|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Some of these questions are interesting Russ, but they have nothing to do with equality.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
What are you trying to set up here, Russ? Feels like you are trying twist your way into a 'gotcha'.
What does lying or cheating have to do with homosexuality?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... The State didn't invent marriage. Neither did the Church. What you might call "common law marriage" is an ancient custom present in most societies and cultures down the ages, and has (as far as I know) always referred to the union of man and woman.
To say that people of the same sex can marry is therefore just untrue, in the customary usage of the word....
So fucking what? Customs change. Language changes. People now say, "I could care less" when they used to say, "I couldn't care less." What's more important to you? People or archaic use of language?
As many people have pointed out to you, marriage has never been just "the union of man and woman". It's also been the union of families, of fortunes, of political and legal power. Through most of history and in most of the world, the "union" results in the legal obliteration of the woman's existence. It was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife but it was ok for him to kill her for adultery, for example.
Russ, in one narrow sense you are correct: historically, the one common element in all marriages was sticking a penis into a vagina, regardless of the outcome. (Despite your palaver about children, impotence was a legal barrier to marriage, not infertility.) When you are arguing for "customary" marriage, that is what you arguing for - a genital activity requirement for marriage.
In your definition of marriage, if that penis doesn't go into that vagina, it can't be marriage, and nothing, nothing, nothing can ever make up for absence of Tab A and Slot B. In your definition of marriage, all that stuff about "till death do us part" and "in sickness and in health" and "forsaking all others" doesn't make the marriage, it's just frosting on the fuck cake. When married people celebrate their anniversary, they're commemorating the date of their first fuck.
Is that really the hill of the definition of marriage you want to die on? The Golgotha where you crucify gays and lesbians on your cross of genital marriage? (Thank you, William Jennings Bryan.)
quote:
I suggest to you that trying to legislate parity of esteem never works, is a manipulative use of words that isn't entirely honest, and goes beyond the proper role of the State.
And I suggest to you that equal protection under the law for all citizens is most definitely the proper role of the state. Or do you believe it is dishonest and manipulative to say that "All men are created equal" includes women?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So that if it were the case that homos and heteros find each other's sexual activity disgusting (in the absence of desire),
I think you're ignoring the appeal of homoerotic fantasies/ representations to heterosexuals.
quote:
then whichever group is in the minority in a particular situation is more likely to cause feelings of disgust in the other passengers if they grab a quick snog with their inamorata on the bus.
I'm agin too much face-eating in public in general, but more on the grounds on anti-social exclusivity than the gender of those involved.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Well, if we want to constrain ourselves to the happenstance of dictionaries, we also technically marry bottles of condiments.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You're right - marriage is one of the points we haven't really gone into. (One more weighty topic to add to Curiosity Killed's list ? ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
Um, what list? I really don't know which list you are referring to here; is there any hope of a link? As far as I'm concerned we started with marriage and have discussed it several times throughout this thread.
(I'm reading, but not necessarily posting because I'm bored of repeating the same things in different ways as Russ tries another angle to get his views accepted.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The Church sanctified marriage, made it a sacrament. But the Church does not marry people; the couple marry each other with the Church as witness.
How very western.
quote:
The State recognises marriage, and deems that certain legal rights follow from the fact. Filling in the forms registers the marriage; it does not create it.
We're now dealing with some kind of rarified, undefinable, indetectable "marriage" that is effected neither by the state nor by the church. I submit that very few, bordering on NO, people mean this etherial thing you refer to, when they use the word "marriage."
My evidence would be that people who have been living together for 10 years, and have always had every intent of doing so indefinitely, when they finally get married, use the phrase, "we're finally getting married." By which they mean legally and/or ecclesially.
quote:
Why didn't they do that ? Because they were trying to legislate parity of esteem for same-sex unions.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion, which flies in the face of what everybody says who has been trying to legalize same-sex marriage? I assume this isn't just your opinion, but rather a considered legal or sociological opinion of someone with some standing to make such pronouncements and be taken at least half-seriously? Who is that person?
quote:
I suggest to you that trying to legislate parity of esteem never works, is a manipulative use of words that isn't entirely honest, and goes beyond the proper role of the State.
Must disagree on the proper role of the state. It is one of the proper roles of the state to protect its citizens from each other. And if legislating parity of esteem will do that, it is within the remit of the state. You can argue that it won't work, yeah sure fine. But it's not outside the state's purview.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Russ, in one narrow sense you are correct: historically, the one common element in all marriages was sticking a penis into a vagina, regardless of the outcome.
I'd correct this to: sticking a penis into one or more vaginas. The idea that a marriage has always been ONE man and ONE woman is fatuous.
quote:
In your definition of marriage, if that penis doesn't go into that vagina, it can't be marriage, and nothing, nothing, nothing can ever make up for absence of Tab A and Slot B. In your definition of marriage, all that stuff about "till death do us part" and "in sickness and in health" and "forsaking all others" doesn't make the marriage, it's just frosting on the fuck cake.
That is a fantastic turn of phrase. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Well, if we want to constrain ourselves to the happenstance of dictionaries, we also technically marry bottles of condiments.
Someone explain this to me please.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Well, if we want to constrain ourselves to the happenstance of dictionaries, we also technically marry bottles of condiments.
Someone explain this to me please.
Well, the motto of his place of residence is "Keep Portland Weird" so...
[ 18. October 2015, 20:59: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The Church sanctified marriage, made it a sacrament. But the Church does not marry people; the couple marry each other with the Church as witness.
"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
A couple doesn't effect its own marriage, if Jesus is right (remember him?). God joins them together.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
I don't know about how it is thought to work in Orthodoxy, but the (Roman) Catholic Church teaches that the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage: as God fulfills the promise of His presence in the Sacrament of the Altar at the "bidding" of a priest, so at the "bidding" of the couple He sanctifies their marriage. That's what the sacraments are like: the grace of God is "effected" through our words and deeds.
In that sense, the couple do indeed effect their own marriage, which is presumably what Ross was getting at.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In that sense, the couple do indeed effect their own marriage, which is presumably what Ross was getting at.
Well, and the justification of homophobia...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
I don't know about how it is thought to work in Orthodoxy, but the (Roman) Catholic Church teaches that the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage: as God fulfills the promise of His presence in the Sacrament of the Altar at the "bidding" of a priest, so at the "bidding" of the couple He sanctifies their marriage. That's what the sacraments are like: the grace of God is "effected" through our words and deeds.
In that sense, the couple do indeed effect their own marriage, which is presumably what Ross was getting at.
Which is why I said "how very western." This dodge (which creates the loophole needed for the de facto divorce known as "annulment") doesn't exist in the east. The sacraments are sacraments of the church, effected by its anointed ministers. Not shuffled off onto other agents to create legal loopholes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Well, if we want to constrain ourselves to the happenstance of dictionaries, we also technically marry bottles of condiments.
Someone explain this to me please.
It's when you pour the contents of one half-empty bottle of ketchup into the other half-empty bottle of ketchup. A term used in the bar and restaurant business.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I was thinking along the lines of
v.intr.
To combine or blend agreeably: Let the flavors marry overnight.
Which is not completely dissimilar.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
From the dictionary -
2.
join together; combine harmoniously.
"the show marries poetry with art".
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which is why I said "how very western." This dodge (which creates the loophole needed for the de facto divorce known as "annulment") doesn't exist in the east.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) "Heremeneutics of suspicion", anyone? Believe me, mousethief, "the west" (i.e., the Churches under Peter) does not formulate doctrine specifically to piss off "the east".
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which is why I said "how very western." This dodge (which creates the loophole needed for the de facto divorce known as "annulment") doesn't exist in the east.
"Heremeneutics of suspicion", anyone? Believe me, mousethief, "the west" (i.e., the Churches under Peter) does not formulate doctrine specifically to piss off "the east".
THERE is an interesting straw man. I never once thought the churches under the so-called successors of Peter, or any of their off-flakings in the form of the Protestants, did anything specifically to "piss off" the One True Church. Nor have I ever stated such. You're channeling IngoB. Is he reading in secret and feeding you stupid lines? Or are you thinking up your own?
Are you capable of discussing the actual issue I raised, or just too lazy?
[ 20. October 2015, 02:47: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I suggest to you that trying to legislate parity of esteem never works, is a manipulative use of words that isn't entirely honest, and goes beyond the proper role of the State.
Although you positively support the State legislating for disparity of esteem? At least to the extent that when a gay couple want to make a formal commitment to one another, and want to use an ordinary English word for that commitment that suggests that they are doing much the same thing that similarly-minded straight couples do*, you want to insist they can't do that and must use a clumsy legalism invented for the purpose of labelling gay relationships differently from straight ones? That's a proper concern of the state, but supporting parity of esteem isn't? That's an honest use of language, but using ordinary words for ordinary relationships isn't?
Do you read your posts before hitting 'Add reply'?
'Parity of esteem' is nonsense anyway. You are free to accord more or less esteem to any marriage you like for any reason you like. You can disapprove of marriages of convenience, open marriages, second marriages and (if you don't mind being thought a homophobe) gay marriages. Or not. It's up to you. But if the only one of that class where you get really up-tight about its being called marriage at all is gay marriage, then that says something about your own entitlement to esteem.
(*hint: they are)
--------------------
"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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I must say that Russ is giving us a masterclass in equivocation. Now it's 'parity of esteem', to add to the list, e.g. 'defect' being used both in a technical sense and a moral sense.
As Eliab points out, the way we esteem things is up to us, and the state does not interfere with that. For example, I may esteem Tories at a very low level, but that is neither illegal nor in fact, particularly interesting.
So equal marriage is not about esteem at all.
I suppose it's all about circling round, avoiding the central tenets of bigotry being made too explict, and dressing it up in circuitous language.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
"Ablation of esteem" is a good description of this thread.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I may esteem Tories at a very low level, but that is neither illegal nor in fact, particularly interesting.
I think what's interesting in relation to this thread is that many Tories would both think you're wrong in that judgment and defend the idea that you should be allowed to think it and say it.
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Well, obviously you're not a Tory, since you want queer folk to remain silent.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I may esteem Tories at a very low level, but that is neither illegal nor in fact, particularly interesting.
I think what's interesting in relation to this thread is that many Tories would both think you're wrong in that judgment and defend the idea that you should be allowed to think it and say it.
No-one is legislating away your right to be a total dickwad about this topic. Although, frankly, you're making one of the best arguments for why the government sometimes needs to save people from themselves I've seen in quite a while.
You seem very confused in general about the difference between the right to do something, the "right" to have people approve of you doing something, and the wisdom of doing something.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You seem very confused in general about the difference between the right to do something, the "right" to have people approve of you doing something, and the wisdom of doing something.
That could be a dictionary definition of the American religious right.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which is why I said "how very western." This dodge (which creates the loophole needed for the de facto divorce known as "annulment") doesn't exist in the east.
"Heremeneutics of suspicion", anyone? Believe me, mousethief, "the west" (i.e., the Churches under Peter) does not formulate doctrine specifically to piss off "the east".
THERE is an interesting straw man. I never once thought the churches under the so-called successors of Peter, or any of their off-flakings in the form of the Protestants, did anything specifically to "piss off" the One True Church. Nor have I ever stated such. You're channeling IngoB. Is he reading in secret and feeding you stupid lines? Or are you thinking up your own?
Are you capable of discussing the actual issue I raised, or just too lazy?
Do I get fries with that false dichotomy?
Sure, you never actually said that we formulate doctrine just to piss off the Orthodox, but my point that that the way you bang on about "western" theology is just as if you consider it a pathetically insulting retort to the "purity" of Orthodoxy - a knowingly specious and self-serving pollution of the cold clear waters of the East.
My reference to a hermeneutics of suspicion - though perhaps cynicism would be better - was a response to your charge that the "western" (interestingly, a deprecatory term from you) idea that the couple are themselves the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony is invidiously made up - is a "dodge" - so as to cook up the "loophole" of annulment proceedings. Do you really think that, or was it just a gratuitous sideswipe? Like "the so-called successors of Peter".
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
To pretend that any religious code is based only on purity and principle is bullshit.
Annulment, no matter the original intent, is political and personal as much as anything else in its application. And yes, this is based on knowledge of real annulments.
It is better only by comparison to no separation allowed at all.
Both orthodox and RCC policies are prejudiced against women in general and in regards to marriage in particular.
Before you continue swinging your cruciform peni again, consider that it sounds much like "the way I beat my wife is better than the way you beat yours".
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Russ - do you have religious objections to homosexual sex? If so, why don't you just say so and we can all leave you in your box?
I don't believe anything about homosexuality on religious authority. I don't believe Moses walked down the mountain leaving behind the tablet that read "Don't be gay" because he could only carry ten. I don't believe that I have a hotline to a God who has an essentially-arbitrary Will that He requires believers to impose on nonbelievers.
But it seems to me that - perhaps in a different sense of the word - this is a profoundly religious issue.
Marriage is in my religion a sacrament, and I understand and sympathize with those who feel that mocking the sacraments is one step removed from blasphemy.
My ideal is mutual tolerance between people of different religious persuasions and none; I want no rules or laws that either impose a religious view on the non-religious (e.g. by forbidding reasoned argument concerning marriage, or forbidding jokes or satire that target marriage) or impose on the religious an anti-religious view (e.g. that marriage is whatever the State says it is).
Belief in natural law - in some type of order or moral value in the universe - such that it is meaningful to say that something is good (rather than only instrumentally good in achieving some arbitrary purpose) is in a sense a religious position.
Come to that, idolising equality is arguably in the same sense a religious position, a (mis-)perception of what is or is not well-ordered.
(Atheism is perhaps in that sense only religion without a personal Deity.)
The "God says so" type of conservative religion that objects to homosexuality on the grounds of revelation is not the only sort of religion. And that's not where I'm coming from.
And sometimes I get the feeling that however carefully I choose the words to try to say what is true and not say what is not true, some people are reading the words in the context of what they perceive as a long-running culture war between pro-homo progressives and anti-homo conservatives. And they're reading the words only for the purpose of judging whether Russ is One of Us or One of Them. And if he's One of Them then obviously he believes everything that They believe, and the words are just code for that. And no compromise in this war is conceivable and everything has already been said, and all that's left is to heap personal abuse on the other side in as creative and stylish a manner as possible.
I live in no box, and I'm encouraging you to come out of yours and play at reasoning together.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Do you believe that Christians are forbidden by God from engaging in same sex relationships, and that such relationships can not be considered marriage ?
[ 21. October 2015, 22:11: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Marriage is in my religion a sacrament, and I understand and sympathize with those who feel that mocking the sacraments is one step removed from blasphemy.
I look forward to you picketing the wedding chapels in Las Vegas, right after you've finished dealing with the far more serious threat of people who want to commit to their same-sex partner after several decades of living together.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I want no rules or laws that either impose a religious view on the non-religious (e.g. by forbidding reasoned argument concerning marriage, or forbidding jokes or satire that target marriage) or impose on the religious an anti-religious view (e.g. that marriage is whatever the State says it is).
Ah, I see. So you don't believe in having laws on this issue at all? Well, that's good, because it's the law that prevents same-sex marriage in many places. We'll just go ahead and do it.
You might want to have a quick chat, though, to the millions and millions of non-religious people whose marriages you'll invalidate, and talk about how the government is going to recognise their relationships now that you've taken the perfectly ordinary word "marriage" and places a holy religious aura around it. Maybe normal people can just all switch to asking their loved ones "will you civil union me?"
You're not the first person to trot out that particular line of drivel, but really, the whole notion that religions own marriage and own the word marriage is one of the most pathetically irrational arguments in the whole arsenal of irrational arguments. The State is going to recognise relationships, and it's going to use whatever fucking word it wants to describe the relationships it's recognising, and playing stupid word games to protect a particular word to mean "the holy version of couple relationships" is an attempt to comfort yourself by creating a fantasy reality.
As has been pointed out approximately 785 times during my time as a Shipmate, the Catholic church already has different rules for relationship recognition compared to the State. No-one's preventing that. But the Catholic church hasn't laid claim to the word "marriage" and forced the State to give people on their 2nd marriages a different word. And you're not going to be able to grab ownership of the word now, either. So just get the fuck over it and speak normal English.
[ 21. October 2015, 22:23: 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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You are free to accord more or less esteem to any marriage you like for any reason you like. You can disapprove of marriages of convenience, open marriages, second marriages and... ...gay marriages. Or not. It's up to you. But if the only one of that class where you get really up-tight about its being called marriage at all is gay marriage, then that says something
"Gay marriage" is the only one that the Irish state has asked people to vote on recently. And enduring all the nonsense that people talked about that was the thing that led me to comment about the topic on the Ship. Normally it's not something I'd engage with; the gay people I've met do their thing in private and it's not my business. But the suggestion in the original thread that voting "No" makes one an extremist irritated me enough to make the point that casting such a vote is an entirely reasonable thing to do...
I think you can make a good case that a "marriage of convenience" (assuming that by that you mean a case where people have obtained the paperwork of marriage in order to secure immigration rights or other benefits from the bureaucrats, but have not entered into any relationship of trust with each other) is not a marriage.
quote:
you positively support the State legislating for disparity of esteem?
Calling different things by different names doesn't imply or impose any disparity of esteem.
Calling different things (even if they have elements in common) by the same name with the deliberate intention of making it hard to express different reactions to them is too close to 1984 NewSpeak for my liking.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
you positively support the State legislating for disparity of esteem?
Calling different things by different names doesn't imply or impose any disparity of esteem.
Calling different things (even if they have elements in common) by the same name with the deliberate intention of making it hard to express different reactions to them is too close to 1984 NewSpeak for my liking.
As a legislative drafter I could write whole chapters unpacking this rubbish.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But the suggestion in the original thread that voting "No" makes one an extremist irritated me enough to make the point that casting such a vote is an entirely reasonable thing to do...
It is an extreme position. Perhaps not compared to The Recusancy Acts, but "you cannot marry, because I do not approve" is certainly not a progressive idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think you can make a good case that a "marriage of convenience" (assuming that by that you mean a case where people have obtained the paperwork of marriage in order to secure immigration rights or other benefits from the bureaucrats, but have not entered into any relationship of trust with each other) is not a marriage.
How, oh wise one, would you regulate this?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Calling different things (even if they have elements in common) by the same name with the deliberate intention of making it hard to express different reactions to them is too close to 1984 NewSpeak for my liking.
WTF?
quote:
Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace.
So, how is opening the restrictions on marriage, without any real effect on those who disagree, Newspeak?
[ 21. October 2015, 23:07: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Do you believe that Christians are forbidden by God from engaging in same sex relationships, and that such relationships can not be considered marriage ?
Everyone has relationships with people of the same sex, unless they're in a cloistered religious order.
I believe that some people are permanently and biologically homosexual ("gay" for short), and that for those people to have sexual relationships with people of the same sex is in itself no more or less displeasing to God than comparable heterosexual relationships.
I believe that gay people should have the same legal rights to form civil contracts as straight people, but that the word "marriage" has layers of meaning that prevent it being accurate to describe such contracts as marriage, and that to do so is a small incursion on people's freedom of religion.
I believe that no-one, gay or straight, should be bullied.
I believe that we do not yet understand homosexuality well enough.
I think I've said all these things, if less succinctly. But there's one area that we haven't really covered, and no doubt I'll be insulted and abused for saying it, but once this thread is over I'm not going to be addressing this topic again, so might as well do it properly.
I believe that there are people who are not gay who for various reasons are tempted to homosexual acts. And that for them to commit these acts does not lead to the best outcome for them. And that therefore to encourage such choices is morally wrong.
I don't know how many such people there are, or understand all the processes involved. From the figures I've seen, it's not impossible that the proportion of men who are gay is around 3% and the proportion of men who have had some homosexual experience is around 33%. Meaning that there are perhaps 10 people who benefit from being told that no this isn't a good idea for every one person who needs to be told that yes this is OK.
Maybe the figure isn't 10. And the numbers may be different for women. But the moral argument doesn't depend on the figure being exact.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
that the word "marriage" has layers of meaning that prevent it being accurate to describe such contracts as marriage, and that to do so is a small incursion on people's freedom of religion.
What nonsense.
I believe in Real Presence. That does not mean that my memorialist friends are impeding my freedom of religion if they call their symbolic sharing of bread and wine "communion".
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... I believe that gay people should have the same legal rights to form civil contracts as straight people, but that the word "marriage" has layers of meaning that prevent it being accurate to describe such contracts as marriage, and that to do so is a small incursion on people's freedom of religion. ...
Could you please explain exactly how OTHER people getting married impinges on YOUR freedom to practice your religion? You can still get married to whomever you want and call yourselves married. Nobody is stopping you from getting married or saying you and your spouse are not really married. That's what YOU want to do to other people. I think you're confusing freedom of religion with the freedom to be an asshole.
quote:
... I believe that we do not yet understand homosexuality well enough. ...
Well enough to do what? What exactly do you "need" to know, and what do you plan to do with that knowledge?
quote:
... I believe that there are people who are not gay who for various reasons are tempted to homosexual acts. And that for them to commit these acts does not lead to the best outcome for them. And that therefore to encourage such choices is morally wrong. ...
Good grief. Do you really have straight friends who ask, "Hey, boy-o, do you think I should try gay sex?" Have you heard of the Kinsey scale and the term "bisexual"? Are you bi-phobic as well?
And I ask again:
quote:
Russ, in one narrow sense you are correct: historically, the one common element in all marriages was sticking a penis into a vagina*, regardless of the outcome. (Despite your palaver about children, impotence was a legal barrier to marriage, not infertility.) When you are arguing for "customary" marriage, that is what you arguing for - a genital activity requirement for marriage.
In your definition of marriage, if that penis doesn't go into that vagina, it can't be marriage, and nothing, nothing, nothing can ever make up for absence of Tab A and Slot B. In your definition of marriage, all that stuff about "till death do us part" and "in sickness and in health" and "forsaking all others" doesn't make the marriage, it's just frosting on the fuck cake. When married people celebrate their anniversary, they're commemorating the date of their first fuck.
Is that really the hill of the definition of marriage you want to die on? The Golgotha where you crucify gays and lesbians on your cross of genital marriage?
So, Russ: is that really what defines marriage for you? Penis into vagina? If not, perhaps you could tell us what "layers of meaning" -- other than the afore-mentioned penis-into-vagina, with or without offspring -- are absent from same-sex relationships that YOU think make them unworthy of the word marriage.
*Mousethief has correctly pointed out that one penis can "marry" more than one vagina in many religions and cultures. The vaginas, not so much.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sure, you never actually said that we formulate doctrine just to piss off the Orthodox,
Ah, admission of reality. I may have just opened a window into a very dark place.
quote:
but my point that that the way you bang on about "western" theology is just as if you consider it a pathetically insulting retort to the "purity" of Orthodoxy - a knowingly specious and self-serving pollution of the cold clear waters of the East.
And then you turn around and undo what you just did, making the claim you said you weren't making.
Look, I don't consider the excesses of Rome a pathetically insulting retort to the purity of Orthodoxy. I consider them crimes against God.
Just as I consider various excesses of the Orthodoxen are crimes against God. Maybe you miss where I call out my fellow Orthodoxen? Perhaps you only read my posts when your sixth sensors tell you someone is insulting Muvva Rome, and ignore the rest of them? Or is there some other reason you notice when I say negative things about Rome but never when I say negative things about Constantinople? Are you really the IngoB WannaB that you seem?
quote:
Do you really think that, or was it just a gratuitous sideswipe?
Can I get organic ketchup with my fries with your false dichotomy?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think you can make a good case that a "marriage of convenience" (assuming that by that you mean a case where people have obtained the paperwork of marriage in order to secure immigration rights or other benefits from the bureaucrats, but have not entered into any relationship of trust with each other) is not a marriage.
One of the most common reasons for marriages of convenience is that of gay men marrying gay women, particularly in more homophobic communities or careers. It is the first example Wikipedia gives and if you Google you can find people advertising for partners for marriages of convenience in this form. In these cases the partners deliberately enter into marriages that allow both partners to continue with their preferred same sex relationships but present the appearance of heterosexual marriage.
If you are so against marriages of convenience, surely you should permit same sex marriage to counteract these sacrilegious marriages of convenience?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Shipmate
# 11406
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I believe that gay people should have the same legal rights to form civil contracts as straight people, but that the word "marriage" has layers of meaning that prevent it being accurate to describe such contracts as marriage, and that to do so is a small incursion on people's freedom of religion.
If I understand correctly, you are arguing that your definition of marriage should take precidence over any other and that the word marriage should not be used outside of this. I imagine that there are many legally valid marriages which exist outside of the definition you prefer, including but not limited to gay marriages. I am not sure exactly what your definition is so I can't comment fully on what else would be outside. I am guessing that your definition is based on it being a Christian sacrement and so non-Christian marriages (being they atheist, hindu, muslim, etc) should not, in your view, be refered to as marriages. Is this correct? Would you argue that these should not be legally recognised as marriages but should have a different term used?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I believe that there are people who are not gay who for various reasons are tempted to homosexual acts. And that for them to commit these acts does not lead to the best outcome for them. And that therefore to encourage such choices is morally wrong.
Here I think we have more problems. How do you propose to decide who is really gay and who isn't? Is there some sort of test? Can I ask how you formed this view and what it is based on? My own view is that using gay and straight as if attraction was binary is unhelpful. I think there are people who predominantly prefer people of the same sex (who we refer to as gay) and people who predominantly prefer people of the opposite sex (who we refer to as straight) but that there is also a large spectrum in between with many people inside. That the lines between what is gay and what is straight are blurred (and is not something we should worry about defining anyway). And that attractions along the whole of this spectrum are every bit as inherent as any other.
Perhaps we need to look at why you think a bisexual person choosing a same-sex partner is worse (and therefore morally wrong) than choosing a straight partner. Does this come back to children again? If so I am not sure that argument works any better in this case than it did when we were discussing gay couples earlier. So what else is detrimental here?
In general I find your suggestion that gay people should be free to act as they choose but only behind closed doors to be somewhat disturbing. It reminds me strongly of the contriversial law passed in Russia a few years ago banning gay propaganda (whatever that is). Are you honestly suggesting that holding hand in public should be a social taboo? Openly introducing their someone as their partner?
--------------------
One day I will think of something worth saying here.
Posts: 96 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Do you believe that Christians are forbidden by God from engaging in same sex relationships, and that such relationships can not be considered marriage ?
Everyone has relationships with people of the same sex, unless they're in a cloistered religious order.
In the context of this thread I think it is fairly obvious I am asking you about intimate relationships not platonic friendships.
quote:
I believe that some people are permanently and biologically homosexual ("gay" for short), and that for those people to have sexual relationships with people of the same sex is in itself no more or less displeasing to God than comparable heterosexual relationships.
We agree on something.
quote:
I believe that gay people should have the same legal rights to form civil contracts as straight people, but that the word "marriage" has layers of meaning that prevent it being accurate to describe such contracts as marriage, and that to do so is a small incursion on people's freedom of religion.[/qb]
i believe you are wrong, be ause I don't think civil society is obliged to mirror religious understandings of marriage. And also because the definition or marriage has changed radically in both civl and relgious definitions over time.
quote:
I believe that no-one, gay or straight, should be bullied.
That's nice, but not really relevant to my questions.
quote:
I believe that we do not yet understand homosexuality well enough.
Well enough for what ?
quote:
I believe that there are people who are not gay who for various reasons are tempted to homosexual acts. And that for them to commit these acts does not lead to the best outcome for them. And that therefore to encourage such choices is morally wrong.
a) Why do you consider such experimentation morally wrong ? And based upon what authority, or ethical principle ?
It reads as a reframe of the idea that people some how catch homosexuality in the way they might develop a drug addiction.
b) Do you believe that there are people who are not straight who for various reasons are tempted to heterosexual acts. And that for them to commit these acts does not lead to the best outcome for them. And that therefore to encourage such choices is morally wrong ?
[ 22. October 2015, 19:04: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erik:
If I understand correctly, you are arguing that your definition of marriage should take precidence over any other and that the word marriage should not be used outside of this... ...I am guessing that your definition is based on it being a Christian sacrement and so non-Christian marriages (being they atheist, hindu, muslim, etc) should not, in your view, be refered to as marriages. Is this correct?
Not at all. I'm saying that the hindus and the muslims and most other cultures have seen a religious significance to marriage, and seen it as a relationship between a man and a woman, with implications for the children (if any, although there is a general expectation) of the union.
Until feminism, this was a truth universally acknowledged...
If a secular State wants to offer a religion-lite version for its less-religiously-minded citizens, then the old saying about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery applies.
But when the State wants to change the meaning of the word so drastically as to refer to two men (or a person and an animal) then use of a different word is in order.
"Gay marriage" takes some of the meaning of the word "marriage" and treats that part as the whole. Just as Soror Magna
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
is that really what defines marriage for you? Penis into vagina?
is taking part of the whole and treating that part as the whole (for rhetorical effect). Her argument tries to present a choice between p-into-v being the whole or the essence of marriage and being an unimportant part that can be discarded without affecting the essence of marriage. To which I suggest that the truth is in the excluded middle.
quote:
Erik again:
How do you propose to decide who is really gay and who isn't? Is there some sort of test? Can I ask how you formed this view and what it is based on? My own view is that using gay and straight as if attraction was binary is unhelpful.
I'd agree that there's a grey area in between. I'm suggesting that this is not well understood.
Some people believe that having sexual feelings for a member of the opposite sex is a natural stage that many people go through and grow out of.
The argument that's been presented so far is that being gay is a biological phenomenon (so that for example those who try to treat it as a psychological one are wasting their time and possibly doing more harm than good). Someone (?CK?) earlier put forward the "hormone imbalance in the womb" idea as the current leading theory.
If that's the case then it's not inconceivable that in future there may be a scientific test for it. (I'm not suggesting that anyone should be forced to take it).
Orfeo believes from his experience that his condition - his type of being gay, if you will - has a biological origin and that he was gay from birth. That there are people in that category I don't doubt, and I believe him when he says that he's one of them.
Such people are innocent because they haven't chosen to be what they are.
But I don't believe that "that type of being gay" is involved in every instance of Men having Sex with Men. Unless you've some evidence to the contrary...
I tend to think that people shouldn't be committing sexual acts until they've grown through whatever phases apply. Adultery is for adults...
quote:
Erik said:
Perhaps we need to look at why you think a bisexual person choosing a same-sex partner is worse (and therefore morally wrong) than choosing a straight partner. Does this come back to children again? If so I am not sure that argument works any better in this case than it did when we were discussing gay couples earlier. So what else is detrimental here?
I've talked about the Circle of Life, I've talked about a man honouring his parents by taking on his father's status and marrying someone like his mother and carrying on the family. I've talked about those who look back on their lives and found marriage, family and children to be their greatest fulfilment. Not sure how I can say it any better.
I don't know what's going on in the heads of MSM. How much is a bisexual version of being permanently and biologically gay ? How much is confusion ? Or desperation ?
The "what else" here is that some of these people will in later life look back on what they've done in the absence of homosexual desire. With disgust.
quote:
In general I find your suggestion that gay people should be free to act as they choose but only behind closed doors to be somewhat disturbing. It reminds me strongly of the contriversial law passed in Russia a few years ago banning gay propaganda (whatever that is). Are you honestly suggesting that holding hand in public should be a social taboo? Openly introducing their someone as their partner?
If at a social occasion it should so happen that I introduce to my mother a work colleague who I know to be gay, then I'd expect him to respect her sensibilities enough to talk about his "flatmate" and not indicate by his public behaviour that they are more to each other than good friends.
If on the way home from the party, in a context where they think themselves unobserved, said colleague and his partner should in a spirit of spontaneous affection hold hands, then I'm not going to make anything of it.
If they proudly and publicly hold hands in a spirit of defiance, as a deliberate political act, then any negative reaction they get from other people is probably deserved.
"Behind closed doors" follows from the secular ethic of doing what you like "provided it doesn't impact negatively on other people". Public behaviour should consider the feelings of other people.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
And if these 'other people' are offended a co-habitant but unmarried couple? Or by a black man with a white woman? Or an older woman with a much younger man? Or by a couple with Down's Syndrome?
Whose 'sensibility' gets to set the rules?
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
The truth, at last:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Until feminism, this was a truth universally acknowledged...
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm saying that the hindus and the muslims and most other cultures have seen a religious significance to marriage, and seen it as a relationship between a man and a woman, with implications for the children (if any, although there is a general expectation) of the union.
A man and A woman ?? Many of those 'other cultures' have had no problem - or even a 'general expectation' - that marriage should involve a man and several women, or less frequently a woman and several men. Sometimes they have seen a religious significance to these marriages. Does the existence of polygamous or polyandrous marriages affect the way that heterosexual couples think about their own marriages?
If it does, how? If it doesn't, why should the existence of homosexual marriages be so much more disruptive?
Anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
There are some religions that see same sex marriage as legitimate. Why don't those religions get to call it marriage, in your delusional little world?
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Russ the lion really posted this
If a secular State wants to offer a religion-lite version for its less-religiously-minded citizens, then the old saying about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery applies.
But when the State wants to change the meaning of the word so drastically as to refer to two men (or a person and an animal) then use of a different word is in order.
Where's bald dentist when you need one?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Seriously Russ, fuck your mom.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediment. ...
Wm Shakespeare.
Minds are what is involved. (And that rules the animals out.) Do stop admitting impediments.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
"Behind closed doors" follows from the secular ethic of doing what you like "provided it doesn't impact negatively on other people". Public behaviour should consider the feelings of other people.
So you'll be shutting the fuck now, will you? Thanks awfully!
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If at a social occasion it should so happen that I introduce to my mother a work colleague who I know to be gay, then I'd expect him to respect her sensibilities enough to talk about his "flatmate" and not indicate by his public behaviour that they are more to each other than good friends.
My grandmother believes that alcohol is evil.
If we're at a party and I call my drink non-alcoholic grape juice rather than wine, I'm not "respecting her sensibilities". I'm lying.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
A story.
Walking back to the car after (not my usual) Parkrun on Saturday, I was engaged in conversation with a lass who was also a visitor - we were comparing our regular courses with the one we'd just run.
As we parted, her to her campervan and me to my car, she said "Time for a shower, and I'll have to try and not wake the wife."
I enquired whether said wife couldn't be enticed out for a run. "No," she laughed, "she's not a morning person."
Welcome to the 21st Century, Russ. You lost.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
