?

Log in

No account? Create an account

[icon] They just don't make 'em like they used to - Patti
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.
View:Website (pattib.org).

Security:
Subject:They just don't make 'em like they used to
Time:12:42 pm
One of my poker buddies posted something on rec.gambling.poker complaining about California's recent gay marriage supreme court decision. One of his really bizarre concerns was that gay men might have sham marriages where one of them had health insurance and the other had AIDS. (We can safely ignore the fact that heterosexuals might have sham marriages for the same purpose.)

And then he posted this. When I got to the last sentence I had to make an emergency trip to IronyMeterMart.com. I got a six-pack.
comments: Leave a comment Previous Entry Share Next Entry


wild_irises
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 07:56 pm (UTC)
*sigh*

Was a six-pack enough?
(Reply) (Thread)


prock
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:20 pm (UTC)
Rick is gay and has AIDS?
(Reply) (Thread)

(Deleted comment)

rmd
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:26 pm (UTC)
i think the contract part of marriage is important enough to be backed up by the government.

but i would love to see the contractual part ("we agree to function financially as a unit even though one of us is doing work that does not directly earn wages, until such time as the contract is ended") split off from the religious part.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

(Deleted comment)

rmd
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 01:21 am (UTC)
our agreement, it is violent.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


mangosteen
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:37 pm (UTC)
That's the end goal, true. No argument.

To my mind, the first step is to recognize same-sex marriage, and then change the terminology over to 'civil union', and get government out of the marriage business.

On a more pragmatic note "So, we shouldn't allow any same-sex couples the benefit of marriage until the government changes it all over to civil unions in all states separately." is the disingenuous line that a lot of anti-same-sex-marriage people use when they want to sound accommodating, so I tend to avoid it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


rmd
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:22 pm (UTC)
mmmm. sweet sweet irony.
(Reply) (Thread)


elfs
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:26 pm (UTC)
C'mon down to talk.origins used irony meters! They blow out for all sorts of reasons. We mix and match the best and you get the rest!

Woah. I just found that Mitch Wagner coined the phrase "Irony meter" on soc.singles in 1991. Unsurprisingly, he was talking about Ted Kaldis. Grief, the Internet really was small enough back then that it was possible to know everyone on it.

And yes, you just blew up another one.
(Reply) (Thread)


rmd
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 01:21 am (UTC)
you spelled "T*d K*ldis" incorrectly.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

songmonk
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:42 pm (UTC)
I feel kinda dumb, but I actually don't see the irony. :-(
(Reply) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:45 pm (UTC)
In a thread about gay marriage, he's looking forward to his wife getting health insurance again in two months so that he can have insurance.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

songmonk
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:51 pm (UTC)
I still don't get it, and in fact now I'm even more confused.

Initially, the link that I saw was that he was concerned about gays marrying for insurance, and that he is relying on his wife for insurance. But he ostensibly did not marry his wife for insurance.

Or is it funnier b/c while you're telling it to us side by side, in the actual thread it was more separated and he probably didn't even realize that his situation relates to (though doesn't match) the situation that he objects to with regard to gay marriage?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:54 pm (UTC)
He's praising the benefits of his marriage in the same thread where he's complaining that other people might get those same benefits.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

songmonk
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:57 pm (UTC)
Well, okay. I guess I just didn't see it like that based on the excerpts you provided. Based on the excerpt, it sounds like he objects to *sham* marriages for the purposes of benefits.

Of course, knowing how people work, I would believe that the possibility that gays may engage in sham marriages is not the real reason he objects to gay marriage.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


wild_irises
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 01:45 pm (UTC)
How do you know he didn't marry his wife for insurance? I can think off the top of my head of half-a-dozen or more heterosexual marriages among my acquaintances where the couple would be living together without marriage if one of them didn't need the other's insurance. Is it a "sham" marriage if the relationship is real but the marriage is for insurance only?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


gunga_galunga
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:48 pm (UTC)
It's a little ironic for someone who gets hundreds of dollars a month in medications, soon through his wife's insurance, to be complaining that someone with aids might get hundreds of dollars a month in medications through their partner's insurance.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

songmonk
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:54 pm (UTC)
But it's not a sham marriage! (Or is it?)

In Patty's excerpt, he didn't object to gays marrying and receiving benefits. He was fearful of the possibility that gays may engage in sham marriages for benefits. (Though as Patty points out, that has nothing to do with *gay* marriage; that's a loophole available to *marriage*.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:56 pm (UTC)
Myson, he's arguing against all gay marriage while at the same time saying "thank god my wife will get health insurance soon".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

songmonk
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 08:59 pm (UTC)
Maybe I'm still missing context, b/c "he's arguing against all gay marriage while at the same time saying 'thank god my wife will get health insurance soon'" does not say "irony" to me.

Objectionable, yes, but I fail to see the irony.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


elfs
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 09:13 pm (UTC)
Irony: "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."

Seems to me this is a pretty strong case of irony. He's singling out a certain group for exploiting one of the state-contractual benefits of marriage, and then he's doing it himself.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

songmonk
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 09:27 pm (UTC)
Oh, maybe my disconnect is the perception of what "exploit" means. I would have thought that marrying someone for "the right reasons" (<-- obviously subject to interpretation) and then making use of insurance benefits is not exploiting, whereas marrying someone in a sham marriage (e.g., for the explicit purpose of insurance benefits) is exploiting the system.

And while I don't want to repeat myself, for clarity I will say that this is noting that gays are not more prone to sham marriages than anyone else, and that I don't know whether said speaker is engaging in a sham marriage, but I assume that his viewpoint is that he is not.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 09:37 pm (UTC)
If Rick's marriage is a sham, it's one that's lasted through Katrina, giving birth two and raising two kids (to two shotgun marriages) having three (I think) grandkids, and no doubt a lot of stuff I don't know about. Most sham marriages don't last decades. I have no reason to believe that his marriage is anything but legit, and I'd be quite shocked to learn otherwise.

Click through to the message he posted to start the thread. It was basically, "Waaaah! This is a bad decision and I can't believe they did it on my birthday."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

songmonk
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 10:12 pm (UTC)
I had not read the original thread (just your excerpt), but after your last comment, I did.

So right. If he's not engaged in a sham marriage, and he objects to sham marriages (or marriages entered for the explicit purpose of engaging marriage benefits), what's the irony?

I still don't see (well, agree) with the source of his objections, but it's not like he did: I object to foo! I engage in foo!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 10:13 pm (UTC)
"I'm opposed to people who aren't like me engaging in foo! I'm so happy I get the benefits of foo!"
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

songmonk
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 10:19 pm (UTC)
people who aren't like me means "gay people" or "people who engage in sham marriages"?

I think I'm on the same page as you now. Reading the excerpt in your original post demonstrates no self-contradiction on his part. It's just that we know the objection to gay marriage doesn't really have to do with the concern that gays may engage in sham marriages.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


freelikebeer
Subject:The Disconnect
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 12:17 am (UTC)
I think Rick's [unspoken] assertion is that all gay marriages are shams, ergo not deserving of benefits. Posed like it could be a popular exploit for gay people, one that is more likely than the usual thing [love].

He ignores the fact that there are all sorts of other contractual obligations that go along with marriage, and that getting health insurance doesn't really make up for the other exposure.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

songmonk
Subject:Re: The Disconnect
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 12:23 am (UTC)
If that's really what he's saying, then that goes pretty far out in the realm of "do you *seriously* believe that?", even for those who may be opposed to gay marriage.

And yet still, that would fail my irony test.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


freelikebeer
Subject:Re: The Disconnect
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 01:07 am (UTC)
If that's really what he's saying

You are duly skeptical. I was on the other side of a "do you *seriously* believe that?" comment from scottro the other day, which puts me far enough away from Rick that my interpretation may be without appropriate license.

And yet still, that would fail my irony test.

Now, this has become an intriguing semantic discussion. Do you completely discount the presence of irony, or simply see that there is some evidence, but the whole body is neither complete nor consistent enough to rise to the level of being declared ironic?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

songmonk
Subject:Re: The Disconnect
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 01:16 am (UTC)
Actually, I am not skeptical at all. I am trying to be fair, though, and only judge on what was written. If the irony was to be understood from a whole host of context outside of the actual comments referenced, then that's fine; it just wasn't intended for me to appreciate (at least on initial reading).

Heh, not to get too silly, but you know the Alanis Morissette Ironic song? Usually it gets criticized in that some people think most of named situations are not actual examples of irony. For the most part, I've defended her lyrics, using a more liberal definition of irony. One of the looser definitions being something which is at odds with what is expected.

If Rick had been criticizing gays for taking advantage of marriage benefits while he took advantage of marriage benefits, that would strike me as ironic. But to criticize people for exploiting marriage benefits while he (at least in his mind) was not exploiting them (but merely taking advantage of a side benefit of marriage) does not strike me as ironic. If you think he's exploiting marriage benefits, despite what he thinks, then I could see the irony. But I don't think anyone is saying that.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


wordweaverlynn
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 10:37 am (UTC)
Try turning it around.

This guy is in a "real" marriage (based on love and commitment). Therefore, he apparently thinks it's OK for him to get insurance benefits through his partner. (Not to mention the many other benefits, from inheritance laws to immunity from testifying against one's spouse.)

This level of privilege is, in fact, totally invisible to him -- he cannot even see that there is no logical connection between having insurance coverage and the potent combination of sexual preference with romantic commitment. It just comes with the territory.

He never even considers the possibility that het couples might make sham marriages for insurance purposes, because to him the reasons for het marriage are obvious.

Basically, insurance and all the other monetary benefits of marriage are *rewards* for true love -- but only heterosexual true love.

1. You only deserve the monetary benefits of marriage if you don't marry in order to get them. A sham marriage is just for the goodies; a real marriage is based on love. (Tell Donald Trump and his wives that one.)

2. You have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

3. If you're gay or lesbian, you can't marry the person you love. I've heard a hundred times that gays and lesbians already have marriage equality -- they can get married in a het pairing any time they like.

4. Right now, the only kind of marriage that a gay or lesbian can legally have in 48 states is a marriage that is by these rules a sham -- it's not based on love. IRONY ALERT,

5. So now that same-sex couples can get married here, he is worrying that those marriages will not be "real" marriages based on love and commitment, but shams just for the insurance. DOUBLE IRONY ALERT.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


davidjacob
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 05:29 am (UTC)
"I'm opposed to people who aren't like me engaging in foo! I'm so happy I get the benefits of foo!"

His claim is that the people who aren't like him are not actually engaging in foo but simply faking it to get the benefits.

I agree with songmonk that his claims are not ironic, but just objectionable.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 05:56 am (UTC)
Actually, if you read through the thread he claims that it's use of the word marriage that he's opposed to. But he also suggests that one potential problem with same-sex marriage is faking it for benefits. He's not arguing that all same-sex marriages would be shams.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

greeklady
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 11:18 pm (UTC)
Is this genius going to think that benefits are a consumable that is going to be used up if more people sign up?

I think you should have gone out for the case rather than a 6-pack.

*shakes head*

Wow, just wow.
(Reply) (Thread)


catness
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-16 11:23 pm (UTC)
Wow. Special.
(Reply) (Thread)

onthegojo
Subject:Four thoughts
Link:(Link)
Time:2008-05-17 07:13 pm (UTC)
First, I think the guy's comment was *both* ironic and objectionable.

Second, if we had a national healthcare system think of all the middlemen (persons) that would be left out (therefor making healthcare cheaper, but causing mass unemployment) but not having "marriage" be a factor in healthcare. Oh, and more people might be taken care of. Hmm, that's way too advanced for our (currently) backwards country. (imho)

Third, if they outlaw "marriage" between two men, there's a thought that they might outlaw the word "marriage" for heteros. Wouldn't that be funny?

Fourth, again, just as race and religion don't come into play with marriage, why does sexuality? Are we in the dark ages?
(Reply) (Thread)

[icon] They just don't make 'em like they used to - Patti
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.
View:Website (pattib.org).