Why Civility Failed
The Real Problem With American Politics
Let Compromise Work
Another reason civility failed is because compromise proposals that might have worked often never saw the light of day. Others that actually got proposed were turned down for purely political reasons.
Compromises are not always good. Many times, compromise is just a word used to beat the other side into submission. Compromises are often compromises in name only, such as when the Obama administration offered to allow companies regulated under the ACA to pay for insurance that covered employees’ abortions rather than pay for employees’ abortions themselves. Nothing changed.
Other compromises give us the worst of both worlds, such as when 1980s Democrats wanted greater spending on social programs and 1980s Republicans wanted more military spending, so we got both and the deficit exploded.
Then there are compromises that merely split the difference, giving each side not enough of what it wants and too much of what the other side wants.
Finally, there are the good compromises that give everyone what they want:
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
President Bill Clinton put forth one such compromise. Patriotic homosexuals have long wanted to serve their country in the military, but many in the military were understandably concerned that there might develop certain social problems in the military subculture, possibly even damaging combat readiness and morale. In the nineties, Clinton instituted the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Homosexuals could now serve as they had always wanted, but as long as nobody discussed sexuality, nobody would know who was who. Thus, there could be no resultant social problems. Clinton gave each side what they said they wanted. Was he hailed as a hero? Of course not. Homosexual activists insisted on serving openly and the right used this issue to paint Clinton as a far-left loon trying to destroy the family.
Stem Cells
President Bush supported many great compromises. Embryonic stem cell research has great potential for generating all sorts of medical breakthroughs, but getting the stem cells requires destroying the embryos. Some see this as a form of murder. Understandably, they are against supporting such practices through taxes. Allowing private companies to conduct this research legally is bad enough, they reason, but the government taking money from the rest of us against our will to support such practices is much worse. Can there be an acceptable compromise?
Yes. In 2001, Bush issued the rule to restrict federal funding for creating new stem cell lines. Bush never stopped private sector funding. He never stopped state funding. He never stopped federal funding for research on stem cell lines already created. Since the life-or-death decision had already been made for these embryos, it made no sense to him to restrict research on the lines, which should have been able to replicate indefinitely. Bush gave both sides exactly what they said they wanted: Conservatives didn’t want more people to be killed in their name with their money. Liberals wanted more research done for health improvement purposes. Everyone should have been happy. What happened?
Faith-Based Charities
Another of Bush’s compromises involved faith-based charities. There are those who believe it is not the role of the government to engage in charity work, nor is it proper to play Robin Hood by taking from one group of people in order to give to another. They understand that when the government gives to some organizations and not others they are often supporting less-than-ideal organizations while keeping funds from the best organizations. They would prefer that government spend no money on charity at all. Meanwhile, other people want more spending. Being a pragmatist, Bush saw that cutting charity spending was not politically viable and instead offered a compromise to end discrimination based on religion, allowing faith-based institutions to receive federal money just as secular ones. It gave most people most of what they wanted. It was a good compromise. What happened?
No Child Left Behind
Another of President Bush’s compromises was the No Child Left Behind Act. There are those that believe it is not the role of government to be involved in education. They understand that education is best handled locally. They recognized that throwing more money into our failing schools was just throwing good money after bad. They would prefer that the federal government not be involved in education at all. Other people recognized that our public school system needed help and wanted to pour more money into it. Being a pragmatist, Bush saw that pulling out of education was not politically viable and instead offered a compromise to give more money to education while simultaneously insisting that schools begin meeting certain minimum standards so we weren’t throwing good money after bad. It gave most people most of what they wanted. It was a good compromise. What happened?
All four of these policies were good compromises that gave most people most of what they wanted. Compromises such as these are rare and hard to get approved. However, since they went into effect, partisans have been bashing them by magnifying their flaws to an almost absurd level. Nothing is ever perfect, but I have yet to hear any of the critics propose something better. Those who care about civility should let compromise work.
The Future?
Every once in a while, I have an idea for a compromise myself. Here are four examples:
Plastics:
On the one hand, so long as plastic bags are in constant use, there will always be a small fraction of them that end up cluttering the landscape and harming wildlife. The same is true of plastic straws and lids.
On the other hand, plastic bags and straws have many important uses not adequately filled by alternatives and they make my life a lot easier and more pleasant.
Paper bags are junk and paper straws make me angry beyond description. Paper bags fall apart in the rain, are hard to grip, and carry the risk of paper cuts. Plastic bags I can reuse as garbage bags, sink liners when I shave, and for many other purposes. I can’t safely drive and drink my iced coffee without a straw and lid, which is one of the little joys in life that allow me to temporarily forget my problems or the national news. Paper straws soften in the presence of liquid so that the cup lid squeezes them shut. They are useless. Even if sitting down in a restaurant, paper cups without the reinforcement of their lids can deform when grasped and thus decrease in volume, forcing liquid over the sides. This is a terror to customers and workers alike.
To stave off hopelessness and depression, I have to believe the human race is going to continue to make technological strides forever, increasing quality of life and eventually colonizing the universe. Limiting ourselves to poverty and stagnation is unacceptable. Moving backwards is unacceptable. Using the force of law to ban plastics is unacceptable.
What about a compromise? If it is true that these things harm the environment, it must be possible to assess a monetary cost on the measures needed to mitigate such harm. So long as the science is sound, I would be happy to pay a tax on plastic to fund such measures. That way, I could feel good knowing I was doing my part to protect the environment and I could still have my plastic.
Smoking:
While science by its very nature is never completely settled, and I hesitate to take a position on something I haven’t studied myself, it seems fairly well established that smoking tobacco is bad for our health and those in our immediate vicinity.
Even vapor e-cigs, while free of some of the more dangerous toxins, contain nicotine, which is itself mildly toxic. Furthermore, nicotine is highly addictive and can hook people for life, including impressionable teenagers who may not know any better. It makes sense that we would want to do everything we could to stop people from using.
At the same time, heavy-handed tactics such as outlawing tobacco will only hurt those already hooked, as will lesser measures such as banning smoking in parks and on sidewalks (as has already happened in some places). Charging high taxes only leads to smuggling. Restrictions on advertisements that target children has only led to disputes over what constitutes “child-like” or “mature” advertising. In any case, all of these measures have produced political backlash and resistance.
What if we met in the middle where most can agree and launched an education campaign? I know that such things already exist, but we have certainly not exhausted our options. What if we doubled our efforts? What if we studied why people start smoking in the first place, why other people never smoke, and applied this knowledge for a more effective campaign? The funding could come from taxpayers, but it doesn’t need to (and probably shouldn’t). What if activists put their lobbying and election efforts into forming a non-government entity to do this? So long as it could produce at least equal results, wouldn’t this be the better option? Shouldn’t this be the option we try first?
Torture:
There are those so concerned with terrorist activity that they will even go so far as endorsing torture to extract secrets from captured terrorists. Others are dead set against the use of torture. The way I see it, torture can be justified only under the following conditions:
First, it must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the recipient of proposed torture is truly guilty of something heinous enough to deserve it (such as torturing others). Simply holding information that may be vital is not enough. One should not be obligated to aid us. An actual act of violence must have been committed.
Second, it must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the recipient actually has the information sought after. We should never torture in vain, and there should always be a way out for the recipient by giving us what we want, something denied to those who truly don’t know anything.
Third, the information desired must be of such an important nature that torture is warranted, and it must be determined that we are unlikely to get the information any other way.
Fourth, there must be some sort of oversight. No one person should ever make these decisions. A second opinion of high authority is needed. Ideally, this decision would involve two separate branches of government: the executive and the judicial.
I do not myself endorse torture as a policy in the slightest, but so long as all four of these conditions are met, I agree to allow it to exist if that is what our elected officials decide.
Abortion:
On the one hand it’s hard to imagine how anyone can justify killing babies, but in some cases the health of the mother might be at stake, and this can include psychological health. In cases of rape, where it is understood to be a form of psychological torture, the law can sometimes forgive it if the rapist is injured or killed. Continuing to carry and bear the child of a rapist can conceivably be perceived as a continuation of the original rape to someone so distressed she isn’t thinking clearly. In these rare cases, killing the child can be construed as a form of self-defense.
However, just because abortion can be construed as self-defense does not mean the mother has the absolute right to kill her unborn children on a whim. These types of things should be handled on a case-by-case basis. The mother alone should not make the decision. Neither should the doctor, since he/she benefits financially. It must go before a judge or jury.
Often in cases of killing in self-defense, the killer is put on trial and an investigation occurs. If George Zimmerman had to be put on trial because some people didn’t believe his side of the story, then there can be nothing wrong with trying aborters. To suggest that we don’t want to further traumatize those who might not be fit to stand trial is to suggest that George Zimmerman (who had his head bashed into a sidewalk by Trayvon Martin) (8) shouldn’t have been tried either and we should have just taken him at his word. This is obviously not going to work.
Furthermore, if he can be found, the father must be notified and be given the option to testify, though he cannot be part of the decision-making process since the process affects the mother’s body much more than it does his. However, it is his right as a father to know what really happened to his kids and his testimony may be valuable in ascertaining the mother’s mental state.
This is all I’ve got for now. Others need to step up and make suggestions and we can’t do that if we can’t even talk to each other.
Stupid Distractions
The failure to pursue compromise is one reason civility failed. Worse, sometimes I see partisans actively pursuing conflict, creating issues out of thin air!
Origins
How we got here is of less importance than where we are now. Whether our pre-Cambrian ancestors were ciliated protozoa, flagellated protozoa, or amoebocytes doesn’t make a bit of difference to those alive today without food and shelter.
Failing to teach our children evolutionary theory doesn’t mean they will never be good astronauts or engineers. It won’t even make them bad biologists. Likewise, teaching them evolutionary theory isn’t going to turn them all into racists and atheists. In the long run, it will make no difference.
All the conflict over what origin stories can and can’t be told in school is nothing but a distraction and both sides are guilty of perpetuating this nonsense. Nobody cares!
Gay Marriage
There is no reason the government has to recognize anyone’s marriage. Nobody will stop you from living together. Nobody will stop you from jointly owning real estate or sharing a bank account. You can bequeath your property to whomever you want in your will. You can grant medical power-of-attorney to whom you want. If one insurance company won’t allow you to add your same-sex partner, there are other insurance companies that will. Finally, filing your taxes jointly does not save everyone money. Sometimes it costs money. Why not advocate for lower taxes for all or for a simpler, flat tax with no option for anyone to joint-file, rather than change the legal definition of marriage? In any case, a few dollars is an awfully small thing to get so worked up about. If the legal benefits of marriage are really so important to you, get married to somebody! Nobody is going to force you to sleep with your spouse or even make sure you live in the same house. Nobody is going to stop you from continuing to have relations with your partner on the side.
There are reasons why government tries to encourage traditional marriage, such as protecting women from single parenthood. They may not be very good reasons anymore since we now have such things as maternity leave and the old stigmas no longer apply, but in a democracy the minority does not get to impose its will on the majority.
At the same time, there is no great loss when the government does recognize same-sex marriages. It does not make your traditional marriage any less special. It does not mean that more people will turn gay. Civilization will not collapse. There might be some tiny amount of added confusion when the legal definitions do not match the common vernacular, but language evolves all the time and you’ll get used to it eventually. In any case, wording is an awfully small thing to get so worked up about.
I am so tired of hearing about this issue. It doesn’t matter. It’s a pretend issue. Nobody cares!
Military Service
The purpose of the military is to keep ALL American citizens – gay, straight, male, female, young, old, white, black, and brown – safe from foreign threats. To do this well, it must be selective of those it allows into its ranks. Those who are disabled or disruptive should not expect a job there. While everyone has the right to apply, nobody has the right to force the military to accept them. Anyone who is truly patriotic and wants to serve his/her country would not try to push their way in. One doesn’t need to be a soldier to serve. One can be a police officer, a fire fighter, a journalist, a teacher, an activist, an engineer, a plumber, an electrician, a doctor, an architect, or even an artist. One can open a restaurant, offer discounts to veterans, and serve the country that way.
At the same time, there is no great loss if the military is able to find a place for those some might deem less qualified – including, but not limited to, women, homosexuals, transsexuals, and the mentally retarded. It is very unlikely that their inclusion will mean the loss of any battle. The claim is often thrown around that knowingly living together in close quarters with, and showering with, homosexuals is bad for morale – but why aren’t people more concerned how thin-skinned our soldiers are that they can’t handle being around gays? It sounds like all our enemies have to do is hire gay interrogators to get captured servicemen to talk. That’s not good.
In any case, it is those in the military that have to accommodate them, and know best how to accommodate them, so only those in the military should have any say in the matter. Let the military make its own recruiting choices. The alleged dangers here are so puny as to be negligible. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill! Nobody cares!
Restrooms And Locker Rooms
Virtually everywhere in the US, children grow up with sex-segregated restrooms. By adulthood, they are used to using one or the other, so there should be no problem continuing to do so. Those who insist on using the room corresponding to the opposite of their biological sex agree with those insisting that everyone keep to using the room they are assigned that sex distinctions matter. If one truly believed sex was irrelevant, they would go wherever assigned so as not to cause trouble.
If for some reason a biological male is uncomfortable around other males, letting them use the women’s room is no solution. Once one uncomfortable male is allowed in, other uncomfortable males must be allowed in, and the same situation is recreated. They will make each other uncomfortable! Nothing is solved. At the same time, allowing men to use the women’s room is likely to make the women uncomfortable. Then where are they supposed to go? The men’s room?
There is no legitimate reason that one has to use a different restroom than the one they grew up using. This is only logic. Those pushing such an idea are nothing but troublemakers. At the same time, enforcing the bathroom rules is very counterproductive. How can it be done? Who decides whether one looks/ is dressed masculine or feminine enough to be allowed entry? Are we going to create a department of fashion police? What do we do when outward appearances are ambiguous? Are we going to post genital inspectors in the doorway? Is that the world you want to live in? Does it really matter who is in the next stall?
Enough! I’m so sick of hearing your incessant, petty squabbling. There is nothing at stake here that matters to anybody. Just drop it. Nobody cares!
I would like to see us go back to what we were doing before; that seemed to work pretty well. However, if it would help any, I will propose a compromise that might work just as well: Make all restrooms unisex. This will not only aid those confused about their sexuality, but disabled persons with opposite-sex caregivers, and very young children with opposite-sex parents.
As for locker rooms and showers, there is absolutely no reason these cannot be unisex as well. Other species on Earth get along just fine without clothing between the sexes. It amazes me that wearing the image of violent communist revolutionary Che Guevara is considered protected speech under the first amendment, but wearing nothing but the human body, created in the image of God himself, is somehow considered so offensive it must be censored. If big government thinks it can tell me what I must put on my own body, we do not live in a free society at all. Just be yourself. I think this compromise is worth a try.
There are many issues facing our country. We have to deal with taxes, terrorism, homelessness, rising health care costs, and the environment simultaneously. All these things matter. As a society, we already have a hard enough time reaching an agreement on what to do about these challenges. The last thing we need is to be distracted by needlessly divisive issues of no real consequence. Knock it off.
Compromises are not always good. Many times, compromise is just a word used to beat the other side into submission. Compromises are often compromises in name only, such as when the Obama administration offered to allow companies regulated under the ACA to pay for insurance that covered employees’ abortions rather than pay for employees’ abortions themselves. Nothing changed.
Other compromises give us the worst of both worlds, such as when 1980s Democrats wanted greater spending on social programs and 1980s Republicans wanted more military spending, so we got both and the deficit exploded.
Then there are compromises that merely split the difference, giving each side not enough of what it wants and too much of what the other side wants.
Finally, there are the good compromises that give everyone what they want:
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
President Bill Clinton put forth one such compromise. Patriotic homosexuals have long wanted to serve their country in the military, but many in the military were understandably concerned that there might develop certain social problems in the military subculture, possibly even damaging combat readiness and morale. In the nineties, Clinton instituted the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Homosexuals could now serve as they had always wanted, but as long as nobody discussed sexuality, nobody would know who was who. Thus, there could be no resultant social problems. Clinton gave each side what they said they wanted. Was he hailed as a hero? Of course not. Homosexual activists insisted on serving openly and the right used this issue to paint Clinton as a far-left loon trying to destroy the family.
Stem Cells
President Bush supported many great compromises. Embryonic stem cell research has great potential for generating all sorts of medical breakthroughs, but getting the stem cells requires destroying the embryos. Some see this as a form of murder. Understandably, they are against supporting such practices through taxes. Allowing private companies to conduct this research legally is bad enough, they reason, but the government taking money from the rest of us against our will to support such practices is much worse. Can there be an acceptable compromise?
Yes. In 2001, Bush issued the rule to restrict federal funding for creating new stem cell lines. Bush never stopped private sector funding. He never stopped state funding. He never stopped federal funding for research on stem cell lines already created. Since the life-or-death decision had already been made for these embryos, it made no sense to him to restrict research on the lines, which should have been able to replicate indefinitely. Bush gave both sides exactly what they said they wanted: Conservatives didn’t want more people to be killed in their name with their money. Liberals wanted more research done for health improvement purposes. Everyone should have been happy. What happened?
Faith-Based Charities
Another of Bush’s compromises involved faith-based charities. There are those who believe it is not the role of the government to engage in charity work, nor is it proper to play Robin Hood by taking from one group of people in order to give to another. They understand that when the government gives to some organizations and not others they are often supporting less-than-ideal organizations while keeping funds from the best organizations. They would prefer that government spend no money on charity at all. Meanwhile, other people want more spending. Being a pragmatist, Bush saw that cutting charity spending was not politically viable and instead offered a compromise to end discrimination based on religion, allowing faith-based institutions to receive federal money just as secular ones. It gave most people most of what they wanted. It was a good compromise. What happened?
No Child Left Behind
Another of President Bush’s compromises was the No Child Left Behind Act. There are those that believe it is not the role of government to be involved in education. They understand that education is best handled locally. They recognized that throwing more money into our failing schools was just throwing good money after bad. They would prefer that the federal government not be involved in education at all. Other people recognized that our public school system needed help and wanted to pour more money into it. Being a pragmatist, Bush saw that pulling out of education was not politically viable and instead offered a compromise to give more money to education while simultaneously insisting that schools begin meeting certain minimum standards so we weren’t throwing good money after bad. It gave most people most of what they wanted. It was a good compromise. What happened?
All four of these policies were good compromises that gave most people most of what they wanted. Compromises such as these are rare and hard to get approved. However, since they went into effect, partisans have been bashing them by magnifying their flaws to an almost absurd level. Nothing is ever perfect, but I have yet to hear any of the critics propose something better. Those who care about civility should let compromise work.
The Future?
Every once in a while, I have an idea for a compromise myself. Here are four examples:
Plastics:
On the one hand, so long as plastic bags are in constant use, there will always be a small fraction of them that end up cluttering the landscape and harming wildlife. The same is true of plastic straws and lids.
On the other hand, plastic bags and straws have many important uses not adequately filled by alternatives and they make my life a lot easier and more pleasant.
Paper bags are junk and paper straws make me angry beyond description. Paper bags fall apart in the rain, are hard to grip, and carry the risk of paper cuts. Plastic bags I can reuse as garbage bags, sink liners when I shave, and for many other purposes. I can’t safely drive and drink my iced coffee without a straw and lid, which is one of the little joys in life that allow me to temporarily forget my problems or the national news. Paper straws soften in the presence of liquid so that the cup lid squeezes them shut. They are useless. Even if sitting down in a restaurant, paper cups without the reinforcement of their lids can deform when grasped and thus decrease in volume, forcing liquid over the sides. This is a terror to customers and workers alike.
To stave off hopelessness and depression, I have to believe the human race is going to continue to make technological strides forever, increasing quality of life and eventually colonizing the universe. Limiting ourselves to poverty and stagnation is unacceptable. Moving backwards is unacceptable. Using the force of law to ban plastics is unacceptable.
What about a compromise? If it is true that these things harm the environment, it must be possible to assess a monetary cost on the measures needed to mitigate such harm. So long as the science is sound, I would be happy to pay a tax on plastic to fund such measures. That way, I could feel good knowing I was doing my part to protect the environment and I could still have my plastic.
Smoking:
While science by its very nature is never completely settled, and I hesitate to take a position on something I haven’t studied myself, it seems fairly well established that smoking tobacco is bad for our health and those in our immediate vicinity.
Even vapor e-cigs, while free of some of the more dangerous toxins, contain nicotine, which is itself mildly toxic. Furthermore, nicotine is highly addictive and can hook people for life, including impressionable teenagers who may not know any better. It makes sense that we would want to do everything we could to stop people from using.
At the same time, heavy-handed tactics such as outlawing tobacco will only hurt those already hooked, as will lesser measures such as banning smoking in parks and on sidewalks (as has already happened in some places). Charging high taxes only leads to smuggling. Restrictions on advertisements that target children has only led to disputes over what constitutes “child-like” or “mature” advertising. In any case, all of these measures have produced political backlash and resistance.
What if we met in the middle where most can agree and launched an education campaign? I know that such things already exist, but we have certainly not exhausted our options. What if we doubled our efforts? What if we studied why people start smoking in the first place, why other people never smoke, and applied this knowledge for a more effective campaign? The funding could come from taxpayers, but it doesn’t need to (and probably shouldn’t). What if activists put their lobbying and election efforts into forming a non-government entity to do this? So long as it could produce at least equal results, wouldn’t this be the better option? Shouldn’t this be the option we try first?
Torture:
There are those so concerned with terrorist activity that they will even go so far as endorsing torture to extract secrets from captured terrorists. Others are dead set against the use of torture. The way I see it, torture can be justified only under the following conditions:
First, it must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the recipient of proposed torture is truly guilty of something heinous enough to deserve it (such as torturing others). Simply holding information that may be vital is not enough. One should not be obligated to aid us. An actual act of violence must have been committed.
Second, it must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the recipient actually has the information sought after. We should never torture in vain, and there should always be a way out for the recipient by giving us what we want, something denied to those who truly don’t know anything.
Third, the information desired must be of such an important nature that torture is warranted, and it must be determined that we are unlikely to get the information any other way.
Fourth, there must be some sort of oversight. No one person should ever make these decisions. A second opinion of high authority is needed. Ideally, this decision would involve two separate branches of government: the executive and the judicial.
I do not myself endorse torture as a policy in the slightest, but so long as all four of these conditions are met, I agree to allow it to exist if that is what our elected officials decide.
Abortion:
On the one hand it’s hard to imagine how anyone can justify killing babies, but in some cases the health of the mother might be at stake, and this can include psychological health. In cases of rape, where it is understood to be a form of psychological torture, the law can sometimes forgive it if the rapist is injured or killed. Continuing to carry and bear the child of a rapist can conceivably be perceived as a continuation of the original rape to someone so distressed she isn’t thinking clearly. In these rare cases, killing the child can be construed as a form of self-defense.
However, just because abortion can be construed as self-defense does not mean the mother has the absolute right to kill her unborn children on a whim. These types of things should be handled on a case-by-case basis. The mother alone should not make the decision. Neither should the doctor, since he/she benefits financially. It must go before a judge or jury.
Often in cases of killing in self-defense, the killer is put on trial and an investigation occurs. If George Zimmerman had to be put on trial because some people didn’t believe his side of the story, then there can be nothing wrong with trying aborters. To suggest that we don’t want to further traumatize those who might not be fit to stand trial is to suggest that George Zimmerman (who had his head bashed into a sidewalk by Trayvon Martin) (8) shouldn’t have been tried either and we should have just taken him at his word. This is obviously not going to work.
Furthermore, if he can be found, the father must be notified and be given the option to testify, though he cannot be part of the decision-making process since the process affects the mother’s body much more than it does his. However, it is his right as a father to know what really happened to his kids and his testimony may be valuable in ascertaining the mother’s mental state.
This is all I’ve got for now. Others need to step up and make suggestions and we can’t do that if we can’t even talk to each other.
Stupid Distractions
The failure to pursue compromise is one reason civility failed. Worse, sometimes I see partisans actively pursuing conflict, creating issues out of thin air!
Origins
How we got here is of less importance than where we are now. Whether our pre-Cambrian ancestors were ciliated protozoa, flagellated protozoa, or amoebocytes doesn’t make a bit of difference to those alive today without food and shelter.
Failing to teach our children evolutionary theory doesn’t mean they will never be good astronauts or engineers. It won’t even make them bad biologists. Likewise, teaching them evolutionary theory isn’t going to turn them all into racists and atheists. In the long run, it will make no difference.
All the conflict over what origin stories can and can’t be told in school is nothing but a distraction and both sides are guilty of perpetuating this nonsense. Nobody cares!
Gay Marriage
There is no reason the government has to recognize anyone’s marriage. Nobody will stop you from living together. Nobody will stop you from jointly owning real estate or sharing a bank account. You can bequeath your property to whomever you want in your will. You can grant medical power-of-attorney to whom you want. If one insurance company won’t allow you to add your same-sex partner, there are other insurance companies that will. Finally, filing your taxes jointly does not save everyone money. Sometimes it costs money. Why not advocate for lower taxes for all or for a simpler, flat tax with no option for anyone to joint-file, rather than change the legal definition of marriage? In any case, a few dollars is an awfully small thing to get so worked up about. If the legal benefits of marriage are really so important to you, get married to somebody! Nobody is going to force you to sleep with your spouse or even make sure you live in the same house. Nobody is going to stop you from continuing to have relations with your partner on the side.
There are reasons why government tries to encourage traditional marriage, such as protecting women from single parenthood. They may not be very good reasons anymore since we now have such things as maternity leave and the old stigmas no longer apply, but in a democracy the minority does not get to impose its will on the majority.
At the same time, there is no great loss when the government does recognize same-sex marriages. It does not make your traditional marriage any less special. It does not mean that more people will turn gay. Civilization will not collapse. There might be some tiny amount of added confusion when the legal definitions do not match the common vernacular, but language evolves all the time and you’ll get used to it eventually. In any case, wording is an awfully small thing to get so worked up about.
I am so tired of hearing about this issue. It doesn’t matter. It’s a pretend issue. Nobody cares!
Military Service
The purpose of the military is to keep ALL American citizens – gay, straight, male, female, young, old, white, black, and brown – safe from foreign threats. To do this well, it must be selective of those it allows into its ranks. Those who are disabled or disruptive should not expect a job there. While everyone has the right to apply, nobody has the right to force the military to accept them. Anyone who is truly patriotic and wants to serve his/her country would not try to push their way in. One doesn’t need to be a soldier to serve. One can be a police officer, a fire fighter, a journalist, a teacher, an activist, an engineer, a plumber, an electrician, a doctor, an architect, or even an artist. One can open a restaurant, offer discounts to veterans, and serve the country that way.
At the same time, there is no great loss if the military is able to find a place for those some might deem less qualified – including, but not limited to, women, homosexuals, transsexuals, and the mentally retarded. It is very unlikely that their inclusion will mean the loss of any battle. The claim is often thrown around that knowingly living together in close quarters with, and showering with, homosexuals is bad for morale – but why aren’t people more concerned how thin-skinned our soldiers are that they can’t handle being around gays? It sounds like all our enemies have to do is hire gay interrogators to get captured servicemen to talk. That’s not good.
In any case, it is those in the military that have to accommodate them, and know best how to accommodate them, so only those in the military should have any say in the matter. Let the military make its own recruiting choices. The alleged dangers here are so puny as to be negligible. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill! Nobody cares!
Restrooms And Locker Rooms
Virtually everywhere in the US, children grow up with sex-segregated restrooms. By adulthood, they are used to using one or the other, so there should be no problem continuing to do so. Those who insist on using the room corresponding to the opposite of their biological sex agree with those insisting that everyone keep to using the room they are assigned that sex distinctions matter. If one truly believed sex was irrelevant, they would go wherever assigned so as not to cause trouble.
If for some reason a biological male is uncomfortable around other males, letting them use the women’s room is no solution. Once one uncomfortable male is allowed in, other uncomfortable males must be allowed in, and the same situation is recreated. They will make each other uncomfortable! Nothing is solved. At the same time, allowing men to use the women’s room is likely to make the women uncomfortable. Then where are they supposed to go? The men’s room?
There is no legitimate reason that one has to use a different restroom than the one they grew up using. This is only logic. Those pushing such an idea are nothing but troublemakers. At the same time, enforcing the bathroom rules is very counterproductive. How can it be done? Who decides whether one looks/ is dressed masculine or feminine enough to be allowed entry? Are we going to create a department of fashion police? What do we do when outward appearances are ambiguous? Are we going to post genital inspectors in the doorway? Is that the world you want to live in? Does it really matter who is in the next stall?
Enough! I’m so sick of hearing your incessant, petty squabbling. There is nothing at stake here that matters to anybody. Just drop it. Nobody cares!
I would like to see us go back to what we were doing before; that seemed to work pretty well. However, if it would help any, I will propose a compromise that might work just as well: Make all restrooms unisex. This will not only aid those confused about their sexuality, but disabled persons with opposite-sex caregivers, and very young children with opposite-sex parents.
As for locker rooms and showers, there is absolutely no reason these cannot be unisex as well. Other species on Earth get along just fine without clothing between the sexes. It amazes me that wearing the image of violent communist revolutionary Che Guevara is considered protected speech under the first amendment, but wearing nothing but the human body, created in the image of God himself, is somehow considered so offensive it must be censored. If big government thinks it can tell me what I must put on my own body, we do not live in a free society at all. Just be yourself. I think this compromise is worth a try.
There are many issues facing our country. We have to deal with taxes, terrorism, homelessness, rising health care costs, and the environment simultaneously. All these things matter. As a society, we already have a hard enough time reaching an agreement on what to do about these challenges. The last thing we need is to be distracted by needlessly divisive issues of no real consequence. Knock it off.