homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » GLBT is a facade (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: GLBT is a facade
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142

 - Posted      Profile for amber.   Email amber.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

Oy, that's my job! [Disappointed]
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142

 - Posted      Profile for amber.   Email amber.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
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

No sign of that majority in the UK.

From an article by The Times on 23 Feb 2010:

"Two key pieces of research show that there had indeed been a revolution in attitudes.

Fewer than a third of the population believe homosexuality is wrong, compared with two thirds in 1980s, according to the latest survey of British Social Attitudes.

And a poll carried out for The Times last summer to mark the anniversary of the Stonewall riots 40 years ago found that the public wanted to see greater liberalisation in the law.

Almost two thirds (61 per cent) want gay couples to be able to marry, just like the rest of the population, not just have civil partnerships, while 68 per cent of the public back “full equal rights” for gay men and lesbians, suggesting that the Church, which opposes the ordination of gay priests, is out of touch with public opinion. "

Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
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

Proposition 8. As a majority of Californians popularly voted to pass it, and it's all about protecting the original meaning and traditional sanctity of "marriage" (and not about equal rights being denied), then that says "majority" to me. How is the rest of the country different? Isn't it a maxim that "as California goes, so goes the rest of the USA"?...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
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.
"Scare quotes". Haven't heard of qualifying quotes as that before. The quotes ought properly to have been around "moral" only, if we are being literal: but "majority" is uncontrovertible, heteros being 90+% of the population
quote:


Co-opt? Overreaching a bit there. Opt-in, perhaps.

Well of course, saying it that way is an attempt to drive home that the majority opinion is just plain wrong.
quote:


The bottom line is that you want to maintain your heterosexual privilege.

Weird! So if and when the majority of heterosexuals decide that homosexuals are no different, and that sex is just sex: THEN the minority of heterosexuals will become unprivileged, how exactly? See? That doesn't work.

There is currently some inequality in the laws that needs shoring up: to assure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. But that need does not admit a right to tyrannize the majority or any other minority.

quote:

In the US, at least, the foundational principle of the constitution (all being equal before the law) supports my point of view.

And mine as well. Democracy allows the majority to vote in what they WANT, so long as equal rights are not denied or taken away. We can't all have all our wants realized; that's not possible. But we can and will have our rights respected and guaranteed. Rights are NOT wants. And the only way for wants to be granted to the majority is by popular vote. When you turn this fundamental privilege of a community/Nation on its ear, then democracy is dead and tyranny of the few over the many has taken its place. And THAT state of affairs, as I quipped, will bite everyone in the ass.
quote:


Get over it and spend your energy and passion on reducing the divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples. That's the tragedy.

What I have trouble getting over, is this dichotomy of logic. On the one hand "marriage" is a perceived right, including co-opting the definition of the word. And then "you" assert that marriage among heterosexuals (the only kind, still, in 90+% of the USA), is a broken mess. Why would you want to associate "yourselves" with it at all? "You" further assert that "you" will do it better: "you" will show us heteros how it's supposed to be done. (e.g. "I don't know any heteros who have been together that long")

Since "you" continually point to your special love for each other, why not "divorce" yourselves from "marriage" altogether, as it has such a negative, failed connotation? "You" are getting your equal rights anyway. So there isn't a "heterosexual privilege" at all: aside from our disgustingly high divorce rate. Some privilege! Take your equal rights when you get them; but before that, leave the heteros to their "sacred matrimony" and their deplorable failure rate....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Isn't it a maxim that "as California goes, so goes the rest of the USA"?...

Possibly but it is not a common one over here. [Big Grin]

On the previous page you have referred to "an enormous segment of society" and "a major segment of society", which to my mind at least, implies more than the 52% who approved Prop. 8 - but perhaps this is another pond difference.

--------------------
"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
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There is currently some inequality in the laws that needs shoring up: to assure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. But that need does not admit a right to tyrannize the majority or any other minority.

This is what I thought of when imagining such a "tyrannizing" force.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.
Not half as dangerous as the tyranny of the few over the many. Because MOST people behave well in large groups. The same is not true of small, elite groups, as history proves time and again without fail.

You are arguing a double standard here, still. Somehow "gays" (another co-opted word, soon to be joined by "queer" and "questioning") ought to be able to demand wants as rights over the feelings of the majority.

What will happen, I suspect, is that the majority will unwisely cave to "you"; being, as I said, good in large groups: and good people tire of fighting and bickering and so they back off and let "you" have your way. But being human, the majority bear a long resentment: e.g. "the cause is not dead" in the Southern States is alive and well, because the way the North "fixed" the broken things was heavy-handed and still rankles. So turning your back on majority feeling is both denial and stupid.
quote:


The whole nomenclature argument is such an apparent contradiction that it's almost always advanced either in bad faith or without much thought.

"Almost always"? That means you assert a majority of heteros are bigots.

I am not surprised that you don't allow the third MOST common option: that the majority are not typical of the tarbrushing the Lib Media paints them with: that "you" believe to be characteristic of the majority. I pointed this out about homosexuals in the popular view, early in this thread: how the Media is not a trustworthy source of information, vis-a-vis IDing the majority character: it is only good/reliable for IDing the weirdos and aggitators, the news-making minority segment.

If you're going to assume/assert that objection to the co-opting of "marriage" is "advanced either in bad faith or without much thought", by the heterosexual majority, then you have to allow that the same tarbrushing is true of the GLBT advocacy.

quote:

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. ...

Perfect example of tarbrushing. A FEW bigots believe this. Or are the only enlightened people the 2/3 majority in the UK who now "see the light"?

quote:


...

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.

Selective prejudice, and tarbrushing the majority with it. As I said, it works both ways.

quote:

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.

Of course the wants of the majority can be co-opted by the bigoted minority. How else do bigots get to argue? They steal the good lines and positions of the majority (who are almost always right, and when not, can be convinced by what is right if reasoned with), and twist that to their own purposes.

And it isn't having to listen to "you" asserting that your life-long relationships are as good as ours, that pisses off the majority of heteros: it is having to admit that "gay unions are the same as [our] own marriages" that pisses off the majority: it is changing the word, stealing it, and making definitions go away.

The compulsion here is threatening to make the legalese admit an equality of "good" that isn't there, at all, in the minds of most heteros. BUT, "you" have already believed/felt this about heterosexuality since the beginning of time! The majority has never convinced "you" to feel or believe otherwise. What makes you think that heteros are suddenly or even eventually going to change their attitude to "your partnerships are just as good as ours"? "Good as" has nothing to do with equal rights. We The People allow all minority positions equal protection under the aegis of "civil rights". But our feelings and opinions about minorities are not going to change anytime soon if ever.

Here's what will happen: not being able to "save marriage" for the legalese, the majority will opt to refuse its use at all. If they can't have it, at least they can keep "you" from having it too. I predict that something as facile as "domestic partnership" will be what replaces "marriage" in the legalese.

And all this becomes requisite, because way back when, the Gov't over-stepped its authority and co-opted what was supposed to be essentially a religious rite, and was never intended to be defined by Gov't as a civil right or legally, secularly, recognized institution. The trouble didn't manifest, until Church and State were irrevocably severed: the Founders didn't even see it coming with their "separation of church and state": they thought they were protecting the privilege of private worship: and instead they opened it up to assault by the State, pressured into that assault by a clamorous minority demanding wants over the right of the majority to choose how they want to word their laws....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Isn't it a maxim that "as California goes, so goes the rest of the USA"?...

Possibly but it is not a common one over here. [Big Grin]

On the previous page you have referred to "an enormous segment of society" and "a major segment of society", which to my mind at least, implies more than the 52% who approved Prop. 8 - but perhaps this is another pond difference.

Don't confuse the actively voting percentage as the ONLY opinion still in objection. As I said, the main mass of people will throw in the towel, and fall squarely into the category of, "s/he who is convinced against their will is of the same opinion still". Why else do the main mass of voters not vote? Because they have no opinion? Of course, it is apathy and disillusionment and being demoralized by failure, etc....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There is something deeply weird going on in this thread and I have no idea what it is. Something I am just not getting. [Confused]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is something deeply weird going on in this thread and I have no idea what it is. Something I am just not getting. [Confused]

I might suggest you consider who started the thread. I do believe you would find the answer there.

As Merlin has just made clear, his world only includes the US and nothing that happens outside matters to him.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Merlin,

So can you provide some evidence to back up your assertions which I can take at face value?

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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

Oy, that's my job! [Disappointed]
Different corner. [Razz]

--------------------
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
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's what will happen: not being able to "save marriage" for the legalese, the majority will opt to refuse its use at all. If they can't have it, at least they can keep "you" from having it too. I predict that something as facile as "domestic partnership" will be what replaces "marriage" in the legalese.

Ooh, science! You have made a prediction, and I can tell you how it actually worked out, because here in Canada we have gay marriage. Not "civil unions", marriage. And this is what has happened: People still get married. No one has knelt down and said, "Sweetheart, will you domestically partner with me but I can't ask you to marry me because teh gayz have the word?" People still get married, pay caterers, and have uncles get drunk at their weddings.

I'm not saying this doesn't cause me the occasional head-snap. Yesterday on local radio they were interviewing "[John Doe] and his husband" who had an inflatable pumpkin stolen from their Halloween yard display. It left me thinking that I hope they get their pumpkin back. [Big Grin]

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:

iGeek wrote:
Co-opt? Overreaching a bit there. Opt-in, perhaps.

quote:

MerlineTheMad wrote:
Well of course, saying it that way is an attempt to drive home that the majority opinion is just plain wrong.

In this case, it is. It's not like it hasn't happened before.

quote:

MerlinTheMad wrote:
There is currently some inequality in the laws that needs shoring up: to assure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. But that need does not admit a right to tyrannize the majority or any other minority.

You're going to have to expand a bit on how recognizing the right for one person to marry the one they love tyrannizes any other couple in any meaningful way. In the Prop 8 case, the opposition were given opportunity to make that argument with regard to same-sex couples and the prop 8 proponents failed spectacularly.

quote:

iGeek wrote:
In the US, at least, the foundational principle of the constitution (all being equal before the law) supports my point of view.

quote:

MerlineTheMad wrote:
And mine as well. Democracy allows the majority to vote in what they WANT, so long as equal rights are not denied or taken away.

That's the nub of the issue as made plain in the opposition filing to the stay in the Prop 8 decision - majority WANTs don't get to trump fundamental rights:
quote:

Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution

quote:

MerlinTheMad wrote:
"you" assert that marriage among heterosexuals (the only kind, still, in 90+% of the USA), is a broken mess.

The divorce statistics would seem to support that.

The non-sequitur here is that excluding same-sex couples from the institution somehow "protects" it. It's stated as a self-obvious truth but it isn't obvious and no-one seems to be able to connect the lines with any logic that would stand the light of legal review. It all comes down to "because I say so". And that's not good enough for a constitutional standard.

quote:

MerlinTheMad wrote:
Since "you" continually point to your special love for each other, why not "divorce" yourselves from "marriage" altogether

Some gay folks hold that view. I don't. I'm a US citizen and I want to be treated equally under the law. So sorry that you find that threatens your privilege.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's what will happen: not being able to "save marriage" for the legalese, the majority will opt to refuse its use at all. If they can't have it, at least they can keep "you" from having it too. I predict that something as facile as "domestic partnership" will be what replaces "marriage" in the legalese.

Ooh, science! You have made a prediction, and I can tell you how it actually worked out, because here in Canada we have gay marriage. Not "civil unions", marriage. And this is what has happened: People still get married. No one has knelt down and said, "Sweetheart, will you domestically partner with me but I can't ask you to marry me because teh gayz have the word?" People still get married, pay caterers, and have uncles get drunk at their weddings.

Canadian sky defies predictions that it will fall for the 1,925th straight day. Details at 11.

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

Oy, that's my job! [Disappointed]
Different corner. [Razz]
Shake hands, you two, then retreat to your corners.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142

 - Posted      Profile for amber.   Email amber.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There is currently some inequality in the laws that needs shoring up: to assure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. But that need does not admit a right to tyrannize the majority or any other minority.

This is what I thought of when imagining such a "tyrannizing" force.
[Big Grin]
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Time to inject a different perspective:

There's a Fundamental Wrong in Letting Some People Marry

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
[Killing me] Horseman Bree

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
...

The non-sequitur here is that excluding same-sex couples from the institution somehow "protects" it. It's stated as a self-obvious truth but it isn't obvious and no-one seems to be able to connect the lines with any logic that would stand the light of legal review. It all comes down to "because I say so". And that's not good enough for a constitutional standard.

I haven't said anything about protecting marriage, the institution, by retaining the historical definition: man and woman. Why change the historical meaning of the word? The inter-racial objections have nothing whatsoever to do with redefining "man and woman" as marriage. The divorce rate has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument about what "marriage" means: "man and woman". Nothing at all is required in addition to that definition, in order to uphold it if the majority of people say so. Will the people say so? - in a legal, popularly mandated way, I mean. Who can say? I have already shared my prediction; that "marriage" will be successfully taken control of by the GLBTQs. There will be a fight (too late) by the heteros to strike all legalese use of "marriage"; but it will fail.

quote:
quote:

MerlinTheMad wrote:
Since "you" continually point to your special love for each other, why not "divorce" yourselves from "marriage" altogether

Some gay folks hold that view. I don't. I'm a US citizen and I want to be treated equally under the law. So sorry that you find that threatens your privilege.

So if the word "marriage" gets stricken out of all the legalese, will you be treated equally then? Will you gain or lose some asserted privilege?...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Time to inject a different perspective:

There's a Fundamental Wrong in Letting Some People Marry

Where did the original article come from? The word switcheroo ploy (in this case "homosexual" into "fundamentalist") is facile and possibly the oldest trick in the rhetorical bible. I won't even start pointing out the obvious fallacies created by that trick in this particular example....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Merlin, why do you persist in ignoring the point that people have been making: That your predictions of what will happen to "marriage" if "gay marriage" is legalized have NOT OCCURRED in other countries where gay marriage IS legal?

It just hasn't happened!

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I thought that having the actual page of the newspaper shown in the link might have been a hint that there was a real source.

Or are you so frantically obsessed with trying to avoid the issue that you are trying to make an issue of the authorship?

The authorship DOESN'T MATTER in this case. Parody is not legal documentation.

And just why is substituting one word for another not a valid exposition of the falsity of both issues?

As said above, the sky will not fall just because two persons get married. Or can you not process this idea?

Why does it matter to you so much? You obviously married the sexual partner of your choice, and have remained committed to her. Why do you want to prevent other people from entering that commitment to each other?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have already shared my prediction; that "marriage" will be successfully taken control of by the GLBTQs. There will be a fight (too late) by the heteros to strike all legalese use of "marriage"; but it will fail.

You make an assertion that has demonstrably *not* happened in places where same-sex couples are afforded the legal recognition of marriage.

You've not given any kind of understandable description of what it means for marriage to be "taken control of".

It seems to me you don't really have an argument other than "I don't want you to come to my party."

Edited: code

[ 27. October 2010, 23:03: Message edited by: iGeek ]

Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
"'marriage' will be successfully taken control of by the GLBTQs" only if heteros take their marbles and go away in a huff because it isn't All About Them anymore.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
"'marriage' will be successfully taken control of by the GLBTQs" only if heteros take their marbles and go away in a huff because it isn't All About Them anymore.

Precisely.

If the heteros stick with it, the percentage of marriages that are heterosexual will drop from 100% to somewhere around 98%. Not much of a loss of control there.

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It seems strangely ironic that heteros are fleeing marriage in great numbers. The number of people who are just shacking up rather than tying the knot seems to be growing year by year and decade by decade. If anything GLBTs wanting to be legally married is showing a much greater respect for the institution of marriage than the heteros, as a group, are doing.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
MrsDoyle
Shipmate
# 13579

 - Posted      Profile for MrsDoyle   Author's homepage   Email MrsDoyle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Havn't had time to think about this article yet but it seems of interest to this thread:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

Posts: 343 | From: Manchester.England | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Rigorous separation of church and state never looked like such a fantastic idea...

--------------------
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
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It's true, you know? When I started seeing gay people voluntarily seeking to declare their commitment to each other in public ceremonies, supported by and accountable to their wider community and underpinned by the law, the first thing I thought was "Dammit, this is inolerable" and I divorced my wife immediately and abandoned monogamy and started sleeping with the next person I met.

It's the thin end of the wedge.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It would be very interesting to develop a comprehensive list of which countries recognise a religious wedding ceremony for legal/civil purposes, and which ones don't.

The Wikipedia articles on marriage and marriage law provide some hints, but not a comprehensive list. It does suggest that the model in the English-speaking world, fusing the two ceremonies into one, might be the LESS common model in 'Christian' countries.

I mention this because one of the things that often bothers me about this argument is the presentation of the current model as self-evident or inevitable. But there are features of that model that are either relatively recent inventions (the last few centuries) or have never existed in some parts of the world.

--------------------
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
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Merlin, why do you persist in ignoring the point that people have been making: That your predictions of what will happen to "marriage" if "gay marriage" is legalized have NOT OCCURRED in other countries where gay marriage IS legal?

It just hasn't happened!

Of course "[my] predictions" have occurred elsewhere. "Gay marriage" has become recognized as an equal right with heterosexual marriage; the word "marriage" remains the term by which this legal union is known; and any objection to the use of the word "marriage" didn't amount to anything. I've predicted that any such objection to the use of the word "marriage" is as doomed as Prop 8; and any fight to strike "marriage" utterly from the legalese will be too little too late and amount to nothing. "Marriage" is the word that will get used everywhere, as it is now.

I don't like it, but there it is.

All the objecting I've been doing, about the word "marriage" being co-opted, is fighting what I know is a lost battle. But then, I've always enjoyed joining lost causes when they are worthy.... [Razz]

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...

Why does it matter to you so much? You obviously married the sexual partner of your choice, and have remained committed to her. Why do you want to prevent other people from entering that commitment to each other?

I thought that was clear by now also: I like words to retain their meaning. And to a huge segment of society, "marriage" means only one institution: man united to woman in the legal bonds of matrimony. That's all it has EVER meant.

I'm not fighting against "you" "entering that commitment to each other": legally "that commitment" is required to provide the same advantages and obligations as heterosexual "privilege" does. But it isn't the "marriage" that the SCOTUS was talking about in Loving v. Virginia way back in 1967.

The GLBTQ propensity to bring up Loving v. Virginia is non sequitur, because the SCOTUS was addressing "marriage" as it stood in 1967. GLBTQs have since then fastened upon the "basic civil right" part, and ignored the context of the SC decision completely: extrapolating it to mean "marriage" under the GLBTQ definition.

Imho, it ought to take a completely new SC case to determine what "marriage" (the word) signifies in the 21st century. The Loving v. Virginia decision has nothing whatsoever to do with alternate definitions of "marriage": not for homosexuals, polygamists or people who want to "marry" incestually, et al. the non legal categories of "marriage". The Prop 8 case will likely provide just that consideration by the SCOTUS of how "marriage" is to be disposed of in the legalese....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
...
You've not given any kind of understandable description of what it means for marriage to be "taken control of".

...

The word "marriage": the meaning of the word is being taken control of by the GLBTQ definition, which has no historical counterpart or precedent whatsoever.

I agree completely: what "you" do in private between the two of "you" does not threaten my marriage, or take control of heterosexual marriage at all....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It would be very interesting to develop a comprehensive list of which countries recognise a religious wedding ceremony for legal/civil purposes, and which ones don't.

The Wikipedia articles on marriage and marriage law provide some hints, but not a comprehensive list. It does suggest that the model in the English-speaking world, fusing the two ceremonies into one, might be the LESS common model in 'Christian' countries.

I mention this because one of the things that often bothers me about this argument is the presentation of the current model as self-evident or inevitable. But there are features of that model that are either relatively recent inventions (the last few centuries) or have never existed in some parts of the world.

This is an apropos distinction. Let me use the Mormon example: "temple marriage" is only observable by a select few family and friends who are "card-carrying Mormons", i.e. possess temple recommends. So when in the USA, et al. countries where the religious ceremony is legally recognized, the marriage is performed, the main bulk of wedding guests are cooling their heels outside, waiting for the happy couple and their "elite" witnesses to emerge. But in those countries that demand a civil ceremony, because religious ceremonies are not legally recognized, the Mormon couple has their civil marriage as per secular custom: THEN, at their convenience, the already married couple enter a Mormon temple and are "sealed for time and all eternity" in the religious rite....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So can you provide some evidence to back up your assertions which I can take at face value?

quote:
Originally posted by Merlin:
And to a huge segment of society, "marriage" means only one institution: man united to woman in the legal bonds of matrimony. That's all it has EVER meant.

Am I to assume that the answer to my question is No?
Or is it true as you have now told us three times that it is?

--------------------
"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
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I've predicted that any such objection to the use of the word "marriage" is as doomed as Prop 8; and any fight to strike "marriage" utterly from the legalese will be too little too late and amount to nothing. "Marriage" is the word that will get used everywhere, as it is now.

Actually upthread you predicted exactly the opposite:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's what will happen: not being able to "save marriage" for the legalese, the majority will opt to refuse its use at all. If they can't have it, at least they can keep "you" from having it too. I predict that something as facile as "domestic partnership" will be what replaces "marriage" in the legalese.

Which of these diametrically opposed predictions is yours? Or has your "prediction" conveniently changed so that it now fits the reality to which I pointed?

Two things have occurred to me with the inception of this thread: (1) the changing nature of homophobia. Merlin has expressed opposition to the use of the word "marriage", but even he (depending on which of his predictions you think he means) thinks that it will become the law of the land. No one else on this thread, that I've noticed, has overtly spouted, "Teh gayz are ebil and you shoud all die!!!1!!one!!" It's a kinder, gentler oppression, now with 26 percent less vitriol. I'm not sure how much that matters to people on the receiving end of it, but it does seem less atrocious than it could be, or is in other fora. (2) This extensive argument is a way of keeping "you" "fornicators" (to borrow MerlintheMad's terminology) from that much more sinning by keeping you occupied online. If I were "you" I would consider taking immediate and creative action to rectify that [Biased]

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

This thread seems to reached the stage of generating much heat but little light!

IMHO, it seems that there is little point in continuing -

BUT - we rarely close threads in Dead Horses: instead I am invoking a DH convention and declaring a 48 hour moratorium.

No more posts please for 2 full days from the date/time of this post - X-posters will be excused, of course [Big Grin]

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So can you provide some evidence to back up your assertions which I can take at face value?

quote:
Originally posted by Merlin:
And to a huge segment of society, "marriage" means only one institution: man united to woman in the legal bonds of matrimony. That's all it has EVER meant.

Am I to assume that the answer to my question is No?
Or is it true as you have now told us three times that it is?

If you contest the statement that the WORD "marriage" has always, and only, meant man and woman in the legal sense, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to disprove the statement.

If there are factual examples of societies contributing to Western "marriage", that have accepted any other definition of it than "man and woman", I am unaware of them.

The GLBTQ assertion that "marriage is a civil right" is based on their perception only: that they have already convinced millions of people to agree, does not change the historical meaning of legalized marriage to be only man and woman....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

This thread seems to reached the stage of generating much heat but little light!

IMHO, it seems that there is little point in continuing -

BUT - we rarely close threads in Dead Horses: instead I am invoking a DH convention and declaring a 48 hour moratorium.

No more posts please for 2 full days from the date/time of this post - X-posters will be excused, of course [Big Grin]

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Oopsie. I don't see the bottom of the responses until I get there. Have I committed a "crime"? Sorry about that if I have....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Not a 'crime' as such, MtM, but certainly a breach of a hostly request.

Knowing your posting style, with its seperate responses to individuals, I am inclined to be merciful ... but don't expect that to be repeated!

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If you contest the statement that the WORD "marriage" has always, and only, meant man and woman in the legal sense, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to disprove the statement.

Merlin,

I do not deny that historically marriage has only been between one man and one woman. The thing I want proof of is that a large majority of the US population currently believes that it should stay that way.
As Amber has pointed out near the top of this page, that is not the case over here.

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
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If you contest the statement that the WORD "marriage" has always, and only, meant man and woman in the legal sense, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to disprove the statement.

Merlin,

I do not deny that historically marriage has only been between one man and one woman. The thing I want proof of is that a large majority of the US population currently believes that it should stay that way.
As Amber has pointed out near the top of this page, that is not the case over here.

Joanna

But, but, but, historically since when? The "one-man-several-(or even many)-women" model has been a popular option for centuries.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
But, it is changing.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
But, but, but, historically since when? The "one-man-several-(or even many)-women" model has been a popular option for centuries.

I was thinking of my own culture and of marriage in particular. Men may have had several women but were only married to one at a time.


iGeek,

Thanks for that. It's a shame they didn't specifically ask about marriage.

--------------------
"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
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If you contest the statement that the WORD "marriage" has always, and only, meant man and woman in the legal sense, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to disprove the statement.

Merlin,

I do not deny that historically marriage has only been between one man and one woman. The thing I want proof of is that a large majority of the US population currently believes that it should stay that way.
As Amber has pointed out near the top of this page, that is not the case over here.

Joanna

I see. We have that singular poll that indicates less than half of the population is (now) for keeping "marriage" heterosexual only.

I can't recall the wording in the question, and the link to the alleged poll is buried back there somewhere. Who knows where it is? I am curious about the specific question asked.

We all know that the way a poll question is worded can skew the results. For instance: if I was asked: "Are you in favor of gay marriage"? My answer would be flat out "No". But if the question was worded this way: "Are you in favor of equal rights for homosexuals"? I would say "Yes"....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
But, it is changing.

Ask and I shall receive. Almost like reading my mind! [Biased]

The wording vis-a-vis support for "gay marriage" goes:

"Do you think marriage between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Now if I had been asked that question, as worded, I would say "Not recognized as valid". But if the question had been worded this way instead:

"Do you think [domestic partnerships] between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" I would have answered "Yes, just as valid as traditional marriages, and with the same rights"....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
...

iGeek,

Thanks for that. It's a shame they didn't specifically ask about marriage.

They did, you must have missed the link.

I thought that back there in this thread, someone asserted that opposition to "gay marriage" had dipped below 50% for the first time ever: but that is clearly not the case. I asserted back, that a dip below 50% against "gay marriage" isn't any indicator that a majority are not in fact against it; only that a proportion of those opposed have "thrown in the towel", seeing "gay marriage" as inevitable, so why fight it?...

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...seeing "gay marriage" as inevitable, so why fight it?...

But why fight it? That's what I don't get about your little one-man crusade here. OK, say the poor deluded queers falsely believe their relationships to be just the same as marriage. Say, by some mixture of corrupt lobbying tedious repitition they persuade apathetic American governments to recognise that in law.

So what? What harm does it do to you? You and your friends and relations can still be married in the good old way. What reason do you have for demanding so stridently that everyone else recogises marriage in exactly the same way you do?

If two men living round the corner from you falsely consider themselves to be married, how does that hurt you?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I have to point out here that there are plenty of heterosexuals that get married for less-than-"ideal" reasons, too. (Some even get married and divorced in the same month! Or week! Because they can!)

Do their marriages hurt yours somehow, MtM?

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools