****Warning.. some may view the following as potentially offensive***
So, After very much enjoyed a clip that a friend of ours mentioned in their blog I had an intriging thought come to mind.. At the end of the clip, they had people saying what they considered to be “Small Town Values” which spurred the following.
So take a hypothetical walk with me if you will… Lets talk about a gentleman named .. Joe.
Joe has a dear friend named Nicholas. Nicholas has a debilitating disease that has robbed him of many of the things that he has previously taken for granted… Things that many of us takes for granted. Joe ended up giving up his home in order to stay with and help out his best friend.
Even with the struggles he faces, Nicholas has a true blessing in his best friend Joe, who time and time again proves to be the kind of friend that anyone would want. Even though Nicholas has family, there are distance and availability issues that prevent Nicholas’s family from being able to care for their loved one.
As the years pass by Joe continues to take care of his best friend, making sacrifices and seeing to it that Nicholas is taken care of. Helping him schedule trips to the doctor, as well as making sure Nicholas has food and medicines that he needs.
Things aren’t going well health-wise for Nicholas. Nicholas, with his wits still intact, makes a decision that though he has very little to his name, he would like to leave the few assets he has to the man who has proved to be his best friend and caretaker.
Now.. without going into the legality of all that thought.. let me ask you a question.
Would you as an individual want to deny Nicholas of his wish? What kind of reasoning would you have? Just curious..
~~~ story briefly interrupted~~
With my 10 year old looking over my shoulder as I write this.. she asks me what I’m doing. I tell her I’m writing a story.. I read her the story above and then I pose her the same question I just asked you..
‘Would you as an individual want to deny Nicholas of his wish? What kind of reasoning would you have?’
My daughter innocently replies “Of course not”
“But Joe isn’t really his family” I state, playing devil’s advocate.. (and at this point interested in what she is going to say now.. “Does that matter?”
“No” she says sweetly “because he’s like family, he takes care of him”
“Good Point” I say, and wink at her and send her off to bed…
hmm… from the mouth of babes.. 🙂
Would you want someone else to determine who you are able to entrust your worldly possessions to after you pass on? I’m not sure that anyone would… but I could be wrong..
ok now back to the story….
Now unfortunately, things take a turn for the worse.. and Nicholas succumbs to the disease. Sadly it takes his life quickly, even before Nicholas gets the opportunity to completely finish out his will. Joe is devastated. Not because he didn’t “get” anything, but because his best friend of 12 years, the one he’s devoted a good chunk of his time and energy into caring for and laughing with is gone.
Do you think it kinda sad still that Nicholas’s wishes didn’t end up being upheld? Personally I think it kind of is. Living with someone that long, In some states – had one of them been of the female persuasion-, it may have even been viewed as a common-law marriage of sorts.. But that wasn’t the case here, just two best friends, caring and sharing time with each other. Still seems kind of sad doesn’t it?
I suppose one could argue that it wasn’t like they were a couple or anything…. but….um….what if they were?
Are you shocked? Does it change how you feel about the situation now? Had they been a gay couple, would it remove any sympathies you previously had for this hypothetical story of mine?
Ah.. the power of simple terms… “Gay”
“Small town Values”
Ok.. explanation time.. at the end of the clip mentioned at the very top of this post, I noticed how often “Small Town Values” equated to a description that included “traditional marriages” in this bit. The show is comedy geared towards getting a laugh, but I thought it was kind of interesting.. got me to thinking a little…
Anyone in our country has the right to spend their life with whomever they want. Currently doesn’t mean they can always necessarily be legally “married”, but for the most part, individuals choose who they spend their time with. We are free to choose. But isn’t it slightly disturbing that despite this, the state still decides who is eligible for what ever “benefits” we may have, and has regulations on who they can be allotted to?
Health insurance for example.. really, if someone is willing to pay monthly for another person to be covered on their health plan why not let them? If I decided that I wanted to have a random friend – say from church, “covered” on my plan, and I was willing to pay all the fees associated (which is what I do for my husband and children anyway,). Why is it different? really?
I have friends that I consider to be part of my family, so why can’t I make the determination of who is an eligible part of my “family”? The worst case is that person would now have the same crappy insurance I do right? .. lol ^^ (just a joke.. kinda)
Some will say the reason is because they aren’t blood related to me…. but neither is my husband, and I can cover him. Neither is an adopted child, but I doubt people would argue there…
If you take sexuality preference out of the equation, does it make it more of an ample solution?