|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: GLBT is a facade
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
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?...
Merlin,
Can you please either
a) provide some evidence to back up this assertion (preferably with an explanation of why people are lying to opinion pollsters)
or
b) stop writing about "a huge segment of society" and accept that it is a small majority who object to using the word "marriage" to describe officially recognised relationships between two people of the same sex.
Thanks,
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
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
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"....
It's the fact that you (and many others) think those answers can be consistent with each other that leads us into the kind of territory this thread is inhabiting.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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?
"Little one-man crusade", really? I don't feel alone, not by a long stretch.
But that doesn't matter. I already said that I am a "sucker" for lost causes (I said that somewhere, maybe the other forum where I have discussed this; anyway, here it is, maybe, or maybe not, again). And I consider the fight to preserve the word "marriage" a legitimate one, doomed though I expect that fight already is.
If I thought for a moment that homosexuality was harming society in any significant way by its mere existence, I'd be "crusading" in quite an irrational manner. All I want is for the law to be left as-is as much as possible to get the job done, which is: equal rights for all "domestic partnerships". Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else. Homosexuals gaining "marriage" in the legalese isn't going to proceed to any lessening of popular heterosexual resentment. And settling for "domestic partnership" isn't going to lessen the legal force of the homosexual relationship: because freedom of expression allows the two of them to say "we're married" to anyone, as often as they like....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
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?
Yes. Because promiscuity hurts relationships. The net effect of cheap sex weakens our moral base: children see bad examples of sexuality, especially on the Net - a veritable flood of voyeurism and virtual orgies a click away, encouraging them to contribute, via cellphone video. When their parents and siblings and other role models cheapen marriage by using it to "legalize" their sexual addictions, that is absolutely damaging to the institution of marriage. How can any couple have a thriving relationship if one or both of them treat the deepest physical bonding aspect like a mere plaything: selfishly indulging it without any more consideration than a deliberately temporary joining of "consenting adults"?...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
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?
Yes. Because promiscuity hurts relationships. The net effect of cheap sex weakens our moral base: children see bad examples of sexuality, especially on the Net - a veritable flood of voyeurism and virtual orgies a click away, encouraging them to contribute, via cellphone video. When their parents and siblings and other role models cheapen marriage by using it to "legalize" their sexual addictions, that is absolutely damaging to the institution of marriage. How can any couple have a thriving relationship if one or both of them treat the deepest physical bonding aspect like a mere plaything: selfishly indulging it without any more consideration than a deliberately temporary joining of "consenting adults"?...
That's not the answer to the question, though.
Do their marriages hurt yours, MtM?
[ 01. November 2010, 16:31: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Little one-man crusade", really? I don't feel alone, not by a long stretch.
I know plenty of people who don't like homosexuals. Who use "queer" or "pouf" or "bender" or "arse-bandit" or "gay" as insults. Who would be offended - sometimes to the point of violence - if someone called them gay. I have seen fights over it. You meet them everywhere. But you aren't aligning yourself with them, are you?
I meet loads of people who say that they don't mind homosexuals and support the idea of civil partnerships but think that they are different from normal marriage. That is, as you say, almost certainly the majority opinion on these things.
But what I don't see elsewhere - really only on your posts here - are people who seem to be offended and insulted and frightened by others using words like "marriage" in this context. Thats the bit I don't get.
Why is this a ditch worth fighting for? Why should anyone care about it? What harm does it do to the majority?
That's what you haven't explained.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
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?...
Merlin,
Can you please either
a) provide some evidence to back up this assertion (preferably with an explanation of why people are lying to opinion pollsters)
or
b) stop writing about "a huge segment of society" and accept that it is a small majority who object to using the word "marriage" to describe officially recognised relationships between two people of the same sex.
Thanks,
Joanna
Sorry for the confusion. My definition of "huge segment of society" would include any demographic which makes up a significant minority: not just a majority. For instance, I consider Hispanics in America to be a "huge segment of society", even though in total they are considerably less than 50% of our combined population.
Where I have asserted "the vast majority", this is not equal to "huge segment", but constitutes far more than 50%: in my mind, at least a mandate of two-thirds majority.
So we have barely over 50% openly opposed to calling homosexual domestic partnerships MARRIAGE. The proportion is similar to the support for Prop 8 in California: which wasn't even about what to call "gay marriage", but was cut-and-dried prohibition of ALL other implied domestic partnerships. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" - that is the wording, and it got 52% of the vote.
I suspect that if a vote were taken in California today on whether or not to call non-heterosexual partnerships "marriage", that no less than 52% would limit the word to "a man and a woman". How is this NOT a "huge segment of society"?...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
Merlin,
Fair enough. No need for you to apologise; it takes two to create a misunderstanding. I just assumed that a "huge segment of society" would be a large majority - you have never stated that it is.
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
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
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"....
It's the fact that you (and many others) think those answers can be consistent with each other that leads us into the kind of territory this thread is inhabiting.
They can and are consistent. The law isn't required to say "marriage" to define domestic partnership. But if you do it, you piss off half of your neighbors. That doesn't matter?...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
What about a certain shipmate who has pissed off half the other shipmates?
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.
Not true.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.
This is the heart of the issue, right here. iGeek has already given you the links, but let me say to you, on a personal level, that telling me that I'm not hurt by the distinction is telling me how to feel.
You can talk about equality of legal rights until the cows come home. That's not the point. The sole reason for retaining separate language is so that people who don't like gay couples can keep saying things (out loud or in their head) like 'they're not really married though', or 'they're not really a couple'.
It is all about the symbolism. A symbolism that says we're not really like you and that our relationships aren't as significant or important as yours.
As it's the symbolism that is so important to you, the least you can do is acknowledge that the symbolism is important to US as well. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell us to focus on legal equality while at the same time valuing the symbolism of the word 'marriage' more than the legal rights attached to 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
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that if a vote were taken in California today on whether or not to call non-heterosexual partnerships "marriage", that no less than 52% would limit the word to "a man and a woman". How is this NOT a "huge segment of society"?...
Chances are excellent that that statement is not true. There is a large number of people who have since stated they would either change their vote or others who were confused by the wording on the ballot initiative. There were also many who would have voted against the proposition who stayed home because they assumed that this being a more tolerant California than when the earlier ballot initiative the initiative was guaranteed to be voted down. Another lesson in why it's important to actually go out and vote and not assume what the results will be.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.
This is the heart of the issue, right here. iGeek has already given you the links, but let me say to you, on a personal level, that telling me that I'm not hurt by the distinction is telling me how to feel.
You can talk about equality of legal rights until the cows come home. That's not the point. The sole reason for retaining separate language is so that people who don't like gay couples can keep saying things (out loud or in their head) like 'they're not really married though', or 'they're not really a couple'.
It is all about the symbolism. A symbolism that says we're not really like you and that our relationships aren't as significant or important as yours.
As it's the symbolism that is so important to you, the least you can do is acknowledge that the symbolism is important to US as well. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell us to focus on legal equality while at the same time valuing the symbolism of the word 'marriage' more than the legal rights attached to it.
Well exactly. I was thinking about this earlier, and an analogy occurred to me... Let's say that if a person found themselves in court and was cleared of whatever crime they were accused of. If the law said that gay people would be found 'not guilty' but straight people were instead to be referred to by a legally equivalent term called 'we didn't nail the bastard this time'. Would that be fine for Merlin? I suspect not. The idea that something can be the same regardless of what it is called is simply false in areas such as these. If you want equality for gay couples, that includes using the same language for us.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
If you want equality for gay couples, that includes using the same language for us.
Merlin doesn't want "equality" for gay couples. He doesn't think that gay relationships are equal to, or "as good as" straight ones.
He does want "equal rights" - but equal rights aren't all there is to equality. Equality would include being equally esteemed, equally valued, and Merlin has never remotely suggested that he wants that. He wants gay relationships to be recognised as different and inferior to marriage, albeit similarly regulated.
It's probably a consistent position to take (albeit incoherently expressed). If there is a social good involved in the legal recognition of domestic partnerships, then there is a reasonable argument for giving equivalent legal recognition to whatever partnerships de facto exist, even if some are fully approved of, and others not so much. The social benefits to legal recognition are equivalent, so the rights should be equivalent.
Where Merlin appears to me to be mistaken is that he thinks that this position - which he would endorse - matches the 'public' demands of the homosexual agendaists, but is being used by them as a cover or facade for something else.
Of course, few or no gays are campaigning on the basis that their loves and lives are deficient and second-rate, but that the public interest would be served by recognising their partnerships. The whole point is that (whether they care about the word 'marriage' or not) gay people aren't deficient or second-rate. Those of them who would be happy to stick with "civil partnerships" (a majority of my RL acquaintance - no idea how representative that is of UK gays in general) are happy with that because they don't think they need official use of the word "marriage" to be fully accepted. Those who are not happy sticking with civil partnerships think that they do. It may be a difference of opinion - or a difference of tactics - but one is not a facade for the other. Both are fundamentally positions demanding social equality. Both are equally opposed to people like Merlin who would pragmatically concede 'equal rights' while contending for a symbolic legal inequality.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
He does want "equal rights" - but equal rights aren't all there is to equality. Equality would include being equally esteemed, equally valued
But you can't legislate that, and I don't see how expanding "marriage" to include gay couples (which, by the way, I am in favour of) would bring that about more than partnership-type arrangements. At least, I think it should be clarified how that works.
quote:
The social benefits to legal recognition are equivalent, so the rights should be equivalent.
But it's my understanding from this thread that in Britain, at least, the legal rights are equivalent.
quote:
Both are equally opposed to people like Merlin who would pragmatically concede 'equal rights' while contending for a symbolic legal inequality.
You've totally lost me here. What is a legal inequality be symbolic of?
[ 02. November 2010, 16:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
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 TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
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?
Yes. Because promiscuity hurts relationships. The net effect of cheap sex weakens our moral base: children see bad examples of sexuality, especially on the Net - a veritable flood of voyeurism and virtual orgies a click away, encouraging them to contribute, via cellphone video. When their parents and siblings and other role models cheapen marriage by using it to "legalize" their sexual addictions, that is absolutely damaging to the institution of marriage. How can any couple have a thriving relationship if one or both of them treat the deepest physical bonding aspect like a mere plaything: selfishly indulging it without any more consideration than a deliberately temporary joining of "consenting adults"?...
That's not the answer to the question, though.
Do their marriages hurt yours, MtM?
Their 24 hour marriages hurt my marriage. By association, "you" condemn the institution the way these kinds of heterosexual abuses cheapen it. That makes "you" respect my marriage less. Less respect means less commitment to each other within society. There. I've answered you twice in the affirmative. What "you" do affects me, even if you can't see it or admit it....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Merlin doesn't want "equality" for gay couples. He doesn't think that gay relationships are equal to, or "as good as" straight ones.
He does want "equal rights" - but equal rights aren't all there is to equality. Equality would include being equally esteemed, equally valued, and Merlin has never remotely suggested that he wants that. He wants gay relationships to be recognised as different and inferior to marriage, albeit similarly regulated.
That's the nub of it. Further, MtM wants us to believe that by working to have our relationships valued equally *under the law* (right of religious conscience isn't under discussion here), we are somehow denigrating the institution as it has traditionally been constructed. And that's the logic I simply don't follow.
For MtM and those who think like him, it's an annoyance that those (whose relationships, for whatever reason, they don't view as legit or real) wish to have them recognized using the same term.
For us, it's a more serious matter. I want to know that my partner can make medical decisions for me without interference by well-meaning relatives. I want to know that if I pass first, my kids won't be able to come clean out the house with my partner having absolutely no say-so in the matter. These things happen all the time with same-sex couples. It isn't an abstraction for us. It is essential for us to be able to order and conduct our lives just like other married couples do.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.
Not true.
You can assert "not true", but the fact is that this divisive issue is still too new: ANY legalizing of "civil unions" to include same-sex unions is so new that nothing can be determined as to eventual outcome vis-a-vis public education and sentiment regarding equality.
A distinct dichotomy of logic here is that somehow "...that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens' who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples." In what respects "under the law" is this even possible? If the civil union (domestic partnership) laws are precisely equal in every way with "marriage", how then does "under the law" discriminate? It doesn't. PEOPLE do that all by themselves, outside the law. So what you are objecting to is in reality the prevailing heterosexual sentiment regarding "you".
What is your solution? Obtain "marriage", the word, to legally define your civil unions? If so, then you have simply taken the majority sentiment as embodied in a word ("marriage") and applied it to an extreme minority. Does this in any way, shape, or form, CHANGE the situation? Not legally; nothing has changed from the present "under the law" situation. However, "you" have seriously disadvantaged yourselves, if trying for amicable feelings is at all your objective....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
He does want "equal rights" - but equal rights aren't all there is to equality. Equality would include being equally esteemed, equally valued
But you can't legislate that, and I don't see how expanding "marriage" to include gay couples (which, by the way, I am in favour of) would bring that about more than partnership-type arrangements. At least, I think it should be clarified how that works.
No, you can't legislate for equal esteem. You can, however, legislate in such a way that even when you grant equal rights, you make it clear that you are denying equal esteem. Insisting that legal "marriage" can't ever be same sex, but must be termed "civil union", in a culture which esteems the institution of marriage would be one way of doing this. It seems pretty clear to me that this is Merlin's approach. He does not think that gay relationships are as good as straight ones and so he wants a different word for them.
quote:
But it's my understanding from this thread that in Britain, at least, the legal rights are equivalent.
I'm not a family lawyer, but I think that's right. And as I say, I know gay people who think that's enough. They don't need the word "marriage" to validate their relationships.
Which is fair enough, but no reason (IMV) to deny the word to those who do want it.
quote:
You've totally lost me here. What is a legal inequality be symbolic of?
My impression is that Merlin wants a different designator in order to symbolise the view that a gay "domestic partnership" isn't really the same sort of thing as a straight "marriage".
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.
This is the heart of the issue, right here. iGeek has already given you the links, but let me say to you, on a personal level, that telling me that I'm not hurt by the distinction is telling me how to feel.
...
It is all about the symbolism. ...
So your feelings are special? I can reverse what you said and it applies just as well to the heterosexual VAST MAJORITY that you have to live with. What about OUR symbol? If you take it away, to gratify your feelings about symbolism, now does that benefit you at all?...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that if a vote were taken in California today on whether or not to call non-heterosexual partnerships "marriage", that no less than 52% would limit the word to "a man and a woman". How is this NOT a "huge segment of society"?...
Chances are excellent that that statement is not true. There is a large number of people who have since stated they would either change their vote or others who were confused by the wording on the ballot initiative.
Then "they" will always be confused by any wording. Nothing about Prop 8 could possibly be more clear and suscinct.
More likely is the fearful reaction to the anger displayed by the protesters after Prop 8 passed. Enough cowards decided that the GLBTQ advocacy is REALLY ANGRY, and so maybe they should get their way anyway. And enough of the cowards got interviewed by the Media to supply enough quotes to convince you of this assertion that they would change their vote if they could do it over.
quote:
There were also many who would have voted against the proposition who stayed home because they assumed that this being a more tolerant California than when the earlier ballot initiative the initiative was guaranteed to be voted down.
That is not true. "Many" is now c. one-fifth? What makes you think that of the one in five voters who did not cast a ballot, that the vast majority of them were complacent in support of "gay marriage"?
quote:
Another lesson in why it's important to actually go out and vote and not assume what the results will be.
Your assertions here are another lesson in allowing oneself to be spoon-fed distortion and tripe from the Media....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
If you want equality for gay couples, that includes using the same language for us.
Merlin doesn't want "equality" for gay couples. He doesn't think that gay relationships are equal to, or "as good as" straight ones.
He does want "equal rights" - but equal rights aren't all there is to equality. Equality would include being equally esteemed, equally valued, and Merlin has never remotely suggested that he wants that. He wants gay relationships to be recognised as different and inferior to marriage, albeit similarly regulated.
If you are reading my other responses (above) you will see that I am being a realist here. The REAL WORLD is hardwired 90 to 99% heterosexual by adulthood. What makes you think that any amount of legislation is going to alter one iota the feelings that come with that division? You can get all the special laws of protection passed that your imagination can devise, and FEELINGS/thoughts will not change, ever.
So the BEST that we can expect is to live and let live. "You" can move in that direction more precisely if "you" admit that the symbolism "you" want is only obtainable by stealing the symbol that "marriage" means to heterosexuals. It is a small thing. But it is possibly far more important than a simple word.
quote:
It's probably a consistent position to take (albeit incoherently expressed). If there is a social good involved in the legal recognition of domestic partnerships, then there is a reasonable argument for giving equivalent legal recognition to whatever partnerships de facto exist, even if some are fully approved of, and others not so much. The social benefits to legal recognition are equivalent, so the rights should be equivalent.
Let's compare incoherency here: "You" assert now that if we are going to allow legal recognition to all "domestic partnerships", we ought to make sure we don't leave out the ONLY partnership which has till now been legal! That's really big of you. I'd hate to see heterosexual "marriage" discriminated against while we're falling over each other in our haste to get all the GLBTQs "married".
Otherwise, yes, equality "under the law" means no exceptions.
quote:
Where Merlin appears to me to be mistaken is that he thinks that this position - which he would endorse - matches the 'public' demands of the homosexual agendaists, but is being used by them as a cover or facade for something else.
Of course, few or no gays are campaigning on the basis that their loves and lives are deficient and second-rate, but that the public interest would be served by recognising their partnerships. The whole point is that (whether they care about the word 'marriage' or not) gay people aren't deficient or second-rate. Those of them who would be happy to stick with "civil partnerships" (a majority of my RL acquaintance - no idea how representative that is of UK gays in general) are happy with that because they don't think they need official use of the word "marriage" to be fully accepted. Those who are not happy sticking with civil partnerships think that they do. It may be a difference of opinion - or a difference of tactics - but one is not a facade for the other. Both are fundamentally positions demanding social equality.
Then the majority of your acquaintances are being smart. The minority need to look again at what they are asking for: a symbol STOLEN from their heterosexual neighbors (who outnumber them grundles-to-one), so that "you" can be treated equally? Socially you will be treated equally only so far as the law can punish the vast majority for asserted violations of "your" civil rights. Inwardly, silently, privately "you" will lose far, far more than your stolen symbol will give.
quote:
Both are equally opposed to people like Merlin who would pragmatically concede 'equal rights' while contending for a symbolic legal inequality.
Incoherency again. How can "we" concede and retain at the same time? You want some guarantee that our feelings have altered because you get to steal the symbolic word "marriage"? Conversely, if "we" retain "marriage" to mean in the legalese, "man and woman", HOW exactly does that alter, at all, "equal under the law"?
You can't determine "our" feelings about "you" through rewriting any laws or bringing about new ones....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You can assert "not true", but the fact is that this divisive issue is still too new: ANY legalizing of "civil unions" to include same-sex unions is so new that nothing can be determined as to eventual outcome vis-a-vis public education and sentiment regarding equality.
Unlike you, I backed up my assertion with multiple reports from commissions in states that provide some form of "less than marriage" recognition along with opinions from significant court cases that state precisely the opposite.
Let's see ... a lot of smart people who have considered the evidence and written cogent reports and opinions or you whose argument is, basically, "'Cause I say so."
Right. We're done here.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.
This is the heart of the issue, right here. iGeek has already given you the links, but let me say to you, on a personal level, that telling me that I'm not hurt by the distinction is telling me how to feel.
...
It is all about the symbolism. ...
So your feelings are special? I can reverse what you said and it applies just as well to the heterosexual VAST MAJORITY that you have to live with. What about OUR symbol? If you take it away, to gratify your feelings about symbolism, now does that benefit you at all?...
How am I taking away YOUR symbol by wanting to share it? This is what mystifies me.
Do you not understand that it's MY symbol as well? That I grew up with it? That I grew up surrounded by married people?
[ 02. November 2010, 19:40: 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
More on this language of stealing: it's not supposed to be a zero-sum game. There aren't a limited amount of marriage licences to go around. The only thing you can possibly 'lose' while I 'gain' something is a sense of superiority.
In other words, Eliab was right.
You think you're better than me just because of who you want to have sex with.
[ 02. November 2010, 19:49: 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 Eliab:
quote:
You've totally lost me here. What is a legal inequality be symbolic of?
My impression is that Merlin wants a different designator in order to symbolise the view that a gay "domestic partnership" isn't really the same sort of thing as a straight "marriage".
Right. I agree with you on everything else you said, but I'm not certain that Mad Merlin is advocating legal inequality, just verbal inequality. Maybe I'm wrong about that; if so I'll eat my words.
--------------------
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
Mousethief, I think you're right. And I think Merlin thinks that black-letter-law 'equality' is enough.
I want to expand on something I said this morning about growing up with marriage. I knew about marriage long before I had an inkling I was gay.
I honestly don't think Merlin can comprehend what it's like to grow up, as a child, with the idea that adults get married when they love each other, and at some point discover that you can't. You grow up assuming pretty well subconsciously that one day you'll get married, and then suddenly there's this huge, impossible barrier in the way. You can't marry the people you might love, and you can't love the people you're allowed to marry - not 'love' in the kind of way that married people do, anyway.
And before anyone says "but you can get married", would anyone seriously counsel a heterosexual man to marry a woman he's not sexually attracted to, and either suppress his sexual urges entirely or find another woman to have an affair with?
It's psychologically devastating. I doubt I'll ever forget one wedding I attended right around the time I was concluding that I was gay and always would be gay. I spent the whole day thinking about how I could never have what my 2 friends were having. By that night I was having suicidal thoughts.
--------------------
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
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
I have a question for Merlin..
Let's say that you have these two "separate, but equal" ideas of "marriage" and "civil unions".
So is "marriage" for the 90% of people who are "straight" and "civil unions" for the 10% of people who are "gay"?
Why couldn't a straight person have a civil union?
If they are equal, then why can't I get either one I want? Why does my heterosexuality forbid me from having a civil union?
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Why couldn't a straight person have a civil union?
If they are equal, then why can't I get either one I want? Why does my heterosexuality forbid me from having a civil union?
I believe there's a court case in the UK asking this very question.
[google google google]
Yes, yes, here it is.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And before anyone says "but you can get married", would anyone seriously counsel a heterosexual man to marry a woman he's not sexually attracted to, and either suppress his sexual urges entirely or find another woman to have an affair with?
They have and they continue to. It's becoming more rare, thank goodness, but it's still at the black heart of the ex-gay drum-pounding.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I believe there's a court case in the UK asking this very question.
[google google google]
Yes, yes, here it is.
I think they're just seeking publicity. I don't think that case is going anywhere.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In the US this is the sort of test case that is used to tear apart unconstitutional statutes. Hopefully (for the plaintiffs) it makes it to the SCOTUS and the bad law is struck down. Is there no such process in the UK?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
British courts can't strike out laws as such, since Parliament is sovereign. What these people are probably doing (and it's unclear from the BBC article) is trying to get the court to say that the law as it stands is incompatible with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. If the courts rule that that is the case then, as I understand it, Parliament can either make a declaration of incompatibility (which is very rare, I'm not sure it's ever actually happened, possibly with some terrorism-related stuff) or amend the law.
The reason I don't think it's going to succeed is because some British lesbians got married in the United States and, when they returned to the UK, their relationship was treated as a Civil Partnership. They took their case to court, claiming that it should be recognised as a marriage, and the courts didn't agree.
I don't see how this Islington couple are different. (In principle, that is.)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
It's still a valid question.
If a civil union is no different than marriage (except that marriage is only for man/woman unions because that's the way it has always been), then why can't a heterosexual couple have a civil union?
Is there a history that says that civil unions are only for man/man or woman/woman couples?
If so, where??
If not, then why are you keeping it away from 90% of the population?
It's not a trick question, it's a serious one...
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And before anyone says "but you can get married", would anyone seriously counsel a heterosexual man to marry a woman he's not sexually attracted to, and either suppress his sexual urges entirely or find another woman to have an affair with?
They have and they continue to. It's becoming more rare, thank goodness, but it's still at the black heart of the ex-gay drum-pounding.
Think you might have misread what I said.
--------------------
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't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Is there a history that says that civil unions are only for man/man or woman/woman couples?
If so, where??
It's in black and white in the Civil Partnership Act 2004:
quote:
Eligibility
(1)Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if—
(a)they are not of the same sex,
(b)either of them is already a civil partner or lawfully married,
(c)either of them is under 16, or
(d)they are within prohibited degrees of relationship.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
[Bit of a tangent] That's in the UK, I presume. Civil unions are open to opposite sex couples in NZ, and about a quarter of civil unions are between heterosexual couples here.
Of interest is the fact that if a heterosexual couple civilly unite in NZ, that union is not recognised by the UK. This came up with (NZ) friends of mine, who wanted to civilly unite. Because they live in the UK they had to marry instead in order to organise their visas. My lesbian friends had their NZ civil union recognised in the UK.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Their 24 hour marriages hurt my marriage. By association, "you" condemn the institution the way these kinds of heterosexual abuses cheapen it. That makes "you" respect my marriage less. Less respect means less commitment to each other within society. There. I've answered you twice in the affirmative. What "you" do affects me, even if you can't see it or admit it....
So now you're reading my mind, eh? You've decided you know what I think and are answering for me?
That's an interesting tactic. It doesn't work very well, but it's interesting....
(This is one of the big problems on this thread, I think. You seem to want to create facts out of whole cloth, and then use them as the basis for your arguments! It doesn't work in this case, just as it won't work generally.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(You must really remember, MtM, that gay people are arguing to be included in this institution you say we view as "cheapened" and "not to be respected."
Which, psychologically, would imply something pretty weird. Which in turn is why you can't make up your own facts to suit the situation....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If you are reading my other responses (above) you will see that I am being a realist here. The REAL WORLD is hardwired 90 to 99% heterosexual by adulthood. What makes you think that any amount of legislation is going to alter one iota the feelings that come with that division? You can get all the special laws of protection passed that your imagination can devise, and FEELINGS/thoughts will not change, ever.
Are you serious? In the UK, within my parents' lifetime, we have gone from male homosexuality being a criminal offence - and not an obsolete one on the statute books, but one actually enforced - to recognising gay relationships as similar to marriage. There has been an absolutely staggering change in the feelings and thoughts of the majority straight population. There's still a way to go for full acceptance and equality, of course, but to suggest that all that's changed is the law, and not attitudes as well, is absurd.
quote:
So the BEST that we can expect is to live and let live. "You" can move in that direction more precisely if "you" admit that the symbolism "you" want is only obtainable by stealing the symbol that "marriage" means to heterosexuals.
I'm not so pessimistic. I don't believe that even if the population is 99% straight, it is inevitable that gay marriage will be thought of as second class. I think that straight people can be genuinely accepting. I do not think it is too much for the average person's levels of empathy to imagine that a gay person's feelings for their partner are pretty much the same as a straight person's.
quote:
Let's compare incoherency here: "You" assert now that if we are going to allow legal recognition to all "domestic partnerships", we ought to make sure we don't leave out the ONLY partnership which has till now been legal! That's really big of you. I'd hate to see heterosexual "marriage" discriminated against while we're falling over each other in our haste to get all the GLBTQs "married".
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I am married. To a woman. I'd hate to see heterosexual marriage discriminated against, too, but I don't see anyone presently doing that.
quote:
You can't determine "our" feelings about "you" through rewriting any laws or bringing about new ones....
In fact, you can. Laws can make a difference to behaviour and opinion. They can't require a change of attitude, of course, but they certainly can be an influence. Are you going to suggest that (for example) liberalising divorce or abortion laws NEVER results in greater public acceptance of divorce or abortion?
But in any case, that's not the point. I support gay marriage because I am part of your "We, the People" whose feelings have changed already. Earlier generations saw homosexuality as an immoral, degenerate, and disgusting practice - even when (in a triumph of decency and good sense) they were deciding that it shouldn't actually be criminal. I don't. For me, it's just different. There are issues raised about it if one happens to belong to certain religions, but no issue about it at all in secular morality. It's uncommon (compared to being straight), but uncontroversial.
So I don't want marriage as "our" straight symbol. I don't see straights as an "us" to be defined against a homosexual "you". If a gay couple wants to get married (even if the law calls it a civil partnership), I'm as pleased for them as for a straight couple. I approve of marriage. I want there to be more loving, committed, married couples. It strengthens my own marriage, if I live in a society where getting married is "the done thing" and marriage generally is esteemed. With marriage these days increasingly seen as optional, and divorce rates high, it would seem nuts to me, as a supporter of marriage, to want to exclude from marriage a group of people who are positively eager to marry and to honour the very institution which I want to encourage.
[ 03. November 2010, 16:21: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The REAL WORLD is hardwired 90 to 99% heterosexual by adulthood.
True, so what?
quote:
You can get all the special laws of protection passed that your imagination can devise, and FEELINGS/thoughts will not change, ever.
Possibly true, so what?
quote:
So the BEST that we can expect is to live and let live.
If true, so what?
None of that has any relevance to the point you are trying make. They might be reasons for you to think that gay couples are deluded, immoral, insane, unpopular, or whatever. But where is the logical connection between that and using the law to prevent them calling themselves married if they want to?
And you still haven't explained why you keep on using words like "stealing" or "stolen". Plenty of people have tried to ask what you mean by it, but no answer.
What is stolen? What did you used to have that you no longer have? What has been taken away from you? If nothing has, how can anything have been stolen?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
More on this language of stealing: it's not supposed to be a zero-sum game. There aren't a limited amount of marriage licences to go around. The only thing you can possibly 'lose' while I 'gain' something is a sense of superiority.
In other words, Eliab was right.
You think you're better than me just because of who you want to have sex with.
I won't insult you with a denial of my feelings about the alien quality of OTHER people and their sex. I am only interested in my own sexuality and feel that others are well-advised to do likewise. So this whole SEXUALITY-based equal rights issue is really ironic for me.
I assert that if our society had displayed an equal rights policy toward ALL domestic partnerships, such that inequality toward "the other" had never arisen "under the law", that today there wouldn't even be a GLBTQ advocacy going on at all. And "marriage" wouldn't be perceived as under assault by heterosexuals.
I do see the pragmatic side to this that "you" all seem to be denying: and that is that any alien feelings you've developed throughout your life vis-a-vis heterosexuality, is precisely the same alienation that "we" feel when contemplating homosexuality: And, the likelihood of "you" altering to suit "us" is as likely as "us" altering to suit "you".
So where does that leave all of us? 90 to 99% define "marriage" as man and woman: somewhat less than half of that group are willing to toss it into the public domain and let anyone use it however they please; of that percentage, an unknown proportion are resentful at having to do this, but they'd rather throw in the towel than keep squabbling. The 1 to 10% of society who are homosexual will get to use "marriage" to define something it never has defined before, thus assuring that the thin end of a wedge is permanently inserted between themselves and everybody else....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... I think Merlin thinks that black-letter-law 'equality' is enough.
I want to expand on something I said this morning about growing up with marriage. I knew about marriage long before I had an inkling I was gay.
I honestly don't think Merlin can comprehend what it's like to grow up, as a child, with the idea that adults get married when they love each other, and at some point discover that you can't. You grow up assuming pretty well subconsciously that one day you'll get married, and then suddenly there's this huge, impossible barrier in the way. You can't marry the people you might love, and you can't love the people you're allowed to marry - not 'love' in the kind of way that married people do, anyway.
And before anyone says "but you can get married", would anyone seriously counsel a heterosexual man to marry a woman he's not sexually attracted to, and either suppress his sexual urges entirely or find another woman to have an affair with?
It's psychologically devastating. I doubt I'll ever forget one wedding I attended right around the time I was concluding that I was gay and always would be gay. I spent the whole day thinking about how I could never have what my 2 friends were having. By that night I was having suicidal thoughts.
I greatly appreciate such candor. Personal anecdotes possess a power of illustration that nothing else quite matches.
I've heard this kind of personal story many times by this juncture. We all have, if we haven't been playing the "I'm not listening" game.
Here's the main point anyone ought to derive from your story: that disappointment doesn't apply anymore. Those days are gone forever. You can legally bind yourself to the person that you love in every legally recognized way that anyone else can. Everything else about the issue is emotional, biologically driven, historically consistent tradition being fought over. To what extent are you willing to win the word and lose the good will of many people?
"Black-letter-law" is all you can guarantee yourself. Reaching for more is both selfish and unwise/unrealistic. It is telling most of the people around "you" that "we" have been wrong to think of you as different: yet you fight precisely from that position of difference. It is real, as real as your own sexuality really differs from the vast majority's. Attempting to make your relationship more real to that majority by co-opting the word "marriage" won't accomplish what you want because the word only means "man and woman" to too many people: and changing that destroys what the word means, what it has always meant. Feelings toward you will not improve. "Sameness" is not on offer. Equality is, though....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I have a question for Merlin..
Let's say that you have these two "separate, but equal" ideas of "marriage" and "civil unions".
So is "marriage" for the 90% of people who are "straight" and "civil unions" for the 10% of people who are "gay"?
Why couldn't a straight person have a civil union?
If they are equal, then why can't I get either one I want? Why does my heterosexuality forbid me from having a civil union?
This has been done, to prove the point of the inequality "under the law". I read (up there somewhere in a link, iirc) that a couple are pushing this by applying for a "civil union", but being heterosexual they aren't allowed to!? Of course this is ludicrous.
Tasmania's approach seems the logical one: a generic term (domestic partnership) which ANYONE can apply under in almost any relationship. As far as "black-letter-law" is concerned, no sexual activity is assumed to exist: it might, or may, but nobody is going to ask about that. Sex has nothing whatsoever to do with it: so any consenting adults can bind themselves to each other in a domestic partnership.
I wish this could happen everywhere since it answers all parties "under the law" equally. As a subheading to the domestic partnership law, it can be shown what is meant by some specific language, e.g. "such as marriage between a man and a woman; a religious ceremony uniting any two consenting adults; a civil union between any two consenting adults, and so forth". This might (but I have my doubts) satisfy the emotional needs of the Judeo-Christian segment of society who demonstrate such angst over losing the traditional/historical meaning of "marriage"....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(You must really remember, MtM, that gay people are arguing to be included in this institution you say we view as "cheapened" and "not to be respected."
Which, psychologically, would imply something pretty weird. Which in turn is why you can't make up your own facts to suit the situation....)
It is a fact that many GLBTQs claim that they want to "marry", and in the same breath denounce heterosexuals for their shoddy marriage practices: as if to say, "watch US, we'll show you lot how marriage is done". On this thread way back up there somewhere, a poster said "I don't know a heterosexual couple who have been married that long" (alluding to a homosexual couple being "together" more than 50 years, iirc). So the comparison is there and made by "you" first.
I don't make up facts. I propose and deduce. Where did I claim to read your mind? Oh, I didn't, you did. I was addressing your question about how shoddy heterosexual marriages affect my own. I asserted that every persons actions (which are preceded by thoughts, and therefore not a made up fact) affect society....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(You must really remember, MtM, that gay people are arguing to be included in this institution you say we view as "cheapened" and "not to be respected."
Which, psychologically, would imply something pretty weird. Which in turn is why you can't make up your own facts to suit the situation....)
It is a fact that many GLBTQs claim that they want to "marry", and in the same breath denounce heterosexuals for their shoddy marriage practices: as if to say, "watch US, we'll show you lot how marriage is done".
Which is exactly what I said above.....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
More on this language of stealing: it's not supposed to be a zero-sum game. There aren't a limited amount of marriage licences to go around. The only thing you can possibly 'lose' while I 'gain' something is a sense of superiority.
In other words, Eliab was right.
You think you're better than me just because of who you want to have sex with.
I won't insult you with a denial of my feelings about the alien quality of OTHER people and their sex. I am only interested in my own sexuality and feel that others are well-advised to do likewise. So this whole SEXUALITY-based equal rights issue is really ironic for me.
I assert that if our society had displayed an equal rights policy toward ALL domestic partnerships, such that inequality toward "the other" had never arisen "under the law", that today there wouldn't even be a GLBTQ advocacy going on at all. And "marriage" wouldn't be perceived as under assault by heterosexuals.
I do see the pragmatic side to this that "you" all seem to be denying: and that is that any alien feelings you've developed throughout your life vis-a-vis heterosexuality, is precisely the same alienation that "we" feel when contemplating homosexuality: And, the likelihood of "you" altering to suit "us" is as likely as "us" altering to suit "you".
So where does that leave all of us? 90 to 99% define "marriage" as man and woman: somewhat less than half of that group are willing to toss it into the public domain and let anyone use it however they please; of that percentage, an unknown proportion are resentful at having to do this, but they'd rather throw in the towel than keep squabbling. The 1 to 10% of society who are homosexual will get to use "marriage" to define something it never has defined before, thus assuring that the thin end of a wedge is permanently inserted between themselves and everybody else....
You really do have a perverse sense of logic. The only reason we have to raise SEXUALITY as basis of rights is to point out to you that you treat people DIFFERENTLY on the basis of their SEXUALITY when it should be IRRELEVANT.
Your assertion is absolutely correct. But what credit is it to you? I'm not asking for sexuality-based rights, for heavens' sake!! I'm asking for sexuality to cease being treated as a distinguishing feature! It's not homosexuals who came up with this idiotic system in some places of having a different word for heterosexual and homosexual unions.
And how on earth do you get this idea that I find heterosexual relations 'alien' in any relevant sense? That's the point. I don't. I can see that they involve exactly the same dynamics and range as homosexual ones!
--------------------
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 MerlintheMad:
Here's the main point anyone ought to derive from your story: that disappointment doesn't apply anymore. Those days are gone forever. You can legally bind yourself to the person that you love in every legally recognized way that anyone else can. Everything else about the issue is emotional, biologically driven, historically consistent tradition being fought over. To what extent are you willing to win the word and lose the good will of many people?
Ah. I see. I can just switch off my feelings now, but the poor heterosexuals are suffering with theirs?
My feelings are fanned by the flames of logic and a visible injustice. The great irony here is that I'm yet to discover any basis for heterosexuals feeling that marriage is 'under attack' other than an irrational perception that I'm NOT like you.
Again, you can't have it both ways. If I'm truly equal to you, no distinction necessary, you will have no problem with me being able to marry. You continue to declare me to be equal but you want to maintain the distinction between us.
I'm perfectly willing to lose the good will of people who are driven by poorly-articulated ideas, mistranslations of the Bible or just direct prejudice. Because over time, more and more people are being driven by the realisation that sexuality is not a sound basis for treating people differently.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
