer this is around, the better it will get. At least it's getting into the law books for once. Was it only a hundred years ago that homosexuality was listed in psychology references as an abberant behavior?

From:

If it only it had been a century since homosexuality was listed as an abnormal pysch condition. The APA didn't remove it till 1973, & didn't fully remove it till 1986, while it was the 90s for the WHO, the UK, Russia, or China. This is an area where the wiki article seems pretty spot on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology#Declassification)

From:

azuzil.livejournal.com

"In further news, I still can't pin down the ideas on how to turn down offers."

What is this about? As in being propositioned or hit on or flirted with?

From:

For business and personal propositions, ways to make people take "no" for an answer without deliberately hurting their feelings. I was looking into it, and I'm coming up with how it's not just what you say, it's who you say it to. Some people are just not capable of recognizing that you know best as regards your choices.

*sigh*

From: (Anonymous)

They don't have the right to second guess your decision, plain and simple. If they don't take "no" for an answer, you are well within your rights to get louder and meaner until they do. From the moment someone persists after you have given your answer, he/she is not showing you respect as an individual. They deserve whatever they get at that point, even if it hurts their feelings.

From:

In business matters, putting this philosophy into action can easily have difficult to avoid blowback. That being said, so does a philosophy of hard sales, but recognising these trends does not provide an answer in how to resolve them, which was the initial question.

In personal relations, I do agree it has a lot to do with the person & their idea of etiquette. Beyond denial, that change exists is something people often have difficulty handling in their calculations about the world.

From:

rens-sanctuary.livejournal.com

Eh, just do what I do, say sorry you're not interested, and IGNORE the personal reactions ("Why?!" etc.) using the stone face of Don't Really Care. Make it clear it's NOT personal. It helps that I just am not personally involved as others.

...Somewhere I have a Passable Interaction With the Mundanes manual thingy, I've been hermit-like re: small talk (i.e. I don't do it if I can help it) that I often forget I have these skills in my headspace. The skills of a youth-with-CP, for you.

From: