|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: GLBT is a facade
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
You wrote:
quote:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc.
Clear as day and demonstrably false.
That's why the laws are needed.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It is argued BY sexually moral people
Who are these people and who decides that they are such?
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.
It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.
It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.
Although it would make inheritance and end-of-life care decisions hell. As they are now for many gay couples.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.
It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.
Although it would make inheritance and end-of-life care decisions hell. As they are now for many gay couples.
Not to mention marriage between citizens of different nations....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?
The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".
Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?
"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.
Doesn't this logic lead one to conclude that Loving v. Virginia (the last time the U.S. made a major revision to its marriage laws) was wrongly decided? Allowing inter-racial marriage could be argued to "dilute[] the original meaning of the word "marriage"". In fact, it was argued, as was your point that "ANY shift causes adjustments". If appeals to tradition and prejudice weren't sufficient to justify discrimination in that case, why should those arguments be accepted now?
Because it was understood that objections to inter-racial marriage were largely a modern phenomenon and not grounded in historical marriage prohibitions at all. (and the shifts predicted DID occur; since the civil rights battle days the GLBT(Q?) advocacy has emerged and grown in strength, based on the precedent of victory for racial equality)
The SCOTUS could clearly see and demonstrate "American" prejudice, based solely upon old angst festering since the slavery days. It was specifically THAT prohibition that was being struck down and killed.
Taken to its logical, inescapable conclusion, ALL marriages are inter-racial, since it is proven fact that there is only one homo sapiens with variations only in appearance, not function. "Race" is all in the bigoted mind.
But no society or civilization, contributing to "Western Civilization" today, has offered same-sex unions recognition as legalized "marriages", with all that that implies in the GLBT(Q?) agenda. Call every other legalized union that isn't man and woman "domestic partnerships", I don't care. The word "marriage" means what it has always meant, still (but won't much longer I suspect).
quote:
BTW, the same question can be asked of your proposal for "Separate but Equal" nomenclature for same-sex marriages.
Not separate, anymore than the "suspect classes" under the exact same anti-discrimination laws are separate. Differences do exist; but the laws say they do not allow or admit discrimination based on differences. Everyone deserves the same equal rights.
Besides, the comparison of inter-racial marriage and "gay marriage" is not the same: "we the people" are not united (or even a majority) in trying to forbid homosexuals from obtaining equal rights under the marriage laws; "we" just want other kinds of legalized unions called something else besides "marriage". The bigots back in the day were trying for a complete ban on inter-racial marriage. So the comparison, intending to show an equivalent prejudice, does not stand....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
They don't have legal recourse, in those jurisdictions where discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't prohibited. It is perfectly legal to fire someone because of sexual orientation in jurisdictions where it isn't forbidden. You can take that company to court, but you'll lose. If it isn't explicit in the law, it ain't illegal.
When the SCOTUS rules that it is illegal everywhere in the USA, then the civil cases arising will win everywhere. Of course the comparison to the "Jim Crow" local laws is apt; and the current D.C. and especially Chicago discriminatory gun ordinances designed to skip around the recent rulings that the 2nd Amendment guarantees "an idividual right" that shall not be infringed: eventually, all such local aberrations of tyranny and bigotry will be over-turned because they are trying to enforce what the Constitution says is illegal.
quote:
Quitting a job because of abuse by a supervisor based on race, gender, religion, etc. isn't legal recourse. Often you are throwing accumulated years of service (and the benefits it accrues away.) Many people don't want to leave their jobs. They want the harassment and discrimination to end. That's what these laws are for.
I wasn't advocating that the discriminated against should just find another job: I was stating a fact on the ground. Most people will not fight. Changing the laws will still not make most people fight. They will flee instead. But at least the laws (will) give them the chance to fight if they choose to....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It is argued BY sexually moral people
Who are these people and who decides that they are such?
Laugh-in made fun of them: "the moral majority". But if you question their very existence, we can toss the word "moral(s)" too, along with "marriage", and just define it as "we the people". EveryBODY, man!
"How dare you accuse me of being immoral! What gives YOU the right to tell me what morality means"? Etc.
But my definition of sexual morality ought to be clear enough by now: people who join their lives together, including (often) their bodies in sexual union, and to none other, for as long as both shall live. If they don't have the right to define what sexual morality is, then the right never existed, and the words and their definition didn't either....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.
It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.
You're not serious. But I'll offer the obvious rebuttal anyway: inheritance and property rights are a clear interest of The State. Without clear definitions of what belongs to who and is inherited by whom, chaos and violence are the result....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?
The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".
Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?
"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.
Doesn't this logic lead one to conclude that Loving v. Virginia (the last time the U.S. made a major revision to its marriage laws) was wrongly decided? Allowing inter-racial marriage could be argued to "dilute[] the original meaning of the word "marriage"". In fact, it was argued, as was your point that "ANY shift causes adjustments". If appeals to tradition and prejudice weren't sufficient to justify discrimination in that case, why should those arguments be accepted now?
Because it was understood that objections to inter-racial marriage were largely a modern phenomenon and not grounded in historical marriage prohibitions at all.
<snip>
The SCOTUS could clearly see and demonstrate "American" prejudice, based solely upon old angst festering since the slavery days. It was specifically THAT prohibition that was being struck down and killed.
Do you see the contradiction between claiming that anti-miscegenation laws were "largely a modern phenomenon" and then tying them back to "the slavery days" for a case decided in 1967? At any rate, my point was that the state of Virginia argued, as you do, that the ban on inter-racial marriage was an ancient tradition under their law. The lower court judge who originally upheld the ban went even further.
quote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
That seems to be claiming an even more ancient pedigree for anti-miscegenation laws than you are claiming for anti-same-sex marriage laws. If "ancient tradition" is inadequate to deny inter-racial couples equality under the law, why is it okay to do so for same-sex couples?
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Taken to its logical, inescapable conclusion, ALL marriages are inter-racial, since it is proven fact that there is only one homo sapiens with variations only in appearance, not function. "Race" is all in the bigoted mind.
But no society or civilization, contributing to "Western Civilization" today, has offered same-sex unions recognition as legalized "marriages", with all that that implies in the GLBT(Q?) agenda. Call every other legalized union that isn't man and woman "domestic partnerships", I don't care. The word "marriage" means what it has always meant, still (but won't much longer I suspect).
"Always"? Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race. A hundred years before that it meant a legal agreement under which the wife ceased to be a 'person' under the law. I'd say that the modern notion of marriage as a loving partnership of equals has already destroyed "traditional" marriage, and about time, too. Of course gay couples would consider "a loving partnership of equals" to be a much more accurate description of their own relationships than "an arrangement with strictly defined and legally enforced gender roles", as marriage was seen until recently. Which is why this issue is in many ways about nostalgia for an era of much more rigorously policed gender roles.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Always"? Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race.
This isn't true, by the way. Virginia had such a law, but many (most?) other states didn't.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
According to the Wiki:
Between 1913 and 1940, 31 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. 17 states - Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin (and the federal District of Columbia) never enacted them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
[ 22. October 2010, 20:21: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
According to the Wiki:
Between 1913 and 1940, 31 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. 17 states - Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin (and the federal District of Columbia) never enacted them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
Yes, and if you read further down you'll see that most of these laws - except for those in the South and a few others, about 20 or so states - had been repealed by or before 1960.
[ 22. October 2010, 20:47: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Always"? Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race.
This isn't true, by the way. Virginia had such a law, but many (most?) other states didn't.
Interesting question. According to footnote 5 of Loving v. Virginia there were seventeen states (including Virginia) at the time of filing that had anti-miscegenation laws on the books. According to the 1970 Census (which we'd expect to be fairly close to the 1967 population) these states represent pretty much exactly a third (33.0%) of the U.S. population. Footnote five also notes that there were fourteen other states which had anti-miscegenation laws on the books but had repealed them in the past fifteen years. These additional states represent 18.4% of the U.S. population of the time, meaning that in mid-twentieth century America more than half the population lived with within a jurisdiction that forbade inter-racial (however defined) marriage.
Still, the main point is that the definition of "marriage" has significantly changed over time, contra MtM. A 1968 Gallup poll concluded that 72% of Americans disapproved of inter-racial marriage, so you can see a widespread belief in the general population that such marriages were invalid, or at least "wrong".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.
It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.
You're not serious. But I'll offer the obvious rebuttal anyway: inheritance and property rights are a clear interest of The State. Without clear definitions of what belongs to who and is inherited by whom, chaos and violence are the result....
Rubbish.
All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.
In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.
It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.
All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.
A quick translation: "too lazy to write their own wills" = "too poor to hire a lawyer". While the size of the estate for someone in this position may be tiny by the standards of the state, it can be quite significant to that person's heirs.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.
I note you didn't respond to my point about end-of-life care decisions. EVEN WITH A POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR MEDICAL CARE many states will defer to the family over a long-term gay partner. But not over a spouse.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race. A hundred years before that it meant a legal agreement under which the wife ceased to be a 'person' under the law. I'd say that the modern notion of marriage as a loving partnership of equals has already destroyed "traditional" marriage, and about time, too. Of course gay couples would consider "a loving partnership of equals" to be a much more accurate description of their own relationships than "an arrangement with strictly defined and legally enforced gender roles", as marriage was seen until recently. Which is why this issue is in many ways about nostalgia for an era of much more rigorously policed gender roles.
Your points are all well presented. The logic is inescapable. As I said, "marriage" is going to get co-opted by the GLBT(Q?)s, and nothing the heterosexual "moral majority" can say or do is going to save the word for any heterosexually limited definition: I just marvel at the fact that millions of dollars spent on the issue can be lost with the stroke of a judge's pen. That alone is indication enough that the writing is on the wall for the USA as a whole.
Nevertheless, my personal feeling remains sympathetic to the historical, heterosexual-only definition of "marriage". Your bringing into the definition of "marriage" such things, e.g. the woman ceasing to be her own person 150 years ago, are non sequitur vis-a-vis the sexual ONLY aspect; which is the only one I was defending. I agree, that "marriage" in all other aspects has improved with the changes that have liberated women from virtual servitude and the status of a chattel. But lets not confuse the issue of gender with changing legal status....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.
In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.
It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.
Agreed. But the issue is changing what IS as little as necessary. And "marriage" is the method by which the State adjudicates property rights and inheritance.
You make it look so simple: just toss "marriage" out altogether and bring in something else simple to take its place. If we weren't dealing with people I'd agree. But the whole furor is caused by people who don't want change. What else is new!
An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race. A hundred years before that it meant a legal agreement under which the wife ceased to be a 'person' under the law. I'd say that the modern notion of marriage as a loving partnership of equals has already destroyed "traditional" marriage, and about time, too. Of course gay couples would consider "a loving partnership of equals" to be a much more accurate description of their own relationships than "an arrangement with strictly defined and legally enforced gender roles", as marriage was seen until recently. Which is why this issue is in many ways about nostalgia for an era of much more rigorously policed gender roles.
Your points are all well presented. The logic is inescapable. As I said, "marriage" is going to get co-opted by the GLBT(Q?)s, and nothing the heterosexual "moral majority" can say or do is going to save the word for any heterosexually limited definition: I just marvel at the fact that millions of dollars spent on the issue can be lost with the stroke of a judge's pen. That alone is indication enough that the writing is on the wall for the USA as a whole.
I'll conclude from your disparagement of judicial review that you do indeed think that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. After all, it's a similar example of "the stroke of [nine] judge's pen[s]" disregarding the will of the majority.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nevertheless, my personal feeling remains sympathetic to the historical, heterosexual-only definition of "marriage". Your bringing into the definition of "marriage" such things, e.g. the woman ceasing to be her own person 150 years ago, are non sequitur vis-a-vis the sexual ONLY aspect; which is the only one I was defending. I agree, that "marriage" in all other aspects has improved with the changes that have liberated women from virtual servitude and the status of a chattel. But lets not confuse the issue of gender with changing legal status....
I'm not even sure what you mean by this. That gay couples can get legally married by aren't allowed to have sex? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
At any rate, this is a complete contradiction of your earlier argument that because marriage has "always" been a particular way we daren't change it. Now it seems you're saying we are allowed to make changes to marriage law, like doing away with coverture, but for some unexplained reason we can't do away with the gender restriction.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....
It's always incredibly easy to tell other people to put their lives on hold for the comfort of bigots. It's very rarely productive, though.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
And full circle we come, the "bigot card". Easy dismissal by disparaging the objector as unworthy of consideration; he's a bigot! End of discussion.
And NO, I am not saying anything like "...gay couples can get legally married b[ut] aren't allowed to have sex"??? Where the hell did that come from? I am saying that heterosexual ONLY is a good enough reason to retain the definition of the WORD "marriage" as between man and woman.
Come up with a different word/term for what you want between homosexuals...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.
In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.
It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.
Agreed. But the issue is changing what IS as little as necessary. And "marriage" is the method by which the State adjudicates property rights and inheritance.
You make it look so simple: just toss "marriage" out altogether and bring in something else simple to take its place. If we weren't dealing with people I'd agree. But the whole furor is caused by people who don't want change. What else is new!
An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....
Let's see... the easiest thing to change out of what IS would be... one line in the definition of marriage!
Thanks Merlin, I'm glad you agree with us. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 24. October 2010, 00:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.
I note you didn't respond to my point about end-of-life care decisions. EVEN WITH A POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR MEDICAL CARE many states will defer to the family over a long-term gay partner. But not over a spouse.
I note I didn't respond either. That would be because I was busy playing devil's advocate and you actually made a GOOD point that was far harder to refute than Merlin's focus on inheritance.
I've said it a couple of times already, but I'll say it again. Putting aside my own views about the acceptability of gay marriage on a moral ground, the ridiculous complexity created by having 'separate but equal' categories just raises my hackles as a legislative drafter.
Homosexual couples have exactly the same needs as heterosexual ones when it comes to inheritance, to end-of-life care decisions, and for every other area where you might want the law to take note of who your family members are.
Having different tracks for establishing who your family is, depending on gender, and making one group of people go through much more complicated and problematic hoops while allowing the other people to take the marriage fast-track is precisely the kind of legal complexity that I would be telling my clients to get rid of. If the intention is to give the same end result in terms of rights, then use the same track. Change one line in the definition of marriage and hey presto, an entire body of recognised law is applicable. IT'S THE SIMPLEST CHANGE.
As the Californian judge observed in his excellent judgment, the only argument against doing this is a moral one, not a legal one. And as I think the moral argument depends on a bad misreading of the Bible, I certainly don't think the law should be reflecting it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.
In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.
It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.
Agreed. But the issue is changing what IS as little as necessary. And "marriage" is the method by which the State adjudicates property rights and inheritance.
You make it look so simple: just toss "marriage" out altogether and bring in something else simple to take its place. If we weren't dealing with people I'd agree. But the whole furor is caused by people who don't want change. What else is new!
An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....
Let's see... the easiest thing to change out of what IS would be... one line in the definition of marriage!
Thanks Merlin, I'm glad you agree with us.
The irony is that it is usually CONSERVATIVES who complain that laws are too complex and should be simpler and shorter.
Yet because of their opposition to simply extending marriage to gay couples, conservatives are prepared to endure increased bureaucracy and more complex legislation because many of them at least acknowledge the injustice of denying a person the right to see their partner in the hospital.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.
I note you didn't respond to my point about end-of-life care decisions. EVEN WITH A POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR MEDICAL CARE many states will defer to the family over a long-term gay partner. But not over a spouse.
I note I didn't respond either. That would be because I was busy playing devil's advocate and you actually made a GOOD point that was far harder to refute than Merlin's focus on inheritance.
Oh. I guess I failed to pick up that you were playing devil's advocate. Sorry 'bout that. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Don't worry, it just proves I was doing it well.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The irony is that it is usually CONSERVATIVES who complain that laws are too complex and should be simpler and shorter.
Yet because of their opposition to simply extending marriage to gay couples, conservatives are prepared to endure increased bureaucracy and more complex legislation because many of them at least acknowledge the injustice of denying a person the right to see their partner in the hospital.
You got it in a nutshell. Wish I could have said it that simply.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You got it in a nutshell. Wish I could have said it that simply.
Given what you do for a living, it's frightening hearing you say that. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Come up with a different word/term for what you want between homosexuals...
Why? If marriage is seen as an exchange of love, respect, honesty, and fidelity between two consenting adults; and LGBTQ people are capable of providing and exchanging these goods; then why have a different word?
You continue to use the word "traditional" with regard to marriage, although I'm guessing you didn't like my helpful definition of the traditional view of marriage (a deal made between two men in which x number of animals were exchanged for one virginally-intact housekeeper).
I considered what time frame of marriage you might think is "traditional." You grant that it is not about a woman being property, but you seem still to want it to be about heterosexual reproduction.
That gives you a pretty narrow historical window. In Canada, women were not officially "persons under the law" until 1929: link here (or go to Wikipedia for the case of Edwards v. Canada, the "persons" case). On the other hand, chemical birth control became legal in Canada in 1969, which legally cuts the tie between sex and reproduction. So that forty-year window somehow becomes the standard, preferable, "traditional" definition of marriage. Why? Why should that brief historical moment become defining and binding on everyone?
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Come up with a different word/term for what you want between homosexuals...
Why? If marriage is seen as an exchange of love, respect, honesty, and fidelity between two consenting adults; and LGBTQ people are capable of providing and exchanging these goods; then why have a different word?
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify? And how long is this homosexuals acronym going to get?
You have different words when there is a DIFFERENCE. Heterosexuals invented the word "marriage". "They" have owned it for thousands of years. In all cultures and civilizations contributing to "Western Civilization" (the one Judeo-Christians are concerned about, because we live here), "marriage" has always been heterosexual.
Bringing up qualifiers, as lately done on this thread, to show how "marriage" has changed as society has progressed, is using a double standard in order to win the quibble-fest. "You" say, "it isn't about sex at all, it's about loving relationships". As the legality of the marriage contract has changed, the loving relationships of heterosexuals have changed HOW, exactly?
It cannot be shown that the altered legal status of women has altered the emotional context of marriage one bit. So asserting some emotional "higher moral ground" for homosexuals is a ridiculous ploy that cannot possibly be shown, so it is useless in any debate.
As "marriage" has always been the contract by which men and women bind themselves to each other legally it ought to remain defined as such. Fertility has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The marriage remained just as valid after decades of barrenness, right back into OT times. A man could not divorce his wife except for immorality on her part. In some cultures the woman had the right to divorce her husband for this and other reasons. Infertility was never one of them.
So "traditional" applies to the USA only as I use it; the combined marriage traditions caused ours to be strictly Judeo-Christian. That is, one man and one woman. All other aspects are non sequitur to the legality of the thing.
"Separation of church and state" has rendered "marriage" a purely secular thing; the religious overtones are gone from the legally recognized contract. So all recourse by me or any other advocate of the "traditional" meaning of "marriage, is at best supportable only on the grounds of the majority having the right to define what a word in the legalese means. If the majority find a way to vote on the legalese in the upcoming changes to the marriage laws, you will see the word "marriage" reserved for man and woman. That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.
Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society. And I thought that what "you" wanted more than anything else, is to be accepted, validated, and ultimately ignored by heterosexuals; so that "you" can go about living normally, invisibly and happily like anyone else. The way to do that is to avoid friction and divisiveness as much as possible. But as this thread shows, again: the GLBT(Q?) advocacy is after total victory at any price. That is the facade, because it takes everything unto itself and gives nothing in return. It IS about gaining special status: "you" can even rework the dictionary against the opinions of the majority....
(edit caught typo)
[ 24. October 2010, 15:36: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Um .... surely all we need to do is change it from 'one man and one woman' to 'two people'
Job done, no fuss, no problem - no other change needed. And certainly no change to society - except an improvement in equality.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Um .... surely all we need to do is change it from 'one man and one woman' to 'two people'
Job done, no fuss, no problem - no other change needed. And certainly no change to society - except an improvement in equality.
That's all they did in Canada.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Leaf, women were never property in the laws of Canada (or the laws of England that preceded them), and that "persons" case isn't about what you seem to think it is. You don't help a strong position quoting dodgy easily myths about the recent past.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify?
Queer
quote:
And how long is this homosexuals acronym going to get?
As long as it takes
quote:
..."Western Civilization" (the one Judeo-Christians are concerned about, because we live here), ...
WTF is a "Judeo-Christian"? I've never met one.
Does it include Mormons? If it does it ought to include Muslims whose religion is far closer to Judaism than Mormnonism is.
quote:
As "marriage" has always been the contract by which men and women bind themselves to each other legally
Yes, obviously
quote:
it ought to remain defined as such.
Why?
quote:
Fertility has nothing whatsoever to do with it.[...] Infertility was never one of them.
Thats not true, there have been plently of legal codes in which infertility was grounds for divorce.
quote:
That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.
Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society.
This is the part of your argument that is utter bollocks. I mean really its drivel. You obviously haven't thought it through.
Yes, all known human societies have recognised marriage. I agree with you there, In fact I go further. It looks quite likely that that sort of arrangement is pretty much soft-wired into our brains - if we didn't have it people would reinvent it, its the kind of thing that comes up again and again because its very natural to us.
Yes marriage is basically a contract between a man and a woman such that the woman's children (if she has any) are by default regarded as the man's children as well. That is the basis of what it is.
So yes, a civil partnership between two women, or two men, is noit in that sense a marriage. Even if it brings with it exactly the same legal rights and duties as a marriage. Fine, I agree with you.
But, if two people in such a partnership sentimentally think reasons that it is a marriage, and they want a wedding with the pretty dresses and pink champagne, what inconvenience is it to me?
And if some government or other decides to call such partnerships "marriage" in some law or other, who is harmed? The reality of the thing is not altered, only the name they use. You and me can carry on using the word for men and women together if we ewant. What on earth is the problem?
quote:
But as this thread shows, again: the GLBT(Q?) advocacy is after total victory at any price. That is the facade, because it takes everything unto itself and gives nothing in return. It IS about gaining special status: "you" can even rework the dictionary against the opinions of the majority....
I can't argue against that because there is nothing to argue against. Clearly ABCDEFG people are not out for "total victory at any price" if only because there are loads of them and they don't all agree on these issues. Nothing is taken from anyone by redefining gay partnerships as "marriage". There is no special status involved.
And as for dictionaries, dictionaries reflect usage, if people really call such things "marriage" then it gets in the dictionary, so what? Would you edit the AtoZ of London or the map of New York City to remove streets with gay nightclubs on them? Why try to edit dictionaries to remove word usages that originated with gays?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
"Q" can also be "questioning", a term applied to people trying to figure out what they are.
Human sexuality is as complex as human beings are. It should be no surprise that there would be a few initials.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
ken: Point taken, although you may be attributing to me a more simplistic interpretation than the one I actually hold. Before 1929 in Canada, the law was such that, on the basis of an 1876 British common law ruling, quote:
"women were eligible for pains and penalties, but not rights and privileges."
Isn't that delightful? Women were not considered fully persons under the law, with rights to launch legal action, hold a seat in Parliament or the Senate, etc.
While not officially considered chattel property, women had no independent legal standing. From a legal standpoint, they had as little voice in proceedings as a child, a pet, or a box of widgets.
Upthread, Croesos helpfully linked to the legal doctrine of coverture, in which (according to Wikipedia) "a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband. Coverture was enshrined in the common law of England and the United States throughout most of the 19th century."
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
MerlintheMad: So your essential objection to the use of "marriage" when used of LGBTQ* legal relationships is that it's rude? Have I got that right? Even if I agreed with your concept of an offended majority - which I don't necessarily - how long should LGBTQ* people wait until what is rightfully theirs is granted?
Didn't the US have this conversation in the context of racial desegregation? Do you think African American people should have waited until it was broadly socially acceptable for them to have the same rights and public access as other Americans? Would they still be waiting?
*I left off 2S, for "two-spirited", in deference to your confusion about Q ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
"Q" can also be "questioning", a term applied to people trying to figure out what they are.
Human sexuality is as complex as human beings are. It should be no surprise that there would be a few initials.
Peterson Toscano, who sometimes posts on this Ship, has a wonderful skit on that. Ends up using pretty mich the whole alphabet.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
ken: Point taken, although you may be attributing to me a more simplistic interpretation than the one I actually hold. Before 1929 in Canada, the law was such that, on the basis of an 1876 British common law ruling, [QUOTE] "women were eligible for pains and penalties, but not rights and privileges."
Which British common law ruling was that? I've got a horrid feeling that this is one of those tales that grows in the telling.
quote:
While not officially considered chattel property,
That's true.
quote:
women had no independent legal standing. From a legal standpoint, they had as little voice in proceedings as a child, a pet, or a box of widgets.
That isn't true either. Women could be accused of crimes and could accuse others of crimes and cpld address the court both as witnesses and in their cown defence. That's not the same as full legal equality with men - for exam,ple they couldnt be lawyers - but its far
Just more or less randomly browsing through the online
proceedings of the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey), the second case I came to has a women dfendant and women witnesses, who spoke in court.
Women could also prosecute in court. Up to the late 18th or early 19th century most cases were brought privagtely and the victim of the crime was often the prosecutor as well as the chief witness. According to that website about one in seven 18th century prosecutions was brought by a woman. (About half the victims of crime were but married women's cases were often brought by their husband)
Same for civil cases. The online records of the Court of Equity has thousands of cases involvng women plaintiffs from as far back as the 17th century.
It is certainly true that women were disadvantaged, unfairly treated, and intimidated by courts (though, then as now, they tended to receive lighter sentences than men convicted of the same crime). But its not true that they had no more voice in court than a box.
quote:
Upthread, Croesos helpfully linked to the legal doctrine of coverture, in which (according to Wikipedia) "a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband.
Yes. And while it was tremendously unfair in practice to women its not at all the same thing as women not being legal persons. And certainly nothing like the idea that women were property.
Which is one reason I get pissed off when people say they were.
By misrepresenting the immediate past this body of legend makes what we have achieved seem far more than it really is. Its fodder for the reactionary bigots who purport that feminism has achieved its ends, or even "gone too far" and that its time to start going backwards.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
ken: The main website I've used from Wikipedia, "Edwards v. Canada", cannot be linked with the URL thing because it has brackets ("The Persons Case"). That was where I got the quote about women being subject to pains and penalties but not rights and privileges. This seems more narrative and less researched than the Wiki page, but you get the idea.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You got it in a nutshell. Wish I could have said it that simply.
Given what you do for a living, it's frightening hearing you say that.
Hey, I've got to give my brain some time off occasionally.
EDIT: Also, the thought of taking as long to compose a Ship post, and getting it cleared by someone first... if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.
[ 24. October 2010, 21:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.
And this is different from your normal mode of posting how?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify?
Queer
But that is a slur? Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, are all terms applied by homosexuals to themselves. "Queer" is derogatory, like "faggot", and other even less complimentary terms applied by heterosexuals. So why tack "Q" onto the acronym?
quote:
quote:
..."Western Civilization" (the one Judeo-Christians are concerned about, because we live here), ...
WTF is a "Judeo-Christian"? I've never met one.
Does it include Mormons? If it does it ought to include Muslims whose religion is far closer to Judaism than Mormnonism is.
Yes, all the biblical, monotheistic religions. Mormonism is too, being a direct off-shoot of Protestant Christianity.
quote:
quote:
As "marriage" has always been the contract by which men and women bind themselves to each other legally
Yes, obviously
quote:
quote:
it ought to remain defined as such.
Why?
Because, the majority want it that way. Since when is democracy supposed to be a tyranny of the minority over the majority? If the minority are not in any way inconvenienced or deprived of their rights, what right do they have to demand and obtain a legalese that the majority objects to?
quote:
quote:
Fertility has nothing whatsoever to do with it.[...] Infertility was never one of them.
Thats not true, there have been plently of legal codes in which infertility was grounds for divorce.
Really, I haven't heard. "Plenty".
quote:
quote:
That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.
Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society.
This is the part of your argument that is utter bollocks. I mean really its drivel. You obviously haven't thought it through.
...
And if some government or other decides to call such partnerships "marriage" in some law or other, who is harmed? The reality of the thing is not altered, only the name they use. You and me can carry on using the word for men and women together if we want. What on earth is the problem?
I obviously haven't thought it through enough to be able to form a cogent reply.
You don't accept that the feelings of a major segment of society are valid; rather like the same (mostly) segment being annoyed or angered by the blatant intrusion of Islamists near Ground Zero. But the REAL WORLD is perceived through feelings. Emotions inherent in your neighbors are real things. To continually dismiss them as "not thought through enough" is hubris. And it will bite you and all of us in the ass....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify?
Queer
But that is a slur? Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, are all terms applied by homosexuals to themselves. "Queer" is derogatory, like "faggot", and other even less complimentary terms applied by heterosexuals. So why tack "Q" onto the acronym?
I think it's one of those 're-claimed' words. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer
I've never really understood what its non-derogatory use means, though.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Yes, all the biblical, monotheistic religions. Mormonism is too, being a direct off-shoot of Protestant Christianity.
But don't Mormons believe that all good Mormons (males anyway) get to become gods?
If true, it doesn't fit any definition of monotheism that I've heard.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because, the majority want it that way. Since when is democracy supposed to be a tyranny of the minority over the majority? If the minority are not in any way inconvenienced or deprived of their rights, what right do they have to demand and obtain a legalese that the majority objects to?
That's a pretty big 'if' right there. The whole idea that the majority gets to dictate what the minority even calls themselves in order to maintain a distinction under law between the two groups seems to be at the same time petty and dangerous.
The whole nomenclature argument is such an apparent contradiction that it's almost always advanced either in bad faith or without much thought. The argument is that everyone would be perfectly fine with gays, just so long as they don't get "uppity" and pretend that they're as good as straight folks. Sure they can have their rights, but only so long as they acknowldege that their civil unions or domestic partnerships or sodomitic pairings or whatever other term the majority finially agrees is acceptable are so completely different from good, godly straight marriages that they need a whole different category under the law. In other words, saying that the right name will make everything better is an argument that, at its base denies the idea that gay couples are the equals of straight couples.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And full circle we come, the "bigot card". Easy dismissal by disparaging the objector as unworthy of consideration; he's a bigot! End of discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.
Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society.
<snip>
You don't accept that the feelings of a major segment of society are valid; rather like the same (mostly) segment being annoyed or angered by the blatant intrusion of Islamists near Ground Zero. But the REAL WORLD is perceived through feelings. Emotions inherent in your neighbors are real things. To continually dismiss them as "not thought through enough" is hubris. And it will bite you and all of us in the ass....
I don't think it's reasonable to recycle a bunch of pro-Segregation arguments (just stick in 'gay' wherever it says 'negro' and you're good to go!) and then object when someone comments on the prejudice involved. When you advance a position that we should pander to the sensibilities of bigots (people who, in your terms, get pissed off at the suggestion that gay unions are the same as their own marriages) you shouldn't be surprised when it's noticed that you're pandering to the sensibilities of bigots.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The logic is inescapable. As I said, "marriage" is going to get co-opted by the GLBT(Q?)s, and nothing the heterosexual "moral majority" can say or do is going to save the word for any heterosexually limited definition: I just marvel at the fact that millions of dollars spent on the issue can be lost with the stroke of a judge's pen. That alone is indication enough that the writing is on the wall for the USA as a whole.
You used the scare quotes. I agree with them, BTW. Neither moral nor majority.
Co-opt? Overreaching a bit there. Opt-in, perhaps.
The bottom line is that you want to maintain your heterosexual privilege. In the US, at least, the foundational principle of the constitution (all being equal before the law) supports my point of view.
Get over it and spend your energy and passion on reducing the divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples. That's the tragedy.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Sorry for trying to inject a little levity. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
I'll see your sorry and raise you. My misinterpretation. Sorry.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
Merlin,
You have asserted several times that "the majority" want marriage ro remain defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. Can you provide a link to a report of a survey or something to back that up?
Joanna
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
