Thread: GLBT is a facade Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028557

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
I won't even try to start this anywhere but Dead Nags.

Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people (otherwise the Net would not be the cesspit of porn that it is).

Should the answer be "no"? Bottom line, the answer needs to be left to the individual.

Then society must step in and define what is "normal", i.e. what it will not tolerate as acceptable behavior.

Here's the problem with the whole sexual revolution today: it is focused on DIFFERENCES in sexual expression, where those are merely perceived and not actual. So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee. Alright, let's assume for arguement's sake that's true. At what point does society have the duty and the right to impose limitations on GLBT? The line in the sand is, "Only consenting adults". (Obviously, a twisted, pedophile segment don't agree to that line in the sand.)

Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!). So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing? They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality in the face of the established, traditional morality: this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship (i.e a "marriage" intended for life). The entire facade of GLBT is dishonest. If we extended their rallies and parades to include ALL sexually immoral people (like that annual parade in Germany does), the issue would be exposed for what it truly is: a push to break down society's barriers to sexual excess.

So each one of us must decide where our line in the sand is. The Law may be redefined to allow all manner of sexual behavior without criminal or even civil repurcussions.

But we live in the Age of Free Will: all the restraints are being removed a piece and barrier at a time. It seems fated to be thus. And you, alone, must stand for something besides being part of some advocacy group, regardless which one it is….
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing? They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality in the face of the established, traditional morality: this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship (i.e a "marriage" intended for life).

The opposite of 'gay pride' is 'gay shame' - which is presumably what you want LGBT to feel - as they used to feel when 'traditional morality' was used to judge them.

As for 'sexual play...monogamous' - all the gay people I know are in couples. One couple from my church have been together for over 50 years. I don't think i know any heterosexual couples whose marriages have lasted that long.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Ummmm... No. Being GBLT is way more than about having sex. It involves identity and worldview.

Society has no right to impose any restrictions on LGBT people it doesn't impose on others.

There is nothing that goes on at Gay Pride Parades that that straight people don't do on MTV, at Spring Break or at Mardi Gras. Gay Pride Parades represent the gay community to the same degree that MTV, Spring Break and Mardi Gras represent heterosexuality. You'll find many gay people in responsible monogamous relationships just like you do with straight people.

The rest of the post (those rare bits that are coherent) sound like slippery slope fallacies. Morality and legality are two different things. The law is concerned about harm and fairness. All LGBT people are the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

[ 12. October 2010, 19:22: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
So, if a monogamous straight couple have sex with each other because, as individuals, they enjoy it, are they sinning just as gay couples who have sex for personal gratification do?

And what's been said about monogamous gays, though I do know straight couples that stayed married for 50 years and more.
 
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
In my view the best thing about acceptance of diversity is that then everyone has access to other things, like commitment, general community support. It opens up possibilities that may have not existed or existed in different and more difficult forms.

The only problem I have with the GLBT and various other additions to the alphabet soup: GLBTQTS etc., is that many diversities are all lumped together. Labels summarize and are short hand, but they may also label for other purposes.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
This is interesting as I just finished reading an article by the folks at the OKCupid dating site, which aggregated data from over 600,000 people who use their site. The whole thing is here and has lots of good data and pretty interesting charts for you visual learners, but here's what I think is petinent to Merlin's generalization:
quote:

Gay people aren't promiscuous.

Another common myth about gay people is that they sleep around, but the statistical reality is that gay people as a group aren't any more slutty than straights.
Median Reported Sex Partners

* straight men: 6
* gay men: 6
* straight women: 6
* gay women: 6

* 45% of gay people have had 5 or fewer partners (vs. 44% for straights)
* 98% of gay people have had 20 or fewer partners (vs. 99% for straights)

It turns out that a tiny fraction of gays have single-handedly two-handedly created the public image of gay sexual recklessness—in fact we found that just 2% of gay people have had 23% of the total reported gay sex, which is pretty crazy.



[ 12. October 2010, 19:50: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
The hard fact is that gay people, like other minority communities, have higher rates of social dysfunction because of "minority stress". "Minority stress" manifests itself in different minority communities in different ways: gang violence, family breakdown, substance abuse and higher rates of suicide. Higher rates of these dysfunctions are found in communities as diverse as the Inuit to African Americans. There is a stereotype that gay people tend to be wealthier than the general population but as gay people in minority communities, poorer and rural areas have come out, that is shown not to be the case.

I think monogamous gay couples face much greater challenges than straight couples do. There are far fewer gay people, so its harder to meet a compatible person. In many jurisdictions there are no legal protections for couples and sometimes having fewer legal entanglements means it's easier to break up. But most importantly there aren't the social supports straight people are blessed with: institutions such as churches that nurture and support gay relationships; extended families are often hostile; people are often in work situations where being openly gay is unacceptable, etc. And I think it takes a village to keep a couple together. Extended families help keep the inevitable stress and tension down.

But even with those drawbacks there are a surprising number of gay couples who are in very conventional monogamous relationships. They have managed to find a compatible partner and immerse themselves in a supportive community. They certainly don't regard their partners as playthings, rather, sex is an expression of deep and abiding love and faithfulness.

[ 12. October 2010, 20:06: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!).

I think this gets to the heart of MtM's rant. Under this view sex can be divided into two categories: enjoyable sex (which is immoral) and moral sex (which is apparently unenjoyable, if not downright unpleasant). While this horror at the thought of sensual enjoyment is a common thread in many strains of Christianity, it isn't the necessary component some treat it as.

So, how much of a sense of play does it take for sex to become immoral? This sort of question is similar to asking how many lifetime sex partners are too many. The 'correct' answer is usually just slightly more than however much/many the person asking the question has had.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
The circularity of the "anti-gay-marriage" argument might be a bit of a problem, too.

1. Marriage is the way society limits promiscuity.
2. Gay people should not be able to get married, because gay people are promiscuous.
3. Goto 1 (if your head doesn't hurt by now).
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
I'm also not sure what's supposed to be concealed behind the "façade" of the GBLT movement. So far the accusation seems to be that they're defying the sexual norms of society in pursuit of their secret agenda of . . . defying the sexual norms of society.

I don't think "façade" means what MtM thinks it does.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!).

I think this gets to the heart of MtM's rant. Under this view sex can be divided into two categories: enjoyable sex (which is immoral) and moral sex (which is apparently unenjoyable, if not downright unpleasant). While this horror at the thought of sensual enjoyment is a common thread in many strains of Christianity, it isn't the necessary component some treat it as.

So, how much of a sense of play does it take for sex to become immoral? This sort of question is similar to asking how many lifetime sex partners are too many. The 'correct' answer is usually just slightly more than however much/many the person asking the question has had.

I seriously doubt it - or if this is part of the argument, it's not the central part. Most modern Christians are perfectly fine with "enjoyable" sex - as long as it occurs between husband and wife. You're arguing to a many-years-past issue.

His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....

[ 12. October 2010, 20:32: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Hmmmm... in the "good old days" when gays were in the closet and marriage ruled the land, the wife was the husband's plaything to be used however he wanted (and he didn't need permission!) Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married.

He could control his wife's destiny, had sole ownership of any property and income she earned, could rape and abuse her and it was all completely legal. In the U.S. spousal rape wasn't even a crime in any state until the 1970s. She couldn't divorce him unless there was infidelity and even then, she was a non-virgin and would become essentially "familyless", so many women put up with it.

Ahhh.. yes. The good old days of traditional morality. We have gone into such decline since then.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I seriously doubt it - or if this is part of the argument, it's not the central part. Most modern Christians are perfectly fine with "enjoyable" sex - as long as it occurs between husband and wife. You're arguing to a many-years-past issue.

His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....

This thread was only started an hour ago, and I'm responding to MtM's argument as written, so I don't see how I can be arguing a "many-years-past issue".

At any rate, the only clue from MtM's stated dichotomy about what makes sex "moral" is that it's apparently unlike the other kind, which is a plaything to be enjoyed when you want to. From this I can only guess that moral sex is very workmanlike (or workwomanlike, if that suits your gender better) and done only at times of great inconvenience and/or minimum sexual desire (i.e. whenever you don't want to, to paraphrase MtM). As I said, I'm only working with the information MtM chose to provide.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
So Merlin: are you claiming here that it's the push for marriage that's the "facade"?

Or are you referring to gay rights in general? What's the issue, exactly?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I seriously doubt it - or if this is part of the argument, it's not the central part. Most modern Christians are perfectly fine with "enjoyable" sex - as long as it occurs between husband and wife. You're arguing to a many-years-past issue.

His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....

This thread was only started an hour ago, and I'm responding to MtM's argument as written, so I don't see how I can be arguing a "many-years-past issue".

At any rate, the only clue from MtM's stated dichotomy about what makes sex "moral" is that it's apparently unlike the other kind, which is a plaything to be enjoyed when you want to. From this I can only guess that moral sex is very workmanlike (or workwomanlike, if that suits your gender better) and done only at times of great inconvenience and/or minimum sexual desire (i.e. whenever you don't want to, to paraphrase MtM). As I said, I'm only working with the information MtM chose to provide.

Well, I'm guessing that your guess is wrong, and I've told you why. The "Christians hate sex" business - this was your own statement: "horror at the thought of sensual enjoyment is a common thread in many strains of Christianity" - is an old trope out of the Victorian era.

It should be obvious that it isn't true, really; the vast majority of Catholics worldwide use birth control in direct defiance of the Vatican, and I don't know of any Protestants who have a problem with it. Evangelical publications these days contain plenty of articles about the "Joys of Married Sex."

I'm just informing you that you're not up to speed with this line of argument, so that whatever else you derive from it is likely to be wrong as well.

[ 12. October 2010, 21:11: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people

Unsubstantiated claim. It's not so obvious to me. You start out with this unprovable claim and attempt to build some kind of argument on it.

quote:

There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like

That's right ... the world is black and white and there are no shades of gray.

quote:
So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing?

Ooh. I'm impressed with the linking together of so obviously related logically following concepts. I'm guessing that the gay pride participants can't be in the group that have ethics about sex.

quote:

They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality

Ah. Guess I was right. No exploration of the thesis of whether gay people operate in integrity. It's just asserted. "It's because you say so", I'll bet.

quote:

... in the face of the established, traditional morality

because we know that "traditional" automatically equates to good and right, correct? That's why women are still chattel and slavery is still legal, right?

quote:

this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship

Facts and references, sir. And while you're at it, make sure you compare apples to apples and include the statistics about fidelity of opposite sex couples as well.

Another blowhard rant without any basis in facts or experience.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
(I'm betting that MtM is riffing on Carl Paladino's "Speedo/grinding" comment here:

quote:
On a Gay Pride Parade he attended: "I stumbled on one in Toronto one time with my wife. We watched this. There were men in speedos grinding and doing things, okay, to each other. I just said, that's not right."
Source.

Some people really don't like the grinding in public. Truth be told, I think it's pretty asinine, myself....)
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
(P.S. I hate hetero PDDs - "Public Displays of Debauchery," that is - at Mardi Gras, too.

Get a room, that's my motto. FYI, you're just not pretty....)
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I won't even try to start this anywhere but Dead Nags.

Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people (otherwise the Net would not be the cesspit of porn that it is).

Should the answer be "no"? Bottom line, the answer needs to be left to the individual.

No other options? Really? I don't know what goes on under your quilts, Merlin (and please don't tell us), but in my house sex happens for a fair number of reasons, one of which is the simple biological drive for physical intimacy with a beloved Other.

Also, it actually isn't up to the individual (unless we're talking really lonely people), because last time I checked, it took a minimum of two to produce a sexual experience. In my house, when one of us doesn't feel like communicating closeness, or de-stressing, or even (gasp) playing, sex does not take place. It's a, well, GROUP decision.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Then society must step in and define what is "normal", i.e. what it will not tolerate as acceptable behavior.

Call me crazy, but this is not society defining what's normal. It's society defining what's ABnormal. Once you define as abnormal things like compelling sex through force and/or threats of force, and the exploitation of people legally unable to consent to sex, etc. pretty much anything else falls, by default, under the rubric "normal."

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's the problem with the whole sexual revolution today: it is focused on DIFFERENCES in sexual expression, where those are merely perceived and not actual.

Huh? What on earth does this mean? Are you claiming there's no real difference at all among the ways different people -- of different genders, different cultures, different hang-ups, different desires, etc. -- express their sexuality? You lost me.

Personally I have had a slightly larger number of partners than the norms cited above by Spiffy (though these partners were all of the same gender). I assure you there were marked differences among them in terms of sexual expression. MARKED.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.

Gee, and here's silly me thinking it was all about treating citizens alike under the Constitution.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Alright, let's assume for arguement's sake that's true. At what point does society have the duty and the right to impose limitations on GLBT?

The point at which someone is being forced, exploited, or victimized.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The line in the sand is, "Only consenting adults". (Obviously, a twisted, pedophile segment don't agree to that line in the sand.)

Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!). So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing? They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality in the face of the established, traditional morality: this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship (i.e a "marriage" intended for life). The entire facade of GLBT is dishonest. If we extended their rallies and parades to include ALL sexually immoral people (like that annual parade in Germany does), the issue would be exposed for what it truly is: a push to break down society's barriers to sexual excess.

1. Define "sexual excess." Are we talking specific sexual practices? Number of times per day, week, or month? Are we talking about public displays? What are you talking about?

2. I agree that there are serious problems with categorizing people into groups by their sexual preferences. In fact, there's a problem with categorizing people, period. For one thing, it seems to render the process of dehumanizing certain people and denying them basic rights of citizenship much easier.

3. I don't agree that gay pride parades or demos are all about pushing sexual immorality in "people's" (by which I take it you mean heterosexuals, which is a telling distinction in and of itself) faces. Especially as a hefty percentage of participants and attendees are likely to be non-heteros themselves. Rather, they are efforts to make visible what some parts of society wish to make invisible. Or wish to make disappear.

4. As already noted by Spiffy, most people tend eventually to settle into monogamous relationships, many after a certain amount of youthful experimentation.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So each one of us must decide where our line in the sand is. The Law may be redefined to allow all manner of sexual behavior without criminal or even civil repurcussions.

Really? Do you seriously contemplate a time when sex between adults and children, parents & offspring, siblings, humans & members of other species, etc. will be permitted? And that in this new age of sexual laissez-faire, we will all be compelled to define what is and isn't OK for ourselves? Will this be with or without any reference to our own personal inclinations?

I think your scenario is unlikely.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But we live in the Age of Free Will: all the restraints are being removed a piece and barrier at a time. It seems fated to be thus. And you, alone, must stand for something besides being part of some advocacy group, regardless which one it is….

Whatever. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Hmmm. Maybe I get it now, since

quote:

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.

Is this what you're getting at? Is this the "facade" you're talking about?

Well, you're wrong, on two counts. First, as I've written here lately, I'm emotionally attracted to members of my own sex; I can't seem to "fall in love" with people of the opposite gender. I never have, not even once, not even the slightest.

It's not, for me, about "what is sexually attractive" - not really. So think about how that fits into your statement above. Most gay people, for your information, happen to be attracted (in whatever way) to members of our own gender - and by far most of us want a permanent relationship. A partner. I've never met a gay person who didn't want this, as a matter of fact.

Second, it's not true that "any GLBT expression is okeedokee" - at least, it's not any more true for GLBT than for heterosexuals. Really, heteroseuxals do their own share of grinding in various situations; see some of these listed above. It would be a mistake for me to assume that ALL heterosexuals grind in public, though; that's the very mistake you're making here.

[ 13. October 2010, 01:08: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.

Major fallacy right there.

GLBT advocacy is primarily about arguing that GLBT expression is equal to heterosexual expression.

If you have a problem with particular forms of sexual expression, your problem is more with the 'sexual revolution' in general.

It is false reasoning to equate being homosexual with promiscuity or any other form of sexual BEHAVIOUR that you find distasteful or immoral. All the kinds of BEHAVIOUR occur just as readily amonst homosexuals. The only difference is the gender of the partner.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
Likewise, it is a fallacy (slippery slope) to assume that, as homosexual relationships gradually gain acceptance among the general population, other kinds of sexual practices, currently considered unacceptable, will also gradually gain acceptance.
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
Gee, I do hope that Merlin will return to respond to the fallout from his bomb.

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Hmmmm... in the "good old days" when gays were in the closet and marriage ruled the land, the wife was the husband's plaything to be used however he wanted (and he didn't need permission!) Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married. ... Ahhh.. yes. The good old days of traditional morality. ...

I hear things are still that way in Utah.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Also, it actually isn't up to the individual (unless we're talking really lonely people), because last time I checked, it took a minimum of two to produce a sexual experience.

I believe this is called the O'Donnell Rule. Almost no one strictly observes this.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Also, it actually isn't up to the individual (unless we're talking really lonely people), because last time I checked, it took a minimum of two to produce a sexual experience.

I believe this is called the O'Donnell Rule. Almost no one strictly observes this.
[Razz]

True enough: where needs must, and all that . . . But hands up: how many seek out the "on-your-own" kind in preference to the "with-a-partner" kind?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married.

No, that is not true. Talking nonsense just feeds the bigots who want to pretend that feminism has gone too far. It also misrepresents the present by comparing it with an exageratedly nasty past, allowing us to feel superior to previous generations and to delude ourselves that the battle is won. And so it serves the forces of oppression and domination.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Sorry but legally (at least in this country) it was true.
 
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on :
 
If they actually "belonged" to them,they could have murdered them or sold them as a slave or something, legally, and I doubt that was the case.

Also, is it really true married women did not own their own property where you live until the 1950s? Wow, I thought the UK was late in legislating on that in 1870.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I guess we're quibbling on what ownership means. I agree that a husband couldn't murder his wife, but if she had little or no legal recourse when it came to property and financial matters, the vote, and whether her husband could beat and rape her, it comes close to ownership in my book. Isn't self determination and the right to live without violence a hallmark of freedom?

Back to the topic, evidently Carl Paladino rents buildings to gay nightclubs and his gay nephew owned one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/paladino-rented-to-gay-cl_n_760750.html

[ 13. October 2010, 14:14: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Paladino is a complete disaster. American politics in general is a complete disaster at the moment, though.

(Oh, Merlin? Where ARE you? It's not NICE or POLITE to dump a complaint thread someplace and never return to deal with it again, you know....)
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
This is interesting as I just finished reading an article by the folks at the OKCupid dating site, which aggregated data from over 600,000 people who use their site. The whole thing is here and has lots of good data and pretty interesting charts for you visual learners, but here's what I think is petinent to Merlin's generalization:
quote:

Gay people aren't promiscuous.

Another common myth about gay people is that they sleep around, but the statistical reality is that gay people as a group aren't any more slutty than straights.
Median Reported Sex Partners

* straight men: 6
* gay men: 6
* straight women: 6
* gay women: 6

* 45% of gay people have had 5 or fewer partners (vs. 44% for straights)
* 98% of gay people have had 20 or fewer partners (vs. 99% for straights)

It turns out that a tiny fraction of gays have single-handedly two-handedly created the public image of gay sexual recklessness—in fact we found that just 2% of gay people have had 23% of the total reported gay sex, which is pretty crazy.


Ah hah! Thanks for that response. I was hoping that this would come out. I was reading through the posts on this thread with my wife just now. And JUST BEFORE I got to your post and quoted stats, I said: "There isn't any difference as a group between any other group: homosexuals, by and large, do not want casual, flippant sex, they want sex to be an expression of a meaningful relationship, just as much as heterosexuals do. The reason why the general public has this impression that GLBT have multiple casual partners is because of the media focusing on that small segment. I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: in a similar way that FLDS are what most outsiders think Mormons are like: in Utah where we have well over 2 million people we have, what, under a 100K FLDS? Yet that tiny segment is what the media plays on. It's the same with gays".

I guess you could accuse me of trolling with my generalization. But it has a two-part character: the generalization isn't mine, it's the Media's portrayal: e.g. Lady Gaga's vaunted "threesomes". That the GLBT component of society gets understood via the Media is only to be expected. And the Media does not serve up the mundane masses, only the exceptional, sensationalized minority: the very group, in this case, that pisses off the "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!).

I think this gets to the heart of MtM's rant. Under this view sex can be divided into two categories: enjoyable sex (which is immoral) and moral sex (which is apparently unenjoyable, if not downright unpleasant). While this horror at the thought of sensual enjoyment is a common thread in many strains of Christianity, it isn't the necessary component some treat it as.

So, how much of a sense of play does it take for sex to become immoral? This sort of question is similar to asking how many lifetime sex partners are too many. The 'correct' answer is usually just slightly more than however much/many the person asking the question has had.

To be clear: my "rant" is focused only on sexual immorality: which I assert is the same no matter what your gender attraction happens to be.

"Sense of play" has nothing whatsoever to do with sex being judged morally or immorally. Commitment to "The Other" is what makes the only difference. Sex ought to be reserved solely for The Other.

But this is not a perfect world so sex, like everything else, gets enjoyed imperfectly by imperfect people.

The average number of sex partners in a lifetime is hard to pin down. Obviously the average would be skewed by a tiny minority with a huge number of sex partners (Grandpa in Little Miss Sunshine, giving advice to his teenaged grandson: "Screw a lot of women. I mean a lot of women"), and those who remain, as Tolkien (and so far, yours truly), monogomous to the end of their days. The "6 partners", quoted from the dating Website above by Spiffy, still indicates that most of society looks hard for "The Other", and many never find him/her; but, I gather, hope springs eternal....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also not sure what's supposed to be concealed behind the "façade" of the GBLT movement. So far the accusation seems to be that they're defying the sexual norms of society in pursuit of their secret agenda of . . . defying the sexual norms of society.

I don't think "façade" means what MtM thinks it does.

I confess, the title was deliberately provocative; but not inaccurate. As I pointed out in my response above: the Media is to blame: but also the GLBT advocates who are most vocal and do not serve their cause well because of their extremism.

The "facade" is that "Gay Pride" is only about gaining full acceptance by the heterosexual "Moral Majority", i.e. getting equality under the laws. In fact, if they can pull this off, the GLBT will get special-mention laws passed wherever they can. And those special exceptions (protections) are a form of reverse discrimination against the majority in society. This is very, very bad: because if successful, the GLBT will have opened the door to any and sundry other special groups to get similarly "special" (exclusive) laws passed to recognize and protect themselves.

So the facade is benign, where no such quality exists with the advocates. Their agenda is rebellion. And as we know, any rebellion includes a large proportion of those who join simply for the rush of being rebellious. I would include in this group the many hetero friends of GLBTs, who love a good cause to join. This isn't de facto a bad thing: but it is hard to separate out the merely rebellious (for its own sake) from those sincerely fighting for needed change....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...
His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....

You went and changed my "vast majority" into ALL. I did not say that at all, much less "outright". I also did not say that gay sex is immoral: I clearly stated that immorality is promiscuity, period, end of discussion. The same definition of moral sex ought to apply regardless of gender attraction. (I will not speak to the plethora of dogmatic, religious approaches to the thorny issue of homosexuality, as an attraction, being regarded as a sin if acted upon....)
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So Merlin: are you claiming here that it's the push for marriage that's the "facade"?

Or are you referring to gay rights in general? What's the issue, exactly?

Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous! You could just as easily segregate society into "special" groups (minorities) for recognition under the law for a limitless number of things. Anyone who can't see this slippery slope is already sliding down it....
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "facade" is that "Gay Pride" is only about gaining full acceptance by the heterosexual "Moral Majority", i.e. getting equality under the laws. In fact, if they can pull this off, the GLBT will get special-mention laws passed wherever they can. And those special exceptions (protections) are a form of reverse discrimination against the majority in society. This is very, very bad: because if successful, the GLBT will have opened the door to any and sundry other special groups to get similarly "special" (exclusive) laws passed to recognize and protect themselves.

So the facade is benign, where no such quality exists with the advocates. Their agenda is rebellion. And as we know, any rebellion includes a large proportion of those who join simply for the rush of being rebellious. I would include in this group the many hetero friends of GLBTs, who love a good cause to join. This isn't de facto a bad thing: but it is hard to separate out the merely rebellious (for its own sake) from those sincerely fighting for needed change....

I don't think so, really, Merlin. First of all, "Gay Pride parades" were originally marches for equal rights; they started in the late 60s and early 70s; see some photos from the era here. There are no Speedos and there's no grinding (at least, they are not on view here). Here's an image from 1967 London. Some funny stuff there, but still no Speedos.

I'm not sure when it got to be a "parade," but it started out as march for civil rights.

Naturally, because the topic is (ostensibly) "sexual freedom" - which was part of it, yes, but most people orginally simply wanted to be liberated to openly love the people they love, an utterly mundane human desire - you get sexual content as well, which most people were uncomfortable with because homosexuality was such a deep taboo. (And yes, this meant that some gay people were fond of shock value, too - but others were simply trying to normalize our relationships.)

Today, it's a party. I suppose some people might have been into it for "rebellion" in the past - but "rebellion" isn't really necessary in many places anymore. Speedo/grinding seems really out there (I guess) to Carl Paladino, but to lots of us it's just really lame and tired by now, in fact!

I would say that the motivation for most people who argue for GLBT rights is simple: gay people would like the same rights as everybody else. We pay taxes like everybody else, after all; why should we be denied the simplest benefits that others take for granted? This may seem shocking to some who still can't accept homosexuality, but that's pretty much where things are now, as far as I can see.

"Rebellion" is pretty much over, and "mindlessness" may have set in at this point....

[ 13. October 2010, 16:20: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous! You could just as easily segregate society into "special" groups (minorities) for recognition under the law for a limitless number of things. Anyone who can't see this slippery slope is already sliding down it....

Nonsense. The slope is only upwards towards equality and tolerance - and there is a long way to go yet.

Your sexuality is a deep part of who you are - of course you should have protection under the law, and all the rights of other people, whether that be marriage or anything else.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people

Unsubstantiated claim. It's not so obvious to me. You start out with this unprovable claim and attempt to build some kind of argument on it.
So you missed (or conveniently eliminated) the observation I made about the Net and porn? That is evidence of the truth of my assertion, bordering on making it into a fact. MOST people view sex as a plaything. That is not, by itself, a bad thing. How "plaything" is carried out, that's what defines the sex as good, bad or indifferent.

quote:

There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like
quote:
That's right ... the world is black and white and there are no shades of gray.


Don't just be flippant; show some examples of that you mean. What other moral and immoral groups are there? If you come up with "threesomes" as an okay expression of fidelity to "The Other", then we part ways on irreconcilable differences in definition of "sexual morality".

quote:
So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing?
quote:
Ooh. I'm impressed with the linking together of so obviously related logically following concepts. I'm guessing that the gay pride participants can't be in the group that have ethics about sex.


"The vast majority" AT the parades, appear to me to be not typical of the bulk of GLBT people: they are either there to be titilated, entertained, or some other reason not directly analogous to defending a moral position. A large number of them (possibly the majority visible at such events) are not even GLBT at all.

...

quote:

...most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship
quote:
Facts and references, sir. And while you're at it, make sure you compare apples to apples and include the statistics about fidelity of opposite sex couples as well.

Another blowhard rant without any basis in facts or experience.


I was pointing out the participants at rallies and parades. If the GLBT for the main part is like I am, they don't associate in such grandstanding in the first place; i.e. they are not visible to the Media at all....
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So Merlin: are you claiming here that it's the push for marriage that's the "facade"?

Or are you referring to gay rights in general? What's the issue, exactly?

Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous! You could just as easily segregate society into "special" groups (minorities) for recognition under the law for a limitless number of things. Anyone who can't see this slippery slope is already sliding down it....
You're married, according to your website; was that an effort on your part to obtain "special rights"?

Why is it so hard to believe that gay couples simply want to cease being "strangers before the law"? You and your wife and family are recognized as related; why shouldn't gay families be accorded the same?

And please give some examples of what you think will happen at the end of this "slippery slope"; it's pretty hard to have a discussion about abstractions.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...
His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....

You went and changed my "vast majority" into ALL. I did not say that at all, much less "outright". I also did not say that gay sex is immoral: I clearly stated that immorality is promiscuity, period, end of discussion. The same definition of moral sex ought to apply regardless of gender attraction. (I will not speak to the plethora of dogmatic, religious approaches to the thorny issue of homosexuality, as an attraction, being regarded as a sin if acted upon....)
Well, OK. What you said was, exactly, that "most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship (i.e a "marriage" intended for life)."

But of course "most" isn't anywhere close, either, according to what Spiffy posted here - and she actually offered some evidence.....
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
For the record: Gay people didn't ask to be singled out as a special group and treated differently based on who we find attractive. Heterosexuals have done that for millenia. All gay people want is legal protections to ensure that doesn't continue.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous!

Is this more or less ludicrous than "religious rights", identifying a group of human beings based solely on their worship practices?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: e "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

What on earth is a 'hard-wired gay'?

As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.

[ 13. October 2010, 16:58: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:


...

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...Here's the problem with the whole sexual revolution today: it is focused on DIFFERENCES in sexual expression, where those are merely perceived and not actual.

Huh? What on earth does this mean? Are you claiming there's no real difference at all among the ways different people -- of different genders, different cultures, different hang-ups, different desires, etc. -- express their sexuality? You lost me.
"Normal" is an individual matter. You already admitted that you agree. Consideration from "The Other" admits and accepts this, or you don't have a relationship, you have a breakup.

But I'm not talking about individual differences of sexual expression: I am talking about the GLBT (that's FOUR general groups, right there, lumped under one advocacy) not possessing some separate claim or right to distinction vis-a-vis morality or immorality. I am simply saying that sex is either engaged in morally or immorally, and that monogomous (meant for life or as long as possible) sex is the ONLY moral expression of it. Anything else not in consideration of The Other is a degree of sexual immorality.



quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.
quote:

Gee, and here's silly me thinking it was all about treating citizens alike under the Constitution.


That's the facade. The reality is special recognition as a minority group (based on sexual predilection? Come on!)

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Alright, let's assume for arguement's sake that's true. At what point does society have the duty and the right to impose limitations on GLBT?
quote:
The point at which someone is being forced, exploited, or victimized.


Agreed. And we don't require any change to the laws to accomplish that.

The trouble with the GLBT advocacy movement is that it is pushing for special recognition. This is pushing too hard too fast. It is impatient. I can see why anyone who feels marginalized and victimized would want the change NOW. But this isn't the way to go about it. Change happens only as fast as the majority give way. And fairness across the spectrum is the only way that the majority are going to give ground on this.

The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not. And that's where the litigation will force the change, one case at a time; one victory at a time. GLBTs can cohabit in the modern world (USA and the "West"); it isn't easy for them, still, but the climate of change is already well under way - the momentum is still building. We don't require specially recognized minority groups: legally recognized minorities are a huge step in the wrong direction. (that's actually a different subject)

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The line in the sand is, "Only consenting adults". (Obviously, a twisted, pedophile segment don't agree to that line in the sand.)

quote:
1. Define "sexual excess." Are we talking specific sexual practices? Number of times per day, week, or month? Are we talking about public displays? What are you talking about?


You already mentioned it: coercion, predation, possession, etc. That, and multiple, casual partners; making sex into MY plaything only.
quote:

2. I agree that there are serious problems with categorizing people into groups by their sexual preferences. In fact, there's a problem with categorizing people, period. For one thing, it seems to render the process of dehumanizing certain people and denying them basic rights of citizenship much easier.

We seem to agree on this.
quote:

3. I don't agree that gay pride parades or demos are all about pushing sexual immorality in "people's" (by which I take it you mean heterosexuals, which is a telling distinction in and of itself) faces.

I didn't say "people's", I said: "They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality in the face of the established, traditional morality..." That is a monolithic group every bit as much as an asserted GLBT group is.
quote:


Especially as a hefty percentage of participants and attendees are likely to be non-heteros themselves. Rather, they are efforts to make visible what some parts of society wish to make invisible. Or wish to make disappear.

Hefty percentage, yes. A majority attending, not so likely. As GLBT is well under 10% of the population, in total, (your estimate may vary, but please provide a reference for asserting so), it stands to reason that well-attended rallies and parades are largely attended by heteros; probably a large percentage of them are merely curious, and (or) friends of the GLBT participants.
quote:


4. As already noted by Spiffy, most people tend eventually to settle into monogamous relationships, many after a certain amount of youthful experimentation.

Sounds like most heteros I know! You're welcome, for giving you, et al. the chance to point this out, again. It needs to be said a lot.

quote:
Do you seriously contemplate a time when sex between adults and children, parents & offspring, siblings, humans & members of other species, etc. will be permitted? And that in this new age of sexual laissez-faire, we will all be compelled to define what is and isn't OK for ourselves? Will this be with or without any reference to our own personal inclinations?

I think your scenario is unlikely.

No, nothing so extreme. Near future: it could happen that one advocacy group after another could tie up the courts and legislative bodies of the land in endless appeal and litigation over just sexual differences (IF this GLBT advocacy gets its way, and new changes to the laws recognize them as a legal minority group). There is precedent, in history and other parts of the world, for allowing "sex by eight or it's too late" kind of thinking. If you doubt this, you are a bigger bunny than even I am....

...
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Don't just be flippant; show some examples of that you mean. What other moral and immoral groups are there? If you come up with "threesomes" as an okay expression of fidelity to "The Other", then we part ways on irreconcilable differences in definition of "sexual morality".

Merlin - you seem to me to be failing utterly to explain whatever point it is that you are trying to make. At one point you seem to be saying that straight/gay is a meaningless distinction, and monogamy vs promiscuity is what counts, and the next minute you appear to be saying that gays should be allowed legal recognition of monogamous relationships in the way that straights are.

Is your point essentially that you distrust the 'gay rights' movement because it includes BOTH moralists who are seeking to place faithful gay relationship into a moral context AND immoralists who would destroy the whole concept of sexual morality altogether?

Or is it that human sexual behaviour requires a moral framework for society to function, and that the moral framework we have as a 'given' is to be treated respectfully, because it would be difficult or impossible to vary it to include, say, gay marriage, without making sexual behaviour essentially a matter of personal free choice and legitimising such things as group sex, polyamory, pornography and exploitative sex, which ought to be discouraged? That it is, basically, better to have a traditional moral code which more-or-less works, than to be liberal about sexual morality and find that we have no basis for condemning what may be formally consensual, but which all decent people would say is immoral?

Or are you saying something else?
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Hmmm. Maybe I get it now, since

quote:

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.

Is this what you're getting at? Is this the "facade" you're talking about?

Well, you're wrong, on two counts. First, as I've written here lately, I'm emotionally attracted to members of my own sex; I can't seem to "fall in love" with people of the opposite gender. I never have, not even once, not even the slightest.

It's not, for me, about "what is sexually attractive" - not really. So think about how that fits into your statement above. Most gay people, for your information, happen to be attracted (in whatever way) to members of our own gender - and by far most of us want a permanent relationship. A partner. I've never met a gay person who didn't want this, as a matter of fact.

I believe you. Anecdotal experience on this thread alone says that GLBTs know this sort of person and not the Media hyped kind: the promiscuous, "glory hole" one-night-stand kind.

"You" are not being well-served by the Media in your cause. Even the advocates put the sexual activity aspect up front as a right to be recognized and accepted. So "emotional", passionate attachment, unrequited, is hardly the issue when sex is being discussed.
quote:


Second, it's not true that "any GLBT expression is okeedokee" - at least, it's not any more true for GLBT than for heterosexuals. Really, heteroseuxals do their own share of grinding in various situations; see some of these listed above. It would be a mistake for me to assume that ALL heterosexuals grind in public, though; that's the very mistake you're making here.

No, I'm not asserting that ALL (or even very many) GLBTs enjoy parading their sexual activities in public. The "pride" parades are revolting to most people (that doesn't keep onlookers from scoping them out, though!)

I'm glad to read these denouncements of PDA!

In fact, for all of us to get along in the future (after all of these thorny details have been worked out), PDA is going to have to be very general and non sexual. European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments. But actual "get a room" type displays are not polite. A similar, cultural approach here in the USA will be necessary, in order for homosexuals and heterosexuals to get along in public together....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse.:
Gee, I do hope that Merlin will return to respond to the fallout from his bomb.

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Hmmmm... in the "good old days" when gays were in the closet and marriage ruled the land, the wife was the husband's plaything to be used however he wanted (and he didn't need permission!) Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married. ... Ahhh.. yes. The good old days of traditional morality. ...

I hear things are still that way in Utah.
Rossy, you never disappoint me [Razz] The "Moral Majority" of Utah (the mainline LDS church, Mormons all), look on the FLDS minority the same way. I am sure the Media has skewed our perceptions of those who live even amongst us as our very neighbors....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Paladino is a complete disaster. American politics in general is a complete disaster at the moment, though.

(Oh, Merlin? Where ARE you? It's not NICE or POLITE to dump a complaint thread someplace and never return to deal with it again, you know....)

As you can tell, I tend to return a day later, and answer each post as it seems requisite, first to last. I just now finished the "original 29" I saw when I checked in this morning. Now I'm off to do RL stuff: I daren't look at even the first response to my responses of this morning, or I shall not depart from this chair till well on in the afternoon! Till later, then....
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I am simply saying that sex is either engaged in morally or immorally, . . .

Actually I believe your original post said sex could either be engaged in morally or playfully, but not both. Your sudden reversal on this point was so quick it nearly gave me whiplash.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The trouble with the GLBT advocacy movement is that it is pushing for special recognition. This is pushing too hard too fast. It is impatient. I can see why anyone who feels marginalized and victimized would want the change NOW. But this isn't the way to go about it. Change happens only as fast as the majority give way. And fairness across the spectrum is the only way that the majority are going to give ground on this.

That's one view of "equality", that it's granted by the special suffrance of the majority, or just as arbitrarily withheld. There is, of course, a rival viewpoint.

quote:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
No matter how slowly the wheels of equality turn, they're always moving too fast for liking of the MtMs of the world. It's the difference between "all deliberate speed" and "all deliberate speed".

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not.

Which is, of course, an outright lie. Your own chosen example, marriage law, is not written to protect same-sex couples in the same way it does opposite-sex couples in most American jurisdictions.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"You" are not being well-served by the Media in your cause.

What a shock! So let me ask: are "you" being well-served by the Media? If not - is this your fault, somehow, and are you expected to do something about it?

Probably not. One difference, though, is that I don't start threads denouncing you (and whatever group you're a part of advocating whatever cause you support) for being insincere and a "facade."

I also don't make wild claims unsupported by any evidence or even argument....

[ 13. October 2010, 17:50: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Hmmmm. Let me change that last statement. I haven't so far posted any such threads or made any such claims.

(I've learned from experience that whenever I make such bald statements I'm soon to do exactly the very thing I claim "never" to do! Truly - it never fails.

So let me nip that whole thing in the bud right now....)
 
Posted by Curious Kitten (# 11953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not. And that's where the litigation will force the change, one case at a time; one victory at a time. GLBTs can cohabit in the modern world (USA and the "West"); it isn't easy for them, still, but the climate of change is already well under way - the momentum is still building. We don't require specially recognized minority groups: legally recognized minorities are a huge step in the wrong direction. (that's actually a different subject)

This is a pond difference but when I was a secondary school section 28 was still a valid piece of law as a result gay safe sex isn't taught as part of sex ed and support for victims of homophobic bullying was severly limited depending on the LEA and school's interpertation of section 28. The laws are not equal and protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation should be a right for every human being.

Curious Kitten
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Kitten:
This is a pond difference but when I was a secondary school section 28 was still a valid piece of law as a result gay safe sex isn't taught as part of sex ed and support for victims of homophobic bullying was severly limited depending on the LEA and school's interpertation of section 28. The laws are not equal and protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation should be a right for every human being.

Curious Kitten

It's not that much of a Pond difference. The U.S. equivalent is abstinence-only sex "education", which at least promotes equality insofar as neither gay nor straight safe sex is taught. Of course, when the core principles of the abstinence-only program ("don't have sex until marriage") are coupled with the legal realities in most U.S. states ("same-sex couples can't be married"), it does logically demand a lifelong chastity of homosexuals that it doesn't require of heterosexuals.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[qb] "You" are not being well-served by the Media in your cause.

Actually, we have quite well served by the media. Polls showing approval of of gay relationships and support for gay marriage has been on a trend up for 20 years.

Over the past decade gay marriage became law in Canada, parts of Europe, several U.S. states, parts of Mexico, South Africa and Argentina, Civil unions were implemented in the UK, New Zealand, parts of Latin America and U.S. states.

Support for gay relationships is increasing in most of the mainline Protestant denominations and amongst the Roman Catholic Church laity.

And for all the debauchery at gay pride parades, the major politicians always show up and give their support and these parades are carried on more and more TV channels.

Heck, even the Republicans are realizing this is a losing issue.

So I think the parades and media have served us quite well.

[ 13. October 2010, 18:23: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That the GLBT component of society gets understood via the Media is only to be expected.

Baloney. "Gets understood via the Media?" By whom, pray tell? I am a member of society. I get my understandings of the "GLBT component" through my relatives, friends and acquaintances and their discussions of their own lives, hopes, tribulations, and experiences. I rarely see ANY depictions of GLBT people on the media (which may be a problem in and of itself), extreme or otherwise.

Maybe you ought to switch to a different channel. Or get out more.

Last I heard, sexual minorities constitute about 10% of society. If you know 100 people, 10 of them (statistically speaking) belong to a sexual minority. No media are needed to form an understanding; we can talk to folks we already know.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And the Media does not serve up the mundane masses, only the exceptional, sensationalized minority: the very group, in this case, that pisses off the "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

What are you talking about? You seem to envision a society in which we've all been sorted into separate, closed boxes, with all our info about each other being beamed at us through TV and computer screens.

The "GLBT component", as you call them, are the ordinary, average sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, mothers and fathers, and occasionally also the wives and husbands, of mundane masses of ordinary, average heterosexuals. We know each other. We're related to each other. We work together. We belong to the same clubs, play sports on the same teams, drink at the same bars, attend the same meetings.

Beyond this, I call bullshit on your terminology, your tactics, and your true purposes here.

Point one: In your OP, deliberately introduced in Dead Horses, you mention general "sexual immorality" by name twice. Of the examples you offer, you mention pedophilia once and make reference to GLBT people six times. You mention society's "duty" to impose "limits" on GLBT people, but fail to hint at any limits for anybody else. You make no mention at all of hetero promiscuity or infidelity.

Incidentally, that "cesspool of porn" that is the Internet? You might be interested to know that I have literally NEVER, despite spending substantial time at my computer, seen anything pornographic on my screen. Risque? Okay, yeah. Porn? No. I manage this astonishing feat of cesspool avoidance by NOT SEARCHING FOR OR CLICKING ON LINKS LIKELY TO LEAD TO PORNOGRAPHY. I'll bet, with a little practice, you could manage this too.

Point two: a couple of phrases:

"pushing sexual immorality"

"a push to break down the barriers to sexual excess"

There can't be "pushing" or a "push" without a "pusher."

Come on, get it out on the table. Who's the pusher? Why are they "pushing" this? Who are you accusing, and of what?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
The best march I ever went to was the one in 1994 in New York, on the 25th Anniversary of the Stonewall uprising. (And yes, it was called a "march.") It was an international event, and it was spectacular!

Literally hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people came from all over the world; the whole city was gay that weekend.

I personally have a much deeper suspicion of the media than Dan apparently does. It can help at times - but it has definitely hurt at times. I think it much more likely that acceptance has come from the gay mass exodus from the closet over the past 40 years, as Apocalpso hints.

But then, the media used always to show (only) the most outrageous things from Gay Pride on the news; they've stopped doing this in the past few years as it's become kind of a non-story (which is why I'm suspicious, actually - who can trust that approach at all?). It's probably still a big story in some places, though, so I bet they're still up to their old tricks there....
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: e "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

What on earth is a 'hard-wired gay'?

As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.

Merlin, you are repeating your ignorant rant. Why not slow down and answer the questions we are putting to you? like the above?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Kitten:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not. And that's where the litigation will force the change, one case at a time; one victory at a time. GLBTs can cohabit in the modern world (USA and the "West"); it isn't easy for them, still, but the climate of change is already well under way - the momentum is still building. We don't require specially recognized minority groups: legally recognized minorities are a huge step in the wrong direction. (that's actually a different subject)

This is a pond difference but when I was a secondary school section 28 was still a valid piece of law as a result gay safe sex isn't taught as part of sex ed and support for victims of homophobic bullying was severly limited depending on the LEA and school's interpertation of section 28. The laws are not equal and protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation should be a right for every human being.

Curious Kitten

I was teaching Sex Ed. all the way through the time Section 28 was law. It forbade local authorities, not schools.

We taught ABOUT gay sex and certainly about safer sex.

All bullying was dealt with if it came to light. Admittedly, some colleagues weren't clued up about homophobic bullying but they tended to be the ones who weren't clued up about anything.

[ 13. October 2010, 18:49: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
The media does sensationalize the parade.

You'll see far more drag queens and grinding muscle boys than the "boring" church groups, social service agencies, university support groups and the gay businesses that probably account for 80% of the parade's participants, but then you'll also see politicians like the city council, mayor, congressional delegation (and at least here in NY) governor and Senators.

The media is the media. It's going to focus on the most outrageous aspects of any event, but the parade is mostly average people quietly doing positive things who come out for a little recognition once a year. If it wasn't so hot and crowded, I'd probably still go. But these days I'm content to watch it on TV with a beer in my hand.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Missed the edit window.

"You'll see far more drag queens and grinding muscle boys"

should be:

"You'll see far more drag queens and grinding muscle boys on TV"
 
Posted by Curious Kitten (# 11953) on :
 
quote:
Originaly posted by leo

All bullying was dealt with if it came to light. Admittedly, some colleagues weren't clued up about homophobic bullying but they tended to be the ones who weren't clued up about anything.

leo, you're talking from the point of view of a teacher who was aware of the issues. Other schools did not have that support and other LEAs really did suggest that nothing should be done. In my school the homophobic bullying was so bad that we had Year 10 students reading the Human Rights Act to try to persuade teachers they really did have to intervene on Human Rights grounds.

Curious Kitten

[ 13. October 2010, 21:34: Message edited by: Curious Kitten ]
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Merlin, you are repeating your ignorant rant. Why not slow down and answer the questions we are putting to you? like the above?

Because he's not interested in having a intelligent dialog. He wishes to make provocative and unsubstantiated claims about a group of people he clearly has no familiarity with. He wants to flaunt his heterosexual superiority. I don't know why.

Pish. Not worth the electrical current through the brain cells.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
To be clear: my "rant" is focused only on sexual immorality: which I assert is the same no matter what your gender attraction happens to be.

Then why did you start this thread in Dead Horses?
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
quote:
If it wasn't so hot and crowded, I'd probably still go. But these days I'm content to watch it on TV with a beer in my hand.

Aw come one, Dan. Now that we've actually met, you have to join us at Pride next year! it'll be fun!
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Likewise, it is a fallacy (slippery slope) to assume that, as homosexual relationships gradually gain acceptance among the general population, other kinds of sexual practices, currently considered unacceptable, will also gradually gain acceptance.

erm...actually this may be true. In Britain now that the age of consent has been reduced to 16 through the highly publicised campaignings of people like Peter Tatchell, we are having to listen to his assertion that the age of consent should lowered to 14. He says that it's because he wants 14 year olds to be free to have sex with each other, but what he doesn't realise is that the age of consent is not there to let same age people have sex, it's to stop older people touching younger ones - that's the reason The Salvation Army got the heterosexual age of consent raised to 16 in the first place!

If the age of consent is lowered to 14 it will be the older guys who will have most to 'gain' I suspect.

Rather ironic really seeing that Tatchell is the man who wanted to arrest Pope Benny for not doing anything about 'paedophile priests'.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
A few guys like Tatchell wanting to lower the age of consent does not constitute widespread social acceptance. I suspect he and his ilk (and any 14-y.o.contingent in favor) will be out-shouted by the parents of 14-y.o.s.

Though where I live, by age 14 far too many kids have "concented" already.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Likewise, it is a fallacy (slippery slope) to assume that, as homosexual relationships gradually gain acceptance among the general population, other kinds of sexual practices, currently considered unacceptable, will also gradually gain acceptance.

erm...actually this may be true. In Britain now that the age of consent has been reduced to 16 through the highly publicised campaignings of people like Peter Tatchell, we are having to listen to his assertion that the age of consent should lowered to 14.
"Assertion" is a strange word to use for someone expressing his opinion, and the rest of your post is similarly odd.

Tatchell (along with many other people) has long been a campaigner for a general reduction in the age of consent to 14, in line with much of Europe - this isn't some sort of twisted salami tactic to allow him to sleep with 3yos, and your reference to paedophiles is both irrelevant and thoroughly sickening. In fact, when the subject comes up, it's almost invariably with the condition that people over a certain age (usually 18 or 21) would still be committing an offence if they slept with someone under the age of 16, which blows your idea of a Dirty Old Man's Chartet out of the water.

Slippery Slope isn't always a formal logical fallacy, but unless you can provide evidence of a necessary progression from A to B to C, it remains a weak and flawed argument.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
We start out with an incoherent rant about GLBT people being intrinsically sexually immoral and we proceed swiftly to the pedophile insinuation.

Par for the course.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Tatchell aside, I very much doubt that the vast majority of gay people want the age of consent lowering any further. And of course there are straight people who want the hetero age lowered, but one loud-mouthed straight person who thinks that sex with 14-year-old (or 12, or 10) girls should be legal isn't misrepresented as a mass movement among heterosexuals. This is, however, symptomatic of the problems of belonging to a minority group: you get criticised for what one person says because it's assumed that that is what the group as a whole, and everyone in it, wants.

For me the most important thing is that the age of consent is equal for gay and straight people. I think 16 is ok; I'd be happy with 17 or 18 provided that it was equal, because having different ages signifies that one is better than the other. It's a bit like allowing men to vote at one age and women having to be older.

Leo: I appreciate that you may have been a clued up teacher. Lots of teachers aren't or weren't. Even though section 28 didn't apply to schools but to LEAs, many schools avoided discussing sexuality because teachers didn't really understand the legislation so played it safe. I remember in about 1996 in a secondary school class my biology teacher was asked a perfectly sensible question about safer gay sex in a sex ed class, and said that she couldn't answer any questions on gay sex because of section 28, and quickly changed the subject. It also seemed that other teachers thought they could be as nasty about homosexuality as they liked because section 28 said so. I remember a lengthy and completely unprovoked tirade from a maths teacher about Pythagoras' sexuality at the start of a lesson about his theorem!
 
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
Yup, I too get fed up with the 'all gays are promiscuous/gays are paeophiles/gays are all out to prove some media point' rubbish.

Here I am, part of the LGBT community.

Rather than try to sleep with every woman that moves, I'm in one long term happy monogamous relationship, just like just about every other person on the LGBT community I know.

Rather than being a predator, I'm a school Governor with responsibility for child protection and safeguarding issues, a national level campaigner for child safety in domestic violence situations, and a co-writer of national reports on how to safeguard children from harm.
I know plenty of LGBT parents who are splendid, and plenty who work with children in utterly safe and normal ways, just as you would expect any other 'category' of person to do.

As for the gay 'scene', I have friends who go to gay pride events, and friends who don't, and none of them are aggressively awful about it.

So there. [Biased]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

The "facade" is that "Gay Pride" is only about gaining full acceptance by the heterosexual "Moral Majority", i.e. getting equality under the laws. In fact, if they can pull this off, the GLBT will get special-mention laws passed wherever they can. And those special exceptions (protections) are a form of reverse discrimination against the majority in society. This is very, very bad: because if successful, the GLBT will have opened the door to any and sundry other special groups to get similarly "special" (exclusive) laws passed to recognize and protect themselves.

I don't agree with special protection laws, but I'm not aware that gay people actually want any. Do you have any specific examples to hand that would support this part of your argument?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

Leo: I appreciate that you may have been a clued up teacher. Lots of teachers aren't or weren't. Even though section 28 didn't apply to schools but to LEAs, many schools avoided discussing sexuality because teachers didn't really understand the legislation so played it safe. I remember in about 1996 in a secondary school class my biology teacher was asked a perfectly sensible question about safer gay sex in a sex ed class, and said that she couldn't answer any questions on gay sex because of section 28, and quickly changed the subject. It also seemed that other teachers thought they could be as nasty about homosexuality as they liked because section 28 said so. I remember a lengthy and completely unprovoked tirade from a maths teacher about Pythagoras' sexuality at the start of a lesson about his theorem!

My understanding is that Department of Education guidance was quite clear on this point. If a teacher was not able to follow, or was unaware of, clear DofE guidance, then that would seem to be bad teaching rather than the fault of that specific law.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Perhaps these weren't the intended consequences of Section 28 (though tbh I'm really not sure what it was supposed to achieve) but real life consequences like these were very widespread and clearly there was no political will to change that. Another example: a friend who reported homophobic bullying to teachers was told that they couldn't do anything about it because of Section 28 and that she should report it as racist bullying instead (it wasn't) so that they could.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
"Assertion" is a strange word to use for someone expressing his opinion,

[Confused] That's what assertion means, isn't it? To state something you believe is true.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You're married, according to your website; was that an effort on your part to obtain "special rights"?

Why is it so hard to believe that gay couples simply want to cease being "strangers before the law"? You and your wife and family are recognized as related; why shouldn't gay families be accorded the same?

And please give some examples of what you think will happen at the end of this "slippery slope"; it's pretty hard to have a discussion about abstractions.

The "right to be married" is not in fact an inalienable right at all. Anything licensed is not a right, it is a privilege. That GLBTs are denied that privilege is not a reason to push for special legislation regarding themselves as some kind of legally recognized minority group. This is what most of the push for "gay marriage" is shooting for.

The chasm lying between the heterosexual majority and the GLBT advocacy is the meaning of "marriage" in the USA. (Ironically, it was a SCOTUS decision in the late 19th century, dealing with polygamous Mormons, which drove the Fed definition of "marriage" to be one man and one woman.) The hardliner GLBTs who insist that the word "marriage" be redefined to include them, are the ones causing most of the trouble now. "Civil union", et al. the other euphemisms for the legal contract that marriage is to heterosexuals, is not acceptable (good enough) for the hardliners. They want it all: the sentiments of the majority be damned.

If they win everything that they want, the "slippery slope" is not upward for more recognition of basic civil rights; it is an open door to every other "special minority" group to try for their own special legislation. That includes pedophiles, polygamists, and virtually any definition of "family unit" you care to imagine.

So either "marriage" means what it does, or we can just chuck the word out of the legalese altogether and substitute generic terms in its place.

There's no reason why contracts between two or more people can't be entered into that provide every advantage and obligation that "marriage" does. Any remissness in the laws can be addressed and eradicated through admitted terminology. And all of this can be done without altering a single word in the present marriage laws between "one man and one woman" (thus preserving the definition of "marriage" legally for the enormous majority).

But that isn't good enough for the hardliner GLBTs; or their counterparts, the morally outraged religious fundies who want to push all the GLBTs back into their closet and away from polite society.

The hardliners of both polar opposites need to be denied. Neither extreme will answer the needs of the "general welfare". The marriage laws need not be changed. And the GLBTs, et al. those advocating for equal recognition under the laws, require the same legal protections and obligations that married people and their families already possess....
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

The hardliners of both polar opposites need to be denied. Neither extreme will answer the needs of the "general welfare". The marriage laws need not be changed. And the GLBTs, et al. those advocating for equal recognition under the laws, require the same legal protections and obligations that married people and their families already possess....

How on earth does wanting equal rights (nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary, nothing just for us - just equality) make one a hardliner? Of course we want to be treated equally before the law. Doesn't everyone? If a legislature announced a tax-cut on savings or some similar privilege, but decided not to offer it to people who were left-handed or red-headed or something, would those who objected be a 'hard-liner'?

I don't see how you get from 'equal rights' to 'special treatment', really I don't.

[ 14. October 2010, 16:54: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
For the record: Gay people didn't ask to be singled out as a special group and treated differently based on who we find attractive. Heterosexuals have done that for millenia. All gay people want is legal protections to ensure that doesn't continue.

Historically, looking at most societal approaches to homosexuality and its offshoots, we nevertheless find that "marriage" remains a uniquely heterosexual institution. All and sundry other sexual activities were separate from marriage. Homosexuals had a duty to their society to marry and breed. That was the legally recognized union and line of inheritance. All other sexuality was for play only. If the "favorite" was granted too much favor and the power that went with it (e.g. England's Ed II and his Gascon favorite Piers Gaveston), the social order (legality) was threatened and the outcome was usually tragic.

I don't think that there are many in the USA by now who are prepared to fight the GLBT advocacy back into the closet. Most of the heterosexual majority are willing to allow any and all consenting adults to engage in whatsoever legal contracts with each other that they choose; and to facilitate such contracts so that there is no discrimination based on comparisons to heterosexual, monogamous marriage....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous!

Is this more or less ludicrous than "religious rights", identifying a group of human beings based solely on their worship practices?
Religious rights apply to everyone. But claims to individual expression can be, and are, denied: e.g. the Muslim woman in Florida being denied her right to have her driver's license picture taken in full burka (to do otherwise would be the ultimate Pandora's Box; allowing literally infinite claims to "religious expression"). So using sexual expressions/attractions as a basis for a definition of "legally recognized minority", cannot be allowed. We The People must attend to the dichotomies already won by special interest advocacy groups: the Law needs to be made more consistent, not less!...
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
The "right to be married" is not in fact an inalienable right at all. Anything licensed is not a right, it is a privilege. That GLBTs are denied that privilege is not a reason to push for special legislation regarding themselves as some kind of legally recognized minority group. This is what most of the push for "gay marriage" is shooting for.
The question then is whether or not the difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship warrants a different legal standing before the law. Note, that I said "legal". The movement towards legal same-sex marriage will not affect a whiff of whether or not a religious community chooses to bless a same-sex relationship. Mormons, Roman Catholics, and other conservative denominations are free to say no if they do not agree in affirming same-sex marriage.

Legally, the courts have come around to say that there is no difference between a same-sex and a different-sex relationship that should necessitate different treatment under the law. Procreation is no longer taken as the defacto definition of a heterosexual relationship. Infertile couples and couples where the wife is past the age of childbearing, are legally married everyday with nary an objection.

Here in Canada, the sky hasn't fallen since same-sex marriage was legalized. My heterosexual couples have all gotten married being unaffected by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Roman Catholic priests hasn't been thrown in prison for exercising their conscience in denying couples a Catholic wedding if it contradicts their beliefs.

Incidentally, my only complaint like some of my other 20 something heterosexual girlfriends is that I can't find a good man. The good ones are either taken or not of my sexual orientation. [Devil]

[ 14. October 2010, 17:12: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: e "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

What on earth is a 'hard-wired gay'?

As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.

A homosexual man not remotely bisexual is "hard-wired gay". This is far more common with men than women homosexuals. The 30 year-old who was recently tortured by the gang in NY is probably yet another of these: who approach younger men/boys for casual sex. They make the News. The more common gays and lesbians do not even cause a ripple, and fit into the claims predominating on this and other GLBT threads: that they want a meaningful, lasting relationship with one loved person.

Your assertions that GLBTs cannot inherit or even visit in hospitals, or be granted the decency of being informed of funerals, etc., is not the reality as far as the laws, as written, are concerned. But rather, these kinds of treatments, as transmitted through the media (and GLBT propaganda), are examples of bigots behaving as such. The civil courts can be, and are, used to address all such discrimination.

And as I said, the laws where the language is remiss can be altered (as little as required) to provide for ANY consenting adult contracts, vis-a-vis defining (effectively) "next of kin", inheritance or any other advantage and obligation that heterosexual marriage contracts do....
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
For the record: Gay people didn't ask to be singled out as a special group and treated differently based on who we find attractive. Heterosexuals have done that for millenia. All gay people want is legal protections to ensure that doesn't continue.

Historically, looking at most societal approaches to homosexuality and its offshoots, we nevertheless find that "marriage" remains a uniquely heterosexual institution.
What on earth is an homosexual 'offshoot'?


(and how does one get one, I'm intrigued! [Two face]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Don't just be flippant; show some examples of that you mean. What other moral and immoral groups are there? If you come up with "threesomes" as an okay expression of fidelity to "The Other", then we part ways on irreconcilable differences in definition of "sexual morality".

Merlin - you seem to me to be failing utterly to explain whatever point it is that you are trying to make. At one point you seem to be saying that straight/gay is a meaningless distinction, and monogamy vs promiscuity is what counts, and the next minute you appear to be saying that gays should be allowed legal recognition of monogamous relationships in the way that straights are.

Is your point essentially that you distrust the 'gay rights' movement because it includes BOTH moralists who are seeking to place faithful gay relationship into a moral context AND immoralists who would destroy the whole concept of sexual morality altogether?

Or is it that human sexual behaviour requires a moral framework for society to function, and that the moral framework we have as a 'given' is to be treated respectfully, because it would be difficult or impossible to vary it to include, say, gay marriage, without making sexual behaviour essentially a matter of personal free choice and legitimising such things as group sex, polyamory, pornography and exploitative sex, which ought to be discouraged? That it is, basically, better to have a traditional moral code which more-or-less works, than to be liberal about sexual morality and find that we have no basis for condemning what may be formally consensual, but which all decent people would say is immoral?

Or are you saying something else?

Very good. I am making all of those points. And it is a complex subject!

Yes to: society cannot function or long survive if sexual immorality becomes rampant. That vice feeds on itself and destroys every definition of what "consent" means to us even today. Many people don't appreciate how dangerous such license can be and has been in history. Take away our form of gov't (that champions individual civil rights), and replace it with any of the old, hierarchical forms (tyrannies), and you have only the powerful few and their (sex) slaves.

So individual repugnance (no matter what it is based on, religion, biology, upbringing, etc.) is no basis for defining what is moral conduct, in sex or anything else. Justice is the only basis for defining morality. And consenting adults playing with sex is their "affair" and not the concern of gov't or even society. This is true in simple terms of stating fact, but the reality is that people who screw stupidly and indiscriminately cause a lot of trouble for the rest of us. So "morality" can be said to be best defined as monogamous fidelity to "The Other" and none else. This must apply to ALL and sundry without exception. Any other definition of morality is Pandora's Box losing its lid.

In the USA we are deeply concerned to protect individual rights, especially of the weaker persons in society, women and children. The GLBT advocacy can be turned to the advantage of other forms of sexual expression, to the danger of women and children.

Yet gov't can be granted too much licence to interfere too. We cannot allow gov't in any degree to get into the private affairs of consenting adults, where their decisions about sex affect no one and nothing but themselves. (Some people think that legalizing everything is the answer, then deal with the fallout, i.e. the actual criminal behavior that results from excess, e.g. like drunk driving accidents. Obviously a middle ground approach is best; some things and activities must remain illegal, to keep the cost to society as a whole from becoming inimical and unsupportable....)
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "right to be married" is not in fact an inalienable right at all. Anything licensed is not a right, it is a privilege.

Err...
Loving v Virgina would seem to disagree.

quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
Pardon the double post.

We've moved on from insinuation of pedophilia to assault on the institution of marriage.

Boy this journey looks familiar.


*yawn*
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.

This is at the heart of the matter for me. A gay couple should be able to be 100% each other's 'next of kin' under the law. Nothing else could be called equal rights - which is why I reckon there is a way to go in many parts of the world.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
A homosexual man not remotely bisexual is "hard-wired gay". This is far more common with men than women homosexuals. The 30 year-old who was recently tortured by the gang in NY is probably yet another of these: who approach younger men/boys for casual sex. They make the News. ''''Your assertions that GLBTs cannot inherit or even visit in hospitals, or be granted the decency of being informed of funerals, etc., is not the reality as far as the laws, as written, are concerned. But rather, these kinds of treatments, as transmitted through the media (and GLBT propaganda), are examples of bigots behaving as such. The civil courts can be, and are, used to address all such discrimination.

In the first bit, you are equating paedophiles with gay men. That is despicable and ignorant.

In the 2nd bit, you are wrong. I could give chapter and verse on three people who have been denied such rights in this city alone during the past ten years - but I won't because of pastoral confidentiality.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
]A homosexual man not remotely bisexual is "hard-wired gay". This is far more common with men than women homosexuals. The 30 year-old who was recently tortured by the gang in NY is probably yet another of these: who approach younger men/boys for casual sex.
I'm reminded of what happened a century ago when racists justified lynching African American men by arguing that they posed a threat to white women.

The same line of thinking applies here. No one likes openly hating a minority. So instead, the trick is to demonize the minority, to instill fear among people that the minority is out to destroy everything that is good and wholesome in society. Once the people are throughly gripped by fear, then it is easy to justify all sorts of violence and hatred against them.

All people deserve to be free from violence, hatred, and discrimination. How exactly are you harmed by the same-sex couple next door getting married? Are you being prevented from marrying a member of the opposite sex? Are your religious leaders being thrown in prison for acting according to conscience?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The chasm lying between the heterosexual majority and the GLBT advocacy is the meaning of "marriage" in the USA. (Ironically, it was a SCOTUS decision in the late 19th century, dealing with polygamous Mormons, which drove the Fed definition of "marriage" to be one man and one woman.) The hardliner GLBTs who insist that the word "marriage" be redefined to include them, are the ones causing most of the trouble now. "Civil union", et al. the other euphemisms for the legal contract that marriage is to heterosexuals, is not acceptable (good enough) for the hardliners. They want it all: the sentiments of the majority be damned.

Ah. So we can have exactly the same thing as you so long as we use a euphemism for it???

I'm a legislative drafter. One of the fundamental rules we have is that if you mean the same thing, use the same word. Having two different words or expressions in a law that actually mean exactly the same thing is fundamentally poor law-making.

If you want to have one word for the religious union and a different word for the contractual relationship formally recognised by law, then that would make sense. But so long as the word in the laws is 'marriage', then I'm going to keep arguing for 'gay marriage'. If the word in the laws changes to 'civil union', then I'll be happy to have a 'civil union' until such time as there's a church that will allow me a religious 'marriage'.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
I really thought this might have a chance at being a reasonable discussion.

I see now I was wrong. Merlin, you are operating inside your own head, and declaring all your fearful fantasies to the world as facts. But it really does seem that you don't know any facts; you haven't once posted a link or any sort of support for what you're saying here. I've actually had this same "discussion" - hysteria over "gay rights" justified by inflammatory (and never documented) accusations of pedophilia and the imagined total destruction of society - thousands of times over the past decade or two. I'm a little bit surprised to hear it again at this late date, but I guess there will be stragglers....

The world has changed, MtM. "Gay marriage" - which is really only "marriage" in fact - is now supported by between 37 and 42 percent of Americans:

quote:
American support for same-sex marriage is rising steadily - and conservative Protestants seem to be the last religious group holding out against it, a large new poll suggests.

Nearly six out of 10 white evangelicals were against gay marriage, and just over five out of 10 black Protestants opposed it, the Public Religion Research Institute announced Wednesday.

But among Catholics and members of so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, more people favored gay marriage than opposed it.

People not affiliated with any religion back gay marriage by a 4-to-1 ratio, the 2010 American Values Survey found.

Among all Americans, backing for allowing gay and lesbian marriages rose from 29 percent in 2008 to 37 percent today.

And a majority of young people back gay marriage, their survey found - 52 percent of 18-29 year-olds are in favor, while another 23 percent support civil unions.

The results mirror similar findings from another recent survey.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, another Washington think tank, found last week that 42 percent of Americans favored gay marriage, while 48 percent opposed it.

It was the first time in the 15-year history of the Pew Forum asking the question that opposition to gay marriage fell below 50 percent, the think tank said.

So there's no "outraged majority" out there at all, in fact.

Anyway, you're simply and demonstrably wrong about most of what you're saying here - see Igeek's "Loving v. Virginia" quote for more - so there's not much point in bothering any longer. I mean, the more you write, the bigger the hole you're digging for yourself, so it all works out well for us in the end - but it's really "not on" to be making these sorts of accusations against people without any sort of evidence or even the remotest knowledge of the topic. Yuck.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
One reason for the increase of support for same-sex marriage is that more and more people are coming out of the closet. The gay community is like every other community: we have every sort of person imaginable. So the stereotypes and prejudices that people originally have melt away when they meet an actual LGBT person.

The analogy I was thinking this morning is with the female suffrage movement. The people opposed to granting the vote to women resorted to stereotypes about women that frankly is laughed at today: women being less intelligent and more passive than men. When people realized that the only arguments against giving the right to vote to women were these flawed prejudices, the opposition melted away.

That will happen with gay rights. There will always be people trapped in their own prejudices who will never accept LGBT people as full human beings. But the majority of people are coming around to the fact that to really love and respect others, they must be prepared to leave their prejudices and presuppositions.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The analogy I was thinking this morning is with the female suffrage movement. The people opposed to granting the vote to women resorted to stereotypes about women that frankly is laughed at today: women being less intelligent and more passive than men. When people realized that the only arguments against giving the right to vote to women were these flawed prejudices, the opposition melted away.

Opposition to women's suffrage in the U.S. (I can't speak about where you're from) didn't simply melt away; the ratification of the 19th Amendment passed in Tennessee by just one vote, and the whole thing was challenged in court just two years later. The successful arguments in favor of women's suffrage depended upon stereotypes of women; it was argued that women should be enfranchised so that their very different values and contributions would have a positive effect upon the public sphere.

Edited to add: the stereotypes that women are more passive and less intelligent than men are unfortunately not simply historical relics, either.

[ 14. October 2010, 21:36: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by testbear (# 4602) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Most of the heterosexual majority are willing to allow any and all consenting adults to engage in whatsoever legal contracts with each other that they choose; and to facilitate such contracts so that there is no discrimination based on comparisons to heterosexual, monogamous marriage....

Merlin, you appear here to be asserting that the majority of Americans are happy to allow homosexual, committedly monogamous couples to enact a (legal) contract between them which affords exactly the same rights (etc) as a marriage contract does.

I assert the following (as has been mentioned by posters trained in American Law):

IF America establishes the legality of such a contract, it is legally exactly the same as a marriage contract, with the sole exception of the gender of the parties. ("one man and one woman")
AND
IF there are allowed two types of legal contract which are identical in every way except for the genders of the parties involved, then this difference in gender is not enough to distinguish the two types of contract as distinct.

As has been pointed out, IF this is true, how can you argue that the majority of Americans are happy with this, yet not happy with homosexual couples getting (legally) married?

Either you do not believe or accept the sentence I quoted of yours above, or you do not agree with my reasoning, or you accept that (given that the majority of Americans agree with the idea) homosexual couples should be allowed to be legally married.

Which is it?
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Regarding the issue of separate legal contracts which grant the same rights as marriage as opposed to actual marriages, allow me to remind people that in America at least a greater mind than mine has ruled that:

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Yes to: society cannot function or long survive if sexual immorality becomes rampant. [...]

So individual repugnance (no matter what it is based on, religion, biology, upbringing, etc.) is no basis for defining what is moral conduct, in sex or anything else. [...]

In the USA we are deeply concerned to protect individual rights, especially of the weaker persons in society, women and children. [...]

Yet gov't can be granted too much licence to interfere too.

OK.

Given that the USA is also democratic, and has the Constitutional non-establishment of religion, your personal moral convictions about fidelity and exclusivity aren’t going to be the basis of any law. And you don’t appear to want them to be.

So are you saying that consent/harm reduction/personal freedom concerns define what the law should provide? Or something else? And why do those grounds justify the prohibition of gay marriage?
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
Back again: I was gone since yesterday with my wife on an outing.

I don't have the time to answer each and every question, or address every misconception or assertion about what I meant.

The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals. I pointed out with subsequent statements/responses, that the popularized media image of homosexuals (especially men) is one of licence and excess: yet heteros are no less libertine when they are immoral. (For some reason, my focusing on GLBT immorality caused the assertion that I am giving heterosexuals a pass.)

My purpose in pointing out the media-hyped immoral image of GLBTs was actually to show that I know where such an image comes from, and don't believe it: which was supposed to lead to the obvious conclusion that sexual morality is largely understood to be the same within both segments of society; and that everyone needs to agree on what sexual morality is in order to eliminate misunderstanding and acrimony. (I don't think I botched my point; I think some people on The Ship are understandably excitable on this topic and leap to conclusions about the intent of non GLBTs.)

When we allow that the same commitment to what amounts to a marriage defines morality, then there is no legal reason to make any distinction about the meaning of "infidelity".

The laws regarding homosexual "unions" are in need of more explicit interpretation, rather than much change. Where the old "one man and one woman" exclusivity is either in the wording or the local interpretation, civil court rulings need to push these dichotomies up the ladder till they reach the SCOTUS: because as heterosexual marriage is deemed universal throughout the USA, so too must the acceptance of all equal contracts of "marriage".

The word "marriage" is a battleground word. My personal feeling is that it ought to mean what it has always meant historically: which is why I mentioned the earlier, historical fact of homosexuality not being an allowed excuse for a man to shirk his duty to marry and beget children: "marriage" was never remotely associated with same-sex unions. And there is no reason why it should be redefined to apply to what it has never been legally applied. But, my personal feeling is not likely to win the day. And the universal contract between consenting adults, allowing the exact same privileges and legal obligations, will be defined by whatever term (likely "marriage") is finally resolved upon at the Fed level, applying to all the USA.

I don't post links to support what I have said, because, imho, it is irrefutably true in enough instances and places to qualify as "how things are".

Of course anecdotal exceptions to anything can be presented; e.g. the assertion that gays don't get visiting rights in hospitals, or count as "family" (next of kin if they've set up such a relationship via legal channels), etc., I have pointed out are examples of local prejudice, not how the laws can be and ought to be applied. Of course, a comeback points out that I am mistaken: and of course I can point out that I have never known personally of such prejudices, but only heard of them via the media. I have friends who work (and have worked) at hospitals: and I have yet to hear of a single such case of blatant prejudice against gays. It is in the interest of the hospital to benefit the patient as much as possible: to my perspective, any cretin forbidding visiting rights on the basis of being GLBT is a mythical creature! I am sure they must exist if "you" (collective) insist, but I have to take this on faith, since I have no experience with it, nor does anyone else I have known.

(And this is Utah, land of the Mormon fundamentalists; who just saw over 2,000 GLBT and friends - including two of my daughters - attend a silent protest last week outside LDS headquarters. If I haven't run across any examples of this media-hyped discrimination, then it must be very exceptional, and perpetrated by the homophobes I seem to have been associated with....)
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:

The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals. I pointed out with subsequent statements/responses, that the popularized media image of homosexuals (especially men) is one of licence and excess: yet heteros are no less libertine when they are immoral. (For some reason, my focusing on GLBT immorality caused the assertion that I am giving heterosexuals a pass.)

If you demand the same morality from both heterosexuals and homosexuals than you ought to support giving the same pastoral support and care to both.

Marriage, in addition to being a commitment between two people, is also a commitment by the whole community to support the relationship. I sometimes believe that we lose sight of that and assume couples are solely responsible for the wellbeing of their relationship.

With same-sex marriage, the community not only accepts a same-sex relationship but publicly declares that it will support that relationship until death.

quote:

My purpose in pointing out the media-hyped immoral image of GLBTs was actually to show that I know where such an image comes from, and don't believe it: which was supposed to lead to the obvious conclusion that sexual morality is largely understood to be the same within both segments of society; and that everyone needs to agree on what sexual morality is in order to eliminate misunderstanding and acrimony. (I don't think I botched my point; I think some people on The Ship are understandably excitable on this topic and leap to conclusions about the intent of non GLBTs.)

How exactly should LGBT people accept the same sexual morality that you propose if you refuse them the same treatment accorded to heterosexual couples? Without marriage, gay relationships will always be seen to be inferior to heterosexual relationships.

quote:
When we allow that the same commitment to what amounts to a marriage defines morality, then there is no legal reason to make any distinction about the meaning of "infidelity".
I don't follow. Faithfulness means to be faithful to one's partner. I don't see any difference if I'm making a pledge of fidelity to a man or a woman.

quote:

The word "marriage" is a battleground word. My personal feeling is that it ought to mean what it has always meant historically: which is why I mentioned the earlier, historical fact of homosexuality not being an allowed excuse for a man to shirk his duty to marry and beget children:

LOL. I don't know any straight man who pretends to be gay just to get out of marrying and having children.

We are beating around the bush. I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why marriage should be reserved to heterosexual couples. Saying that civil unions should be given to same-sex couples instead of marriages doesn't address the fundamental issue of denying gays to that institution.

Because there is nothing in marriage that can't conceivably apply to same-sex couples. Procreation is not an essential requirement for marriage because we marry infertile and post-menopausal couples all the time.

In short, why should we accept discrimination when there is no legitimate reason for it?
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back again: I was gone since yesterday with my wife on an outing.

I don't have the time to answer each and every question, or address every misconception or assertion about what I meant.

Yet you do have time to post lengthy screeds of your own devising.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Yet most responders have understod it otherwise. And again, this is in Dead Horses . . . why?

And again, I call bullshit.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

If you demand the same morality from both heterosexuals and homosexuals than you ought to support giving the same pastoral support and care to both.

You'll notice in that Desert News coverage of the GLBT protest last week, that the LDS response was one of acceptance and love. So they claim. I am not aware of any official policy of the LDS Church that marginalizes homosexuals because of their same-sex attraction; and the same requirements for repentance apply to heterosexuals who give into temptation and act upon their inclinations. Admitting that you are same-sex attraction tempted does not constitute a state of sin, anymore than admitting that you are tempted to get more than one wife, or sleep around.
quote:


Marriage, in addition to being a commitment between two people, is also a commitment by the whole community to support the relationship. I sometimes believe that we lose sight of that and assume couples are solely responsible for the wellbeing of their relationship.

Looks good in print, but I don't see how this altruistic concept has any real chance of being practically applied without the "Gov't" intruding to accomplish "the common good" of the community. In fact the couple in question IS solely responsible for the wellbeing of their relationship. The community interest should be no more than allowing said-couples to be as invisible to the community as a whole as possible and permissible. When a crisis occurs (for whatever cause), the community needs to treat every person equally in the areas of support and healing.
quote:


With same-sex marriage, the community not only accepts a same-sex relationship but publicly declares that it will support that relationship until death.

More fuzzy-feelkng altruism. I like the sound of it. But really, this world isn't made that way and never will be. Acceptance for hardwired heterosexuals will always be to ignore the same-sex relationships, i.e. put up with them: the same way we have to put up with a ton of differences we don't prefer: the color of the neighbor's house, how many children they have, the kind of noise emitting from their property, their religious beliefs, their cultural background (including the smells of their food wafting into your space), their pets, etc. ad nauseam. We live close physically to each other, and there are constant compromises we must make in order to do so. I don't support any other relationship entered into by my neighbors "till death". Those are their own concern. My duty as a citizen of the community is to defend justice and see that I don't commit any myself. Period.

quote:

How exactly should LGBT people accept the same sexual morality that you propose if you refuse them the same treatment accorded to heterosexual couples? Without marriage, gay relationships will always be seen to be inferior to heterosexual relationships.

I don't refuse them the same treatment. Where have I said that I'm for a double standard? I admitted my personal feelings about the word "marriage". And you are proving the point: that GLBTs will not stop till they get it too. Which, as I suspect, will piss off the heterosexual majority no-end. You want the same word, thinking that when you win it, that will somehow compel a change in attitude in the non-homosexual majority toward GLBTs. It won't. This is similar to the fracas over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque: the feelings are there and remain alive, no matter how much opponents of the protest against the religious center try and compel the protesters to see that they are only being bigots to feel the way that they do. In similar fashion, anti-homosexual feelings will not die out sooner because GLBT wins the word "marriage" to recognize their legalized unions.

quote:
When we allow that the same commitment to what amounts to a marriage defines morality, then there is no legal reason to make any distinction about the meaning of "infidelity".
quote:
I don't follow. Faithfulness means to be faithful to one's partner. I don't see any difference if I'm making a pledge of fidelity to a man or a woman.


And I don't see what your difficulty is: since you repeated in your own words what I meant. What is it you are not following?

quote:

The word "marriage" is a battleground word. My personal feeling is that it ought to mean what it has always meant historically: which is why I mentioned the earlier, historical fact of homosexuality not being an allowed excuse for a man to shirk his duty to marry and beget children:
quote:
LOL. I don't know any straight man who pretends to be gay just to get out of marrying and having children.


You must not be familiar with the historical presence of homosexuality in various societies, to make such an assertion about "pretending". The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel. When homosexuality was not only condoned by openly admitted/accepted (e.g. ancient Greece and Rome), men still were required to marry and beget children. There was no getting out of it be "pretending to be gay". What an idea! You have it backwards.
quote:


... I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why marriage should be reserved to heterosexual couples. Saying that civil unions should be given to same-sex couples instead of marriages doesn't address the fundamental issue of denying gays to that institution.

Because there is nothing in marriage that can't conceivably apply to same-sex couples. Procreation is not an essential requirement for marriage because we marry infertile and post-menopausal couples all the time.

In short, why should we accept discrimination when there is no legitimate reason for it?

As I said, popular feeling over the word "marriage" (and its historical, traditional meaning) is not something you can brush aside by claiming that without it "your" unions are somehow going to be discriminated as "second class". You want to get your equality legalized, and have your public acceptance "cake and eat it too". It won't happen by cramming "gay marriage" down heterosexual's throats.

Get your legally recognized "civil unions", enter into them as you desire, and vanish into the background like normal (as in vast majority) people do. Parading and protesting has to have an end, when the compromise has been achieved. Total victory will only make antagonists out of most of your neighbors. It will end in tears....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Yet you do have time to post lengthy screeds of your own devising.

Easier to restate than to address misconceptions and assertions in multiple posts by multiple posters.

quote:
The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals.
quote:
Yet most responders have understod it otherwise. And again, this is in Dead Horses . . . why?

And again, I call bullshit.


Most responders are GLBT with a chip and a ready response? So it seems to me. Sometimes you can't even tell when someone is agreeing with you.

The Purg mods would have relegated this thread to DH on the first page. Sooner or later the topic always gets DHed if started in Purg.

And I call out "horse shit". So what?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
You'll notice in that Desert News coverage of the GLBT protest last week, that the LDS response was one of acceptance and love. So they claim. I am not aware of any official policy of the LDS Church that marginalizes homosexuals because of their same-sex attraction; and the same requirements for repentance apply to heterosexuals who give into temptation and act upon their inclinations. Admitting that you are same-sex attraction tempted does not constitute a state of sin, anymore than admitting that you are tempted to get more than one wife, or sleep around.

Shall I mention the fact that the LDS Church poured substantial contributions to the Prop 8 campaign in California?

No one cares if the LDS Church makes doctrinal decisions for its members. People do care when they get involved in the political process and attempt to enforce their morality on people who are not Mormon.

quote:

More fuzzy-feelkng altruism. I like the sound of it. But really, this world isn't made that way and never will be. Acceptance for hardwired heterosexuals will always be to ignore the same-sex relationships, i.e. put up with them: the same way we have to put up with a ton of differences we don't prefer: the color of the neighbor's house, how many children they have, the kind of noise emitting from their property, their religious beliefs, their cultural background (including the smells of their food wafting into your space), their pets, etc. ad nauseam. We live close physically to each other, and there are constant compromises we must make in order to do so. I don't support any other relationship entered into by my neighbors "till death". Those are their own concern. My duty as a citizen of the community is to defend justice and see that I don't commit any myself. Period.

Do you put up with your children's marriages? Of course the couple is primarily responsible for their relationship. The community's role is to:

1) Acknowledge and celebrate their relationship when they are present. "So and so is the spouse of so and so."
2) Do not undermine the relationship when it is going through tough times, ie: Do not start dating one spouse during the marriage.
3) Pray and support them in their continual happiness.

quote:

I don't refuse them the same treatment. Where have I said that I'm for a double standard? I admitted my personal feelings about the word "marriage". And you are proving the point: that GLBTs will not stop till they get it too. Which, as I suspect, will piss off the heterosexual majority no-end. You want the same word, thinking that when you win it, that will somehow compel a change in attitude in the non-homosexual majority toward GLBTs. It won't. This is similar to the fracas over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque: the feelings are there and remain alive, no matter how much opponents of the protest against the religious center try and compel the protesters to see that they are only being bigots to feel the way that they do. In similar fashion, anti-homosexual feelings will not die out sooner because GLBT wins the word "marriage" to recognize their legalized unions.

It has nothing to do with wanting a "word." You still have not addressed the central question. Why should marriage be limited to heterosexuals? You bring up civil unions, but my question is why should gay couples settle for a different institution other than marriage?

There are plenty of heterosexuals who are perfectly fine with allowing legal same-sex marriage. Are you implying that they are lesser heterosexuals because they refuse to pick up the banner and fight against LGBT people?

There is no significant difference between gay and straight couples. To deny marriage to gay couples makes about as much sense as denying marriage to blonds. We no longer make procreation the litmus test for marriage. As well, there are plenty of same-sex couples who adopt and raise children. In everything that matters, they are a family and thus entitled to the same rights of other families.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Admitting that you are same-sex attraction tempted does not constitute a state of sin, anymore than admitting that you are tempted to get more than one wife, or sleep around.....The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel. When homosexuality was not only condoned by openly admitted/accepted (e.g. ancient Greece and Rome), men still were required to marry and beget children.

So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?

Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Shall I mention the fact that the LDS Church poured substantial contributions to the Prop 8 campaign in California?

No one cares if the LDS Church makes doctrinal decisions for its members. People do care when they get involved in the political process and attempt to enforce their morality on people who are not Mormon.

I believe that the LDS Church is unwise to get involved in such moral issues in the public forum. Anytime Prop 8 came up, I voiced my comparison of it to the earlier Prohibition Era support of the LDS Church: it went down very badly. Prop 8 is no different, imho.

quote:

Do you put up with your children's marriages? Of course the couple is primarily responsible for their relationship. The community's role is to:

1) Acknowledge and celebrate their relationship when they are present. "So and so is the spouse of so and so."
2) Do not undermine the relationship when it is going through tough times, ie: Do not start dating one spouse during the marriage.
3) Pray and support them in their continual happiness.

That's a far cry from "support until death"! I was reacting to your use of extreme language.

Of course any decent person is going to want those things for everyone. Not just your own children. But in my experience, heterosexuals do not require or even desire "acknowledge and celebrate their relationship when present". Really, the need for constant validation is a sign of emotional insecurity.

Hypothetically, if one of my children was "married" to a same-sex partner, and I needed to introduce them, I would say, "This is my son/daughter, ****, and this is his/her dearest friend, ****". If they wanted to further clarify, that's up to them. If there was an adopted or fostered child, I would introduce him as such: if the child came from a previous relationship, I would say, "and this is ****'s son/daughter". There is no demand that the relationship be described as spousal or marriage at all, for it to be accepted. Words convey information. The feelings underlying them are altogether a different thing.

quote:

It has nothing to do with wanting a "word." You still have not addressed the central question. Why should marriage be limited to heterosexuals? You bring up civil unions, but my question is why should gay couples settle for a different institution other than marriage?

Legally the "civil union" is not different in any way from heterosexual "marriages". That's why a word for both will be ultimately settled upon. I suspect that heterosexual objectors to "gay marriage" will see the writing on the wall and opt for "civil union" or something similarly ubiquitous, rather than share "marriage" in the legalese with homosexuals or any other LBTs (or polygamists for that matter). "Marriage" will survive as heterosexual (historical) only within the religious rituals of denominations which forbid the practise of homosexuality.
quote:


There are plenty of heterosexuals who are perfectly fine with allowing legal same-sex marriage. Are you implying that they are lesser heterosexuals because they refuse to pick up the banner and fight against LGBT people?

As stated above, the latest polls (from some source or other) indicate that this year, for the first time, a majority of heterosexual men do not object to homosexual "marriages" being legalized. It is only barely under 50% now who object. Out of the acquiescing narrow majority, what portion, do you feel, is "perfectly fine" with it? As with all other civil rights battles, the greatest majority who finally acquiesce simply throw their hands in the air and give up: they see that further resistance is futile. So they settle for silent rebellion. You can see this in the Deep South to this day regarding the popular sentiment of Whites toward Blacks. The laws protecting Blacks (and all other minorities by association) are in place the USA-over; yet resentment and sullen civil rebellion persists.
quote:


There is no significant difference between gay and straight couples.

Don't be absurdly simplistic and dismissive. To hardwired heterosexuals there is an enormous difference in them. Gender is an enormous difference.

quote:

To deny marriage to gay couples makes about as much sense as denying marriage to blonds. We no longer make procreation the litmus test for marriage. As well, there are plenty of same-sex couples who adopt and raise children. In everything that matters, they are a family and thus entitled to the same rights of other families.

Right there, your use of a facile comparison points out the fallacious assertion that there is "no difference". Anyone can change their hair color in a few minutes. No one can literally change their gender, only by drastic measures alter their appearance. Even given future technology which allows free selection of gender (and even swapping between the two, or being both at once), you will have a large segment of homo sapiens who innately feel that gender at birth is natural and everything else is unnatural (and to the religious, a sinful corruption of God's plan). To trivialize these strong feelings is, as I said, being in denial. You are just continuing the divide by denying that there even is one....
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel.

This is utter, complete nonsense.

A family friend of ours recently came out as gay in his 50s - having been married and his children have grown up. Until now he has felt unable to be himself.

My husband and I both feel for him, and his family.

He's by no means the only one. I blame society's attitude which can still be horrendously homophobic.

A common insult among children round here is 'you are gay' [Frown] [Tear]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?

Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.

Being gay isn't; but giving into it through sexual activity is the same as any other fornication.

Before the modern civil rights push, being homosexual was a secret to be kept. Your professional and societal life (and sometimes literally your very life) depended on it. So, too, did divorce. Of course, you can't hide that well at all; people lost their promotions, jobs, even religious standing by divorcing (up until the mid 20th century this was true). Being homosexual was even worse for the individual if it came to public awareness. But in cases where a man was married and had a family, and on the side a man lover, this was not proscribed in ancient Rome or Greece. The "sin" would only have been his refusal/inability to produce children within a marriage. In any epoch, the great ones of the land could get away with homosexual relationships on the side; unless they threatened the status quo of the other "greats" (I supplied the example of Edward II and his dearest friend Piers Gaveston).

The LDS Church's leaders have just this month reaffirmed the doctrine that the atonement of Jesus Christ can "heal" the homosexual, i.e. make heterosexual marriage not only possible but fully joyful. Historically, LDS efforts to "cure" homosexuality have largely resulted in failure, and even "disastrous marriages", as you say. Such "cures" have been seen to not change the homosexual at all, but only put him (and on rare occasions, her) into denial. Now the LDS Church policy is to pray for healing, and remain celibate until such time as a healing actually occurs to the individual's satisfaction. Lifetime celibacy from homosexual "temptation" is the policy. The Church will never acquiesce to homosexual marriage or cohabitation in any form....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel.

This is utter, complete nonsense.

A family friend of ours recently came out as gay in his 50s - having been married and his children have grown up. Until now he has felt unable to be himself.

My husband and I both feel for him, and his family.

He's by no means the only one. I blame society's attitude which can still be horrendously homophobic.

A common insult among children round here is 'you are gay' [Frown] [Tear]

The utter complete nonsense is your leaping to the conclusion that I was saying only medieval Europe or ancient Israel; I said "e.g.", which means for instance - referring deliberately to times and places when openly being homosexual could get you killed by the then-law of the land, not just by a mob of law breakers.

This thread would not reach the end of page one, if our society was accepting of homosexual relationships. There would no issue to discuss.

Of course there is a lot of prejudice and it won't go away in a generation or even a few generations, after "gay marriages" are finally legalized throughout the USA - if the repercussions of US slavery are an indicator. People will still feel what they will. The laws when applied effectively will punish discrimination. The feelings cannot be punished....

[ 16. October 2010, 18:36: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?

Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.

Being gay isn't; but giving into it through sexual activity is the same as any other fornication.
So a gay man being true to himself is 'fornication' whereas a gay man entering a love-less, sexless marriage is good? For whom?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:


This thread would not reach the end of page one, if our society was accepting of homosexual relationships. There would no issue to discuss.


I earnestly pray for that day to arrive [Votive]
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
I'll fix this for you:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

This thread would not reach the end of page one

. . . if you had honestly and openly posted what you want to discuss in the first place, because there are already multiple threads on the topic, to which you have added nothing new.

Come down off the cross, Merlin. We need the wood.
 
Posted by Fulrad (# 15750) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?

Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.

Being gay isn't; but giving into it through sexual activity is the same as any other fornication.
So a gay man being true to himself is 'fornication' whereas a gay man entering a love-less, sexless marriage is good? For whom?
Good point, Leo.

I must say, Merlinthemad, I don't like the words 'giving in to it' It suggests its something wrong to be resisted.

-----------------------------------------
LGBT Eucharist [Smile] On our church blog, click here.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I'll fix this for you:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

This thread would not reach the end of page one

. . . if you had honestly and openly posted what you want to discuss in the first place, because there are already multiple threads on the topic, to which you have added nothing new.

Come down off the cross, Merlin. We need the wood.

hosting
This is getting too close to C3 name calling and personal insults. Please remember that there is an open Hell thread where you can take that sort of thing. It doesn't belong here.

Louise

Dead Horses Host
hosting off
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
May I point out that, as usual, Merlin is so focused on the US -- and indeed Utah -- that he is totally unaware of what's happening anywhere else in the world. Which, IMO, totally disqualifies his opinion from being worth discussing.

I'll just note that that in countries where same-sex marriage (not the weasel-word "civil union") is recognized, none of the ill effects he's afraid of have occurred. Het couples (and singles) don't seem bothered in the least that "marriage" is used of same-sex marriages.

A nasty person -- not I of course -- might conclude that Merlin's fears are based on his exceedingly low opinion of his fellow citizens who, he seems to believe, are unique in the world in their inability to think, to adapt, and to accept that anything that happens anywhere else is worth considering even for a moment. They are what they are, he seems to say, and God forbid that they should ever think or become something else -- even something better.

John
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
@John: way to dismiss "the messenger" by attacking my perspective. I am from Utah, "Hickvill USA"; land of the Mormon fundies. So in your opinion, I am "...totally unaware of what's happening anywhere else in the world." The rest of what follows is equally derogatory. If I was "totally unaware" your opinion would be valid. But it should be obvious by this point that I am far from "totally unaware" of the challenges facing all of us, everywhere, regarding the legalities of the GLBT advocacy agenda.

When I said "GLBT is a facade", I was specifically targeting the segment of the GLBT community who are pushing for "special rights". I am fully aware that my view of the outside world is dependent upon the Media: that includes the Internet especially, since it is the main source I use to access outside opinion and to get information.

I have developed doubts about the level or degree of the GLBT advocacy pushing for "special rights". (It's that suspicion of "the Media" sensationalizing and distorting everything for a story, that I mentioned before.) I know that hetero extremists make a great deal of noise about the dangers of having our laws corrupted to cater to the GLBT advocacy.

So I started this thread to challenge this: opening it with the observation of my personal belief that the bottom line in any discussion, or agenda by either side, must be an acceptance that BEHAVIOR must be the same from either group if "sexual morality" is going to mean anything at all.

I opined how these sensationalized demonstrations are not helpful in characterizing the GLBT community as a whole. Others posting seemed to agree that the repugnant character of the "gay pride" parades and protest marches are distasteful, i.e. not helpful to the cause of homosexuals seeking equality.

I have agreed that it seems to me that the vast majority of homosexuals are the same as heterosexual majorities everywhere: they want to quietly live a fulfilling life with their loved one in total commitment, including monogamous sexual relations. I don't KNOW this: I deduce it from my observations about human nature around me. And not surprisingly, the great majority of responses by in individuals on this thread support the assertion that most homosexuals are normal people in every other way but their same-sex attraction.

I have said that I believe most homosexuals would not go anywhere near a "gay pride" parade or protest march; deeming the behavior of many who do to be inimical to the cause of the majority of the GLBT advocacy. And again, responses on this thread indicate that this belief is not unwarranted.

However, the publicizing of the homosexual majority as "GLBT" (or more commonly, I am finding out, "LGBT" - possibly to get away from punning it with something like "groovy lettuce, bacon and tomato"), is not helpful in this regard: because the weirdos at the "gay pride" parades and protest marches are anything but normal looking or behaving. Their presentation is Babylonian to religious heterosexuals, in the extreme; what they insinuate by their public displays is abhorrent and widens the divide. Such displays are rebellious and bellicose, designed to offend and challenge, rather than protest in any constructive way. To this kind of advocacy the hetero response is obvious and unmistakable: to label ALL homosexuals the same as the extremist demonstrators and advocates and lobbyists. Thus the resistance to change is heightened against homosexuals, not lessened, by these public displays of protest and "pride".

So the GLBT advocacy has alarmed many people. Here's an example of the concerns that they have. I am sure the list of protested GLBT agenda items is not purely imaginary. You now have this opportunity to show that the GLBT advocacy is not in fact pushing for these kinds of "special rights" under the facade of "equal rights"....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So a gay man being true to himself is 'fornication' whereas a gay man entering a love-less, sexless marriage is good? For whom?

Not at all. As I pointed out, the learned LDS response is to not push for "healing" via therapy, followed by a heterosexual marriage. These have too often (the majority of the time in fact, if my information is correct) failed "disastrously". So the Church's policy is to accept same-sex attraction as yet another temptation to sin; but NOT the sin itself: otherwise, we must define sin to include every single temptation equally. Some temptations are to do more serious sins of course. This is not a moral equivalency. And the LDS doctrine on fornication has always been that it, categorically is second in seriousness only to murder. So you can see the problem of condoning "gay marriage": and why the Church's hubris caused it to back Prop 8 in California.

The correct response to same-sex attraction is to pray for a miraculous healing through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ, i.e. turn to heterosexual attraction and behavior. Meanwhile, it is admitted that often (probably in a majority of cases) healing is not going to occur in this life; and the tempted homosexual must remain celibate if they wish to not sin....
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So the GLBT advocacy has alarmed many people. Here's an example of the concerns that they have. I am sure the list of protested GLBT agenda items is not purely imaginary. You now have this opportunity to show that the GLBT advocacy is not in fact pushing for these kinds of "special rights" under the facade of "equal rights"....

I asked earlier what 'special rights' you were talking about. Is this an exhaustive list of the special rights that you have in mind? I presume that you cannot support such a petition because you agree with civil unions (or indicated as much earlier)?
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I asked earlier what 'special rights' you were talking about. Is this an exhaustive list of the special rights that you have in mind? I presume that you cannot support such a petition because you agree with civil unions (or indicated as much earlier)?

Sorry I did not get to a link for this earlier. I was somewhat harassed by time constraints.

I am sure that is anything but "an exhaustive list" of "special rights". And yes, I could not sign it, because I believe that "gay marriage" is inevitable.

Up till late in the 20th century, the Law was interpreted solely based on an invisible (voiceless) homosexual minority having no say in that interpretation. "Marriage" was specified by a SCOTUS decision to be "one man and one woman". That was a direct refutation and denial of Mormon polygamy. The mainstream church complied. NOW, the definition by the SCOTUS is being challenged. Yet the majority feeling is still for "one man and one woman". That less than 50% (according to at least one poll) object to "gay marriage" is indicative of the change coming. "Gay marriage" will be a fact everywhere in the USA in the not-too-distant future. (and the contract between TWO consenting adults will probably be called "marriage", for there is no reasonable argument against allowing the Law to refer to all such contracts by the same term by which we refer to salt and pepper shakers on a table....)
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Sorry I did not get to a link for this earlier. I was somewhat harassed by time constraints.

I am sure that is anything but "an exhaustive list" of "special rights". And yes, I could not sign it, because I believe that "gay marriage" is inevitable.

Don't worry about it.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in gay marriage either, but I'm not afraid / concerned by an agenda which seeks 'special rights'. If the list in that document isn't exhaustive, can you give this board an indication as to what sort of rights you are talking about? It seems the threat of these 'special rights' exercises you - and is the basis of this thread, at least in part - but it isn't clear what these rights are.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So the GLBT advocacy has alarmed many people. Here's an example of the concerns that they have. I am sure the list of protested GLBT agenda items is not purely imaginary. You now have this opportunity to show that the GLBT advocacy is not in fact pushing for these kinds of "special rights" under the facade of "equal rights"....

I think those are basic human rights.

The Bible is NOT to be used for gay-bashing - both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches have officially condemned such homophobia. The petition talks of the possibility of making the mere reading of the bible a criminal offence - that's alarmist nonsence. What SHOULD be forbidden is preaching homophobia through selective use of the bible.

The petition doesn't want 'sensitivity training' in the workplace. How backward-looking. All good employers want a cohesive workforce where there is zero tolerance towards racism etc.

The petition doesn't want LGBT issues raised in sex ed. in schools. Again, how backward-looking. I suppose they want kids to bully the gays. I suppose they also want gay kids to grow up without any support or understanding.

The petition stinks.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
It's a bizarre petition, actually.

Some of us ARE gay and read the Bible in public. I often read the Daily Office with accompanying Bible readings at lunch, quietly at my desk, at work. Why would the petition assume that gay people can't be people of faith too? (Or does this favour selecting certain Bible passages (e.g. Leviticus) and using them to actually threaten gay people?)

The rest of it seems to oppose measures meant to allow gay people to live and work without discrimination and harassment from others and protect the assets of gay couples from being stolen by extended family members. How is living without discrimination and harassment translate into having "special" rights exactly?

Finally adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to corporate, municipal and philanthropic anti-discrimination statements and performing sensitivity training protects heterosexuals as well as gays. Since most harassment is based on perceived sexual orientation rather than actual sexual orientation, heterosexuals may be targeted for harassment, or discrimination, or blackmail as well.

I fail to see what the threat is, and I haven't read a copy of the Homosexual Agenda [tm] in quite a long time.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I'll fix this for you:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

This thread would not reach the end of page one

. . . if you had honestly and openly posted what you want to discuss in the first place, because there are already multiple threads on the topic, to which you have added nothing new.

Come down off the cross, Merlin. We need the wood.

hosting
This is getting too close to C3 name calling and personal insults. Please remember that there is an open Hell thread where you can take that sort of thing. It doesn't belong here.

Louise

Dead Horses Host
hosting off

My apologies to Louise and all.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
@John: way to dismiss "the messenger" by attacking my perspective. I am from Utah, "Hickvill USA"; land of the Mormon fundies. So in your opinion, I am "...totally unaware of what's happening anywhere else in the world." The rest of what follows is equally derogatory. If I was "totally unaware" your opinion would be valid. But it should be obvious by this point that I am far from "totally unaware" of the challenges facing all of us, everywhere, regarding the legalities of the GLBT advocacy agenda.


Actually, it's not at all clear or obvious what your position is. Almost without exception what you have posted has been nastily and subtly anti-gay, based on fiction or -- as I said -- it assumes that your fellow citizens constitute a peculiar group in the world in being unable to cope with or accept what all the rest of us appear to be able to deal with.

You now say a bunch of things about your beliefs that appear to contradict almost all your previous posts. WHich am I to believe? Based on numbers and the variety of your posts, I'm left with the impression of someone profoundly confused, very angry, and not really (at least in his current state of mind) very good at communicating.

I'm not attacking you -- I'm just reacting to what you've said and the way you've said it. When so many people all "misunderstand" you, and all in the same way, maybe the problem is not with them.

John
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I haven't read a copy of the Homosexual Agenda [tm] in quite a long time.

Is it something about painting everyone's front doors pink?

No wonder str8s feel threatened - it would show up poor taste in str8 decor.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What SHOULD be forbidden is preaching homophobia through selective use of the bible.

Do you mean 'forbidden' as in criminally illegal? If so, do you not think that criminalising an interpretation of the Bible with which you do not agree is a rather dangerous step?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
No - free speech is important. Homophobes should have the right to show themselves up by talking nonsence.

My use of the word 'forbidden' was echoing the wording of the petition. My words were probably as badly thought out as those who write the petition.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - free speech is important. Homophobes should have the right to show themselves up by talking nonsence.

That's about the first thing anyone's said on this thread that looks unambiguously right...

And MtM's petition about "special rights" was opposed to workplaces or government offering voluntary sensitivity training programmes.
[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

[ 18. October 2010, 17:31: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Gotcha, ok.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
I was noticing that the list of supposed "special" rights was nothing of the sort. Since everyone has a "gender identity" and a "sexual orientation", any protections offered are general, not special.

Of course, just as to certain whites race is only something other people have, there's a certain mindset that can't imagine their own sexual orientation being discriminated against so any protections along those lines are for other people.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Bingo
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
Since it was mentioned - the original Homosexual Agenda as published years ago on rec.humor.fun and posted numerous places on the web, some versions cleaner than others. Sad thing is, some think it's not humor, but factual.

" I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual.

It follows below:

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM 1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments, 2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle, 3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages, 4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels, 5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership, 6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and 7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.

2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest 4:00 PM Cocktails 6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay) 8:00 PM Theater 11:00 PM Bed (du jour)?"
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Of course anecdotal exceptions to anything can be presented; e.g. the assertion that gays don't get visiting rights in hospitals, or count as "family" (next of kin if they've set up such a relationship via legal channels), etc., I have pointed out are examples of local prejudice, not how the laws can be and ought to be applied. Of course, a comeback points out that I am mistaken: and of course I can point out that I have never known personally of such prejudices, but only heard of them via the media. I have friends who work (and have worked) at hospitals: and I have yet to hear of a single such case of blatant prejudice against gays. It is in the interest of the hospital to benefit the patient as much as possible: to my perspective, any cretin forbidding visiting rights on the basis of being GLBT is a mythical creature! I am sure they must exist if "you" (collective) insist, but I have to take this on faith, since I have no experience with it, nor does anyone else I have known.

Merlin,

I do not want to shock you but some parts of the world have different laws from Utah and/or the USA.

AIUI, in this country, if some-one is in intensive care at hospital, the only person allowed to visit them is the next of kin. If the patient is unconscious, they cannot be consulted about who they would like to be able to visit them and the hospital will follow the letter of the law. Until civil unions came into being, it was impossible for an unmarried partner to be recognised legally as next of kin, regardless of how long the couple had lived together. The legal next of kin is the nearest blood relative and, if the patient is unable to express his/her own wishes, it is the next of kin who makes the decisions on their behalf - leading to the injustices described by Leo.

Just because it does not happen in Utah does not mean that it does not happen anywhere in the world. [brick wall]

Joanna
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments.

[Killing me]

If you believe this to be true of all European men, you clearly have very little knowledge of life here.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
Merlin:

The problem with hospitals, visiting, and next-of-kin can and does arise, but not in the way you seem to imagine.

With a reasonably alert, conscious patient, hospitals (at least where I live) don't prohibit visits during visiting hours, period. Pretty much anybody can walk into a patient's room, and unless the patients rings for someone to chuck them out, all goes well.

The problem arises primarily when the patient is not conscious and/or at death's door, and a related-by-blood Next of Kin is notified (usually because we're talking about a youngish person who's been in a serious accident or has fallen suddenly and unexpectedly ill and has made no prior arrangements.

The blood relative is sometimes homophobic, and/or doesn't accept the patient's identity. It's often this person who denies the patient's SO any access to the patient. In lieu of instructions from the patient, the hospital defers to the next-of-kin.

Although the issues were different (terminating life-supports, not visitation), you'll recall the Terry Schiavo case, with parents and husband at each other's throats over what the patient would have wanted.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
...it isn't clear what these rights are.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...

The petition stinks.


Yes it does.

An overview of the battle for and against ENDA shows that the specific demand for and resistance against special mention is all about a special distinction, where, it is asserted by the opponents of ENDA, none is required. A special mention in the anti-discriminatory language places the GLBT advocacy in a specially protected position, i.e. it will be used as a kind of licensed reverse discrimination.

That's one "special right" opposed by those who created that petition.

Yet we have denial that such is even being advocated.

So, you can, perhaps, see my confusion? Everywhere I hear both perspectives. I go online, like right now while I compose this post: and I find "yes they are", and "no we're not", pushing for "special rights"....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
http://www.squidoo.com/gayspecialrights This hits it pretty lucidly, I think. He's all for preserving the definition of "marriage", yet equally all for the same rights and protections for anyone, homosexuals included.

quote:
To be clear, I support a government that establishes protections for voluntary contracts entered into by two consenting adults. If two men or two women desire to legally share in each others fortune or debt, grant medical decision making power to each other, or establish any other coequal status amongst themselves, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Contract protection is indeed one of the few proper functions of government. The act of sexual intercourse should also not be regulated against when it is being carried out by two consenting adults.

 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
@John: way to dismiss "the messenger" by attacking my perspective. I am from Utah, "Hickvill USA"; land of the Mormon fundies. So in your opinion, I am "...totally unaware of what's happening anywhere else in the world." The rest of what follows is equally derogatory. If I was "totally unaware" your opinion would be valid. But it should be obvious by this point that I am far from "totally unaware" of the challenges facing all of us, everywhere, regarding the legalities of the GLBT advocacy agenda.


Actually, it's not at all clear or obvious what your position is.
I didn't say "position", I said it should be obvious that I am not unaware. Of course my "position" is difficult to understand; it's complicated. So it has been challenging to explain. I tried to approach this with only TWO aspects; same definition of sexual morality, and no "special rights" for GLBT (or anyone). The thread has wallowed in a level of confusion since page one.
quote:


Almost without exception what you have posted has been nastily and subtly anti-gay,...

Not so! That is impossible because I am NOT anti-gay. You are channeling perceptions that do not reflect my feelings at all.

quote:

... based on fiction or -- as I said -- it assumes that your fellow citizens constitute a peculiar group in the world in being unable to cope with or accept what all the rest of us appear to be able to deal with.

"Fiction" would be more accurately stated as a level of ignorance. I have expressed how I distrust the Media because it focuses on the sensational, the bizarre, the popular fears of the majority, etc. I started this thread with the intent to show or disprove the assertion in the thread title. So far nothing has been made clear either way. It appears that the GLBT extremists do indeed want special treatment/mention/rights; the main mass of homosexuals claim to want equality only.
quote:


You now say a bunch of things about your beliefs that appear to contradict almost all your previous posts.

I would like you to compare a couple of examples, so I can see what you are talking about. I am sure I can explain why you think this:
quote:

...I'm left with the impression of someone profoundly confused, very angry, and not really (at least in his current state of mind) very good at communicating.

Yes to the last part. Obviously I don't communicate well for you. But I am not angry or "profoundly confused": just confused, somewhat, by the two-sided character of the GLBT political agenda to address the inequities in the law, vis-a-vis, compared to married people's rights.
quote:


I'm not attacking you -- I'm just reacting to what you've said and the way you've said it. When so many people all "misunderstand" you, and all in the same way, maybe the problem is not with them.

John

Well, help me out, then. Point out where the apparent dichotomy of my statements has caused the difficulty. I am willing to learn from this....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments.

[Killing me]

If you believe this to be true of all European men, you clearly have very little knowledge of life here.

England doesn't count [Biased]

I was thinking of more Bohemian parts of Europe, maybe France or Italy in particular. And I was certainly not assuming ALL or even most men show their affection in public this way. But it is accepted and common....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,

I do not want to shock you but some parts of the world have different laws from Utah and/or the USA.

You can give up the patronizing, I won't mind, really.
quote:


...

Just because it does not happen in Utah does not mean that it does not happen anywhere in the world.

I am sure that enequities happen in Utah! I just haven't heard of any blatant, homophobic discrimination. Obviously, if a patient is comatose, and the SO wants to be at the bedside; and the parents, siblings, et al. blood kin want the SO kept away, it's going to happen regardless of any other considerations. No amount of writing "special" protective verbiage is going to prevent these occasions. The same is true of heterosexual couples who are only common law; any next of kin trump the common law spouse if there is a conflict of interest. The hospital staff are not going to endanger the patient by allowing acrimony at the hospital. Someone is going to be kept out, and it is going to be the "stranger". Any civil suits brought resulting from said-estrangement will of course be worked out to the best of the court's ability, and not always justly....
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
http://www.squidoo.com/gayspecialrights This hits it pretty lucidly, I think. He's all for preserving the definition of "marriage", yet equally all for the same rights and protections for anyone, homosexuals included.

It may be lucid, but it just demonstrates a insistence on defining things to create results worthy of Catch-22 or Kafka.

It's basically a viewpoint that says only direct discrimination on the face of a law counts. Indirect discrimination, in terms of differential impact that isn't justified, is ignored.

Human rights law got past this point about 40 years ago.

Of course a law that says "no-one can marry a person of the same gender as themselves" is neutral on its face. It applies to everyone equally. But if you think that makes it non-discriminatory, you are deliberately choosing the most obtuse/blunt definition of discrimination.

A law that forbids anyone from playing water polo is non-discriminatory in your book. I can just imagine all the people who've never attempted to play water polo and have no interest in trying it shrugging their shoulders and saying "what's the problem?"
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.

BTW, that post is full of all kinds of the usual misinformation; the "average disposable income" for gay people is based on marketing surveys in high-end magazines. In other words, the people responding are already in higher-income brackets (they bought the high-end magazine) - and it only contains information from people who choose to respond! A self-selected group, IOW, surveyed by companies who want to sell them products.
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
quote:
Obviously, if a patient is comatose, and the SO wants to be at the bedside; and the parents, siblings, et al. blood kin want the SO kept away, it's going to happen regardless of any other considerations. No amount of writing "special" protective verbiage is going to prevent these occasions. The same is true of heterosexual couples who are only common law; any next of kin trump the common law spouse if there is a conflict of interest. The hospital staff are not going to endanger the patient by allowing acrimony at the hospital. Someone is going to be kept out, and it is going to be the "stranger". Any civil suits brought resulting from said-estrangement will of course be worked out to the best of the court's ability, and not always justly....
Which is why there is a need for gay marriage. because in a legal marriage, the _spouse_ is the legal next of kin.

You have proved the point yourself.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments.

[Killing me]

If you believe this to be true of all European men, you clearly have very little knowledge of life here.

Footballers though...
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...

A law that forbids anyone from playing water polo is non-discriminatory in your book. I can just imagine all the people who've never attempted to play water polo and have no interest in trying it shrugging their shoulders and saying "what's the problem?"

A silly analogy, imho; since marriage IS just about the most common institution in the world. It happens to also be the most important to most people. It has a name. If you would accept the challenge to come up with a special name for your special arrangement, instead of trying to topple the apple cart, there would not be an issue regarding equal rights.

You're ignoring the central qualifier to the issue of definition: "marriage" can be preserved just as it has always been. As clarified and admitted: hardly anyone in the USA is against equal rights, protections included, for homosexuals or any other minority.

The writer invites gays to come up with their own (creative, imaginative) term for their unions: Which will be precisely the same rights, privileges and obligations as "marriage". Since the gender attraction issue is the "difference" brought up by homosexuals themselves, it is up to them to define that difference with a word/term for their civil unions, instead of insisting that the majority are wrong to point out that that difference even matters. It obviously matters to "you" a great deal. And it also matters to the heterosexual majority.

At one and the same time, you are saying "We're Gay" and insisting that the distinction isn't worthy of mention in the marriage laws (unless, of course, you can win a special mention of gender not being a qualifier): AND fighting to include "sexual orientation/gender identity" to the "suspect classes" in the discrimination laws. The minority protection status is created by the GLBT advocacy itself. This is a natural reaction from a marginalized group who are fighting for equality. But it also validates the majority's fight to preserve the definition of "marriage" as traditional heterosexual monogamy.

Therefore you have nothing to argue for except a prideful desire to give some "payback" for all the generations of homosexuals who have lived in their private hells of fear and deprivation....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.

As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.
quote:


BTW, that post is full of all kinds of the usual misinformation; the "average disposable income" for gay people is based on marketing surveys in high-end magazines. In other words, the people responding are already in higher-income brackets (they bought the high-end magazine) - and it only contains information from people who choose to respond! A self-selected group, IOW, surveyed by companies who want to sell them products.

I saw that "disposable income" item because of its having been challenged by a post on this thread. A mistaken piece of information does not invalidate all the other worthy rebuttal points....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
quote:
Obviously, if a patient is comatose, and the SO wants to be at the bedside; and the parents, siblings, et al. blood kin want the SO kept away, it's going to happen regardless of any other considerations. No amount of writing "special" protective verbiage is going to prevent these occasions. The same is true of heterosexual couples who are only common law; any next of kin trump the common law spouse if there is a conflict of interest. The hospital staff are not going to endanger the patient by allowing acrimony at the hospital. Someone is going to be kept out, and it is going to be the "stranger". Any civil suits brought resulting from said-estrangement will of course be worked out to the best of the court's ability, and not always justly....
Which is why there is a need for gay marriage. because in a legal marriage, the _spouse_ is the legal next of kin.

You have proved the point yourself.

Yes, I have agreed that a SO ought, in a legal union, to have the very same rights in a hospital as a wife or husband does. But as you can see from the posts this morning, calling it "marriage" is not required to provide this for homosexual unions....
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Merlin, at this point it ought to be clear that the word "marriage" has a million different meanings, depending on who's talking about it and for what reason. At times, it seems to be primarily about children; at other times, primarily about love. For some people it's about companionship and the desire not to be alone; for others it's a financial and legal arrangement. For still others - like George Bush - it's "the sacred institution."

Well, it's really not "sacred" in the public square, where it instead has to do with creating the state of being "related" when not related by blood. It's a legal definition, IOW. It may be sacred to those who are church members - which is fine. They can continue to have their marriages sacralized; nothing can or will affect this.

In fact, all civil marriages are just that: "civil marriage." How's that for an acceptable term? If heterosexuals wish to drop the qualifier and just talk about their "marriages" in order to disqualify the gays from the state of matrimony - well, it's a free country.

It's true that "marriage" was a sort of secular sacred cow that straight people weren't comfortable with sharing with gay people - but I think that time is coming to an end. Younger people don't have the same feelings; they recognize that marriage today is about many things - but that it's primarily a civil institution at this point.

And it's pretty silly, anyway, to have two entirely separate sets of laws that do exactly the same thing; it's what you might call ridiculous, in fact - and I think people are realizing this at last.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.

As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.

Well, to be consistent, you'll need to start advocating to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In any case, I'm not sure why you think there needs to be some sort of logical consistency here. The choice of a name for a legal relationship has, literally, nothing in common with the problem of employment discrimination. And, in fact, you seem to have a logical problem yourself, as I mentioned above - to wit, why the need for two totally separate sets of laws that do exactly the same thing? That's pretty incoherent, really - particularly when the legality of marriage is determined, mostly, on a state-by-state basis. That's now 50 sets of duplicated laws! Seems a bit off-the-wall to me, but of course it'll mean long-term job security for thousands of state employees. (To be honest, I personally don't care what you call it: marriage, civil union, etc. And in fact I advocated for "civil union" myself - but then realized it was just a silly redundancy based on almost nothing. Marriage can still be sacred to people if they wish it - or else, call all civil marriages "civil unions," if that makes people feel better. I don't care.)

Speaking of making no sense, your last sentence doesn't; what are you trying to say?

[ 19. October 2010, 15:46: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.

If so, you are being just as illogical by not wanting anti-discrimination laws to mention homosexuals as a distinct class, but wanting them to call their marriages something else because they are in a separate class.

But the main point is that you are wrong about why "differences" get mentioned in discrimination legislation. It is because they are irrelevant differences as far as ‘treating people fairly' is concerned. Not employing someone who is black matters, not because ‘blackness' is an important difference for employment purposes, but because it isn't. It ought to be of no consequence at all whether one employs a black person or a white one. Fairness requires that they be treated the same.

That's not to say that a person can't feel that being black is an important part of his or her identity or culture. Of course they can. The point is that it is not the sort of distinction that ought to count against them in employment or other rights. It's the same for "homosexual". It's makes a difference to personal identity, but it is utterly irrelevant when it comes to fair treatment. That's why "sexual orientation" belongs with "race", "religion", "sex", "nationality", "disability" and so on in anti-discrimination laws: those are things that should make no difference at all to a person's entitlement to just and equal treatment, regardless of their personal importance.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
... Het couples (and singles) don't seem bothered in the least that "marriage" is used of same-sex marriages.
...

I think you have made an unsupportable assumption here. There are a large number of people opposed to homosexual 'marriage' who have resigned themselves to the fact that the law has been changed and will not revert back so there is no reason to continue to make a fuss. That does not mean we are not bothered by it. Sometimes it is reasonable to recognize defeat and move on.

The focus for many is now, how does one deal with the fact that it is legal while ensuring one has no part in it.

For example, clergy are quietly taking steps to ensure they will never be coerced to perform a homosexual 'marriage'.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.

As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.

Well, to be consistent, you'll need to start advocating to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In any case, I'm not sure why you think there needs to be some sort of logical consistency here. The choice of a name for a legal relationship has, literally, nothing in common with the problem of employment discrimination. And, in fact, you seem to have a logical problem yourself, as I mentioned above - to wit, why the need for two totally separate sets of laws that do exactly the same thing?
Why the duplication assertion? All that is required is the same approach to the "suspect class" clauses in the anti discrimination laws. In the case of the "marriage" laws, we simply include every term of what "legal union" means: "marriage between one man and one woman, civil union between any two consenting adults", etc.
quote:

That's pretty incoherent, really - particularly when the legality of marriage is determined, mostly, on a state-by-state basis. That's now 50 sets of duplicated laws!

Yes, 50 state marriage laws. But all recognized under the ruling of the SCOTUS that they all apply in the several states and are equally, legally binding and protecting regardless of their differences. There's no reason why a "suspect class" qualifier on the Fed level, applying to all the states equally, can't be added so that the various legal terms of what constitutes a "legal union" cover them all.

quote:

... And in fact I advocated for "civil union" myself - but then realized it was just a silly redundancy based on almost nothing. Marriage can still be sacred to people if they wish it - or else, call all civil marriages "civil unions," if that makes people feel better. I don't care.)

Speaking of making no sense, your last sentence doesn't; what are you trying to say?

It will make a lot of people feel better. It would make me feel better.

It doesn't make sense that most heterosexuals want "marriage" respected as the definition of the legal union between a man and a woman? And the same men and women want homosexuals to have access to legal unions that define each partner as possessing the very same rights, privileges and obligations - just don't call it "marriage"?...
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't make sense that most heterosexuals want "marriage" respected as the definition of the legal union between a man and a woman? And the same men and women want homosexuals to have access to legal unions that define each partner as possessing the very same rights, privileges and obligations - just don't call it "marriage"?...

OK, I get it now; it was hard to tell what you meant because one thought extended over two sentences.

I am curious as to why you care so much what the government does, though. Isn't it the cultural aspect that concerns you here? That's what it seems to be, anyway. And since heterosexuals are the vast majority and always will be, can't you continue to disdain the idea of "homosexual marriage" as you now do, and keep that cultural ideal intact? Surely it's irrelevant what legal name is given to something you don't believe exists anyway....? Nobody can force to you "accept" anybody you don't like; the only request is to treat people equitably.

(Or perhaps you're just ticked off at "gay activists" in general and venting spleen? You seem to have a lot of resentment about a lot of different issues here.)

I do think the states will object to the two sets of laws, though - and so will others, who will see it as blatant discrimination. As I said, I don't personally care much, because I'm not that interested in what the government does. It does a lot of stupid things and it's a waste of time getting exercised over most of them.

And no, sharkshooter - clergy won't be forced to marry anybody, any more than they're forced to do it today. (i.e., The Catholic Church doesn't have to marry divorced people, etc.)

The hysteria about this is really way over the top sometimes....

[ 19. October 2010, 17:22: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.

If so, you are being just as illogical by not wanting anti-discrimination laws to mention homosexuals as a distinct class, but wanting them to call their marriages something else because they are in a separate class.
I haven't said that. It would be fine to include "sexual orientation/gender identity" to the anti discrimination laws, if that is deemed necessary to secure equal protection.

But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc. Any such discrimination is already addressed and the media picks up on it right away; and the bigot is made to look very bad: and all without any changes required to the "suspect class" clauses already listed.


quote:
But the main point is that you are wrong about why "differences" get mentioned in discrimination legislation. It is because they are irrelevant differences as far as ‘treating people fairly' is concerned. Not employing someone who is black matters, not because ‘blackness' is an important difference for employment purposes, but because it isn't. It ought to be of no consequence at all whether one employs a black person or a white one. Fairness requires that they be treated the same.

Yes. To add "sexual orientation/gender identity" to the classes is tantamount to admitting that wants are sufficient to create minorities capable of being discriminated against. Hair color, clothing preferences, education levels, preferences in food, etc. ad nauseam, can ALL be pleaded for on equal grounds as "sexual orientation/gender identity". Who are you or who am I to say that an individual has a choice in what they want? Given the vast complexity of the brain's chemistry, and the imperatives inculcated as part of a child's upbringing, deep-seated wants of any sort can be as impossible to deny as sexual orientation.

An employer could hate just about anything about anyone: so the anti discrimination "suspect classes" ought to not be considered an attempt, or necessary, to include all possible classes: but rather is meant to be logically illustrating that NO discrimination based on prejudice is to be tolerated, period. Like the Bill of Rights, which makes no attempt to be exhaustive in listing all the civil rights of the individual: the anti discrimination "suspect classes" can't practically list all of the classes. So we seem to agree on this at least.


quote:


That's not to say that a person can't feel that being black is an important part of his or her identity or culture. Of course they can. The point is that it is not the sort of distinction that ought to count against them in employment or other rights. It's the same for "homosexual". It's makes a difference to personal identity, but it is utterly irrelevant when it comes to fair treatment. That's why "sexual orientation" belongs with "race", "religion", "sex", "nationality", "disability" and so on in anti-discrimination laws: those are things that should make no difference at all to a person's entitlement to just and equal treatment, regardless of their personal importance.

It belongs with the list. But so too does every other perceivable distinction. I personally don't care if sexual orientation/identifying gets added to the anti discrimination laws: what's one more class listed going to do? Nothing, by itself. But IF the GLBT advocacy succeeds (as I suspect that they will) in getting "marriage" to include every perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults (or, if the polygs get their way, piggy-backing on the GLBT advocacy's victory, any number of consenting adults), then thousands of years of definition of what "marriage" has meant will be rendered obsolete. We are free to redefine words all we want to. But there is a large segment of society who prefer to leave well enough alone as much as possible. A lot of people don't welcome unnecessary change and the instability it causes....
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But IF the GLBT advocacy succeeds (as I suspect that they will) in getting "marriage" to include every perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults (or, if the polygs get their way, piggy-backing on the GLBT advocacy's victory, any number of consenting adults), then thousands of years of definition of what "marriage" has meant will be rendered obsolete. We are free to redefine words all we want to. But there is a large segment of society who prefer to leave well enough alone as much as possible. A lot of people don't welcome unnecessary change and the instability it causes....

What, exactly, are all these "perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults," please? What does that even mean?

The request at the moment is to allow two people of the same sex to be married. The only option on the books at the moment is permitting two people of the opposite sex to be married.

What other possible permutations are there, pray tell?

(BTW, polygamy has been accepted for, I'd bet, far longer than monogamy has been mandated, so I'm not so sure about the "time immemorial" and "thousands of years of tradition" aspect. Marriage simply hasn't always been "the union of one man and one woman," much as you want to lean on that argument. And nobody's trying to change the "monogamous" aspect, anyway - which is surely what you prize in your "definition of marriage," isn't it? If it were just the heterosexuality of the thing, polygamy would do nicely, wouldn't it?)

[ 19. October 2010, 17:44: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't make sense that most heterosexuals want "marriage" respected as the definition of the legal union between a man and a woman? And the same men and women want homosexuals to have access to legal unions that define each partner as possessing the very same rights, privileges and obligations - just don't call it "marriage"?...

OK, I get it now; it was hard to tell what you meant because one thought extended over two sentences.

I am curious as to why you care so much what the government does, though. Isn't it the cultural aspect that concerns you here? That's what it seems to be, anyway. And since heterosexuals are the vast majority and always will be, can't you continue to disdain the idea of "homosexual marriage" as you now do, and keep that cultural ideal intact? Surely it's irrelevant what legal name is given to something you don't believe exists anyway....? Nobody can force to you "accept" anybody you don't like; the only request is to treat people equitably.

Of course, equal treatment is a given in everything.

On the assertion that "no one can force", that's not true. Perhaps "compel" is a better word for most of us. But vis-a-vis the anti discrimination classes on race: there is still an enormous gulf between Whites and Blacks in the Southern States, and elsewhere I gather (I've even seen it here in Utah, but it is rarely exposed, being so disapproved of by the majority). The civil rights of everyone were reinforced during Reconstruction right after the ACW; then conservative Fed Gov't backed off and it took literally generations for the intent of the 14th Amendment to become fact. It is still being driven home daily that it is a fact.

Homosexuals require the same rights to legally recognized unions as heterosexuals do. The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however, is based on giving up everything and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese. It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes. There is a real danger here: wants cannot be held to be sufficient cause for minority "suspect class", specific recognition: Or else all the unmentioned wants will have equal claim for specific recognition. (I have already addressed this in a post a few minutes ago.)
quote:


(Or perhaps you're just ticked off at "gay activists" in general and venting spleen? You seem to have a lot of resentment about a lot of different issues here.)

I'm not ticked off, much less angry. Annoyed and worried is what I feel. Yes, the antics or any public displays of protest, by gays or any other horde of activists, annoy me. I wish such activities didn't seem so essential to so many people. They don't behave their best when gathered together; extreme things get said and done, and memories are long.

I resent any extremism; it never accomplishes justice for all.
quote:


I do think the states will object to the two sets of laws, though - and so will others, who will see it as blatant discrimination. As I said, I don't personally care much, because I'm not that interested in what the government does. It does a lot of stupid things and it's a waste of time getting exercised over most of them.

I'm intensely interested in what the Gov't does: the Gov't is a composite of "Mini Mes", thus it reflects on society of which I am a part.

And as I already said, there is no reason to assume that a "gay marriage law" and a "straight marriage law" need be on the books one following the other as it were. Just put in an illustrative listing of terms on what the "legal union" laws mean, and let the homosexuals come up with their special name for their legal (civil) unions to include in that listing. It ought to work just like the "suspect class" listings do for the anti discrimination laws. Let "marriage between one man and one woman" head that list, since it came first in this Nation; then let any other "classes" follow. (Why do I imagine that the GLBT advocacy would howl that the order in which legalized unions are listed matters? That their name for their unions is discriminated against because it isn't listed first?...)
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But IF the GLBT advocacy succeeds (as I suspect that they will) in getting "marriage" to include every perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults (or, if the polygs get their way, piggy-backing on the GLBT advocacy's victory, any number of consenting adults), then thousands of years of definition of what "marriage" has meant will be rendered obsolete. We are free to redefine words all we want to. But there is a large segment of society who prefer to leave well enough alone as much as possible. A lot of people don't welcome unnecessary change and the instability it causes....

What, exactly, are all these "perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults," please? What does that even mean?

The request at the moment is to allow two people of the same sex to be married. The only option on the books at the moment is permitting two people of the opposite sex to be married.

What other possible permutations are there, pray tell?

Infertile adults marrying kinfolk; moms to sons, daddies to daughters, visa versa: then why not allowing such to adopt? Etc. Why not? What's the harm done? No possible genetic freaks are going to result from such unions. And isn't sexual expression an idividual, inalienable, God-given right?
quote:


(BTW, polygamy has been accepted for, I'd bet, far longer than monogamy has been mandated, so I'm not so sure about the "time immemorial" and "thousands of years of tradition" aspect. Marriage simply hasn't always been "the union of one man and one woman," much as you want to lean on that argument. And nobody's trying to change the "monogamous" aspect, anyway - which is surely what you prize in your "definition of marriage," isn't it? If it were just the heterosexuality of the thing, polygamy would do nicely, wouldn't it?)

You are mistaken here on a few points: In THIS Nation, monogamy has been the ONLY form of marriage upheld by the Constitution. The rest of the world can do as they please. And historically, the greatest civilizations of the world have upheld monogamy as well; the other expressions of sexual excess have all be allowed only outside of marriage. Where polygamy exists it is almost always polygany. But polyandry has been and is used to limit population growth. (I believe that if China instituted polyandry that their problem with excess male population would virtually disappear virtually overnight, and would continue to effectively limit their population growth.) Polygany almost always defers to the "first wife"; who has inheritance rights and property disposition rights that trump the other wives' rights. So in effect, polygany (the same institution as the OT "patriarchal marriage") is for the first wife much the same thing as monogamy; all she has to do is share her husband sexually; something that many women don't seem to mind at all, or even welcome in some circumstances....

And, you can bet your last dollar, safely, that the polygamist advocacy is prepared to ride on the success of the GLBT advocacy straight to an overturning of the anti polygamy laws (anti bigamy laws, actually).
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...And no, sharkshooter - clergy won't be forced to marry anybody, any more than they're forced to do it today. (i.e., The Catholic Church doesn't have to marry divorced people, etc.)
....

It may happen under Canadian law.

Unless a denomination specifically forbids it for their clergy, a particular clergy of that denomination may not refuse. So, for example, if the United Church does not forbid such 'marriages', any United Church minister cannot refuse. That is, they may be coerced by the government to do so. It will not be up to the particular church, or minister, to be able to refuse.

That is the law here.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'm intensely interested in what the Gov't does: the Gov't is a composite of "Mini Mes", thus it reflects on society of which I am a part.

Hmmmm. I don't identify in any way with the people who run for political office; they seem mostly to be nothing like me - let alone "Mini Mes."

But then, I'm much happier being an outsider, usually, so maybe that explains it.


quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Let "marriage between one man and one woman" head that list, since it came first in this Nation; then let any other "classes" follow. (Why do I imagine that the GLBT advocacy would howl that the order in which legalized unions are listed matters? That their name for their unions is discriminated against because it isn't listed first?...)

Because you're being completely ridiculous now?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...And no, sharkshooter - clergy won't be forced to marry anybody, any more than they're forced to do it today. (i.e., The Catholic Church doesn't have to marry divorced people, etc.)
....

It may happen under Canadian law.

Unless a denomination specifically forbids it for their clergy, a particular clergy of that denomination may not refuse. So, for example, if the United Church does not forbid such 'marriages', any United Church minister cannot refuse. That is, they may be coerced by the government to do so. It will not be up to the particular church, or minister, to be able to refuse.

That is the law here.

Well, I don't believe it, to be honest. Clergy can refuse to marry multiply-married persons, too, and refer them someplace else. They can refuse to marry people on a host of other subjective grounds, too; if not, they'd be forced to marry people unsuited to one another in dozens of possible ways, against their will and judgement.

I simply don't believe this claim - although I'd be interested in seeing evidence. A link, perhaps?

And when you say "may be," I presume you mean, "it hasn't actually happened"? Hmmmm.....
 
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however, is based on giving up everything and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese. It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes.

No-one wants that!

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
sharkshooter: You are incorrect. TubaMirum has it right. In Canada, clergy have absolute discretion in whom they choose to marry, nor do they have to disclose their reasons. Let me help you with a direct quote from Bill C-38:
quote:


3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

Link to government webpage here.

But if you think clergy are or should be "quietly taking steps to ensure they will never be coerced to perform a homosexual marriage" - a principal already upheld in the law - they can knock themselves out.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Sharkshooter has it wrong.

Marriage Commissioners (called "Justices of the Peace" in the U.S.) must perform marriages for same sex couples because they are agents of the state and are entrusted to carry out the services and policies of the state without discrimination.

Clergy, who do not have the dual role of Marriage Commissioner, follow their denominational policy. For most denominations, Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and other, same sex marriages are no permitted. The Metropolitan Community Church and United Church of Canada are the two largest denominations that permit same sex marriage (though the UCC has a conscientious exemption clause.)

Bill C-38 has a specific exemption for religious institutions. No clergy, who are not acting in an official capacity as a marriage commissioner, can be forced by the government to perform same sex marriages.

[ 19. October 2010, 19:36: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
In Canada, clergy have absolute discretion in whom they choose to marry

Actually I should probably rephrase that slightly, and add something like, "within the provisions of provincial legislation on marriage."
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
There is an ongoing debate, particularly in the western part of Canada, where some Marriage Commissioners (who may or may not be clergy) want to exempt themselves from marrying same sex couples for religious reasons. The courts have ruled that this violates the Charter. Agents of the Government do not have the choice to serve some groups of people and not serve others. Their job function demands serving all and upholding anti-discrimination laws.

But no clergy person (or anyone else) must become a Marriage Commissioner. Becoming one is a completely voluntary act.

Still somehow the government is being oppressive to them if they can't arbitrarily discriminate against people who have a legal capacity to marriage.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Infertile adults marrying kinfolk; moms to sons, daddies to daughters, visa versa: then why not allowing such to adopt? Etc. Why not? What's the harm done? No possible genetic freaks are going to result from such unions. And isn't sexual expression an idividual, inalienable, God-given right?

Um, incest is illegal, and gay marriage doesn't change that. Gay people - as the saying goes - are asking to be able to marry somebody, not anybody. We would like to have the support of partners in life, like the rest of humanity - and in this age of "marriage for love," it's hard to see why this should be denied.

I thought everybody had got this idea by now.


quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You are mistaken here on a few points: In THIS Nation, monogamy has been the ONLY form of marriage upheld by the Constitution. The rest of the world can do as they please. And historically, the greatest civilizations of the world have upheld monogamy as well; the other expressions of sexual excess have all be allowed only outside of marriage. Where polygamy exists it is almost always polygany. But polyandry has been and is used to limit population growth. (I believe that if China instituted polyandry that their problem with excess male population would virtually disappear virtually overnight, and would continue to effectively limit their population growth.) Polygany almost always defers to the "first wife"; who has inheritance rights and property disposition rights that trump the other wives' rights. So in effect, polygany (the same institution as the OT "patriarchal marriage") is for the first wife much the same thing as monogamy; all she has to do is share her husband sexually; something that many women don't seem to mind at all, or even welcome in some circumstances....

And, you can bet your last dollar, safely, that the polygamist advocacy is prepared to ride on the success of the GLBT advocacy straight to an overturning of the anti polygamy laws (anti bigamy laws, actually).

Your original claims about "one man and one woman" were "always," and "for thousands of years" - neither of which time frame fits the term of existence of the United States. If you'd stop being hysterical and use language that fits your arguments, nobody would challenge you on basic errors.

I don't think many people are likely to be arguing for polygamy - and many fewer would support it, and there are lots of reasons why not. Multiple wives (as you note, by far the most common arrangement) and dozens of children are potentially big problems for the state, because most single men won't be able to support them - and who would, at that point? You guessed it - the rest of us. There have been recent cases of teenaged boys being dumped by the side of the road, ejected from polygamous groups because they are threats to the adult men. Gay people (for the thousandth time!) are asking only to be allowed to marry once, like everybody else can - not dozens of times.

It's ludicrous that we have say these things hundreds of times....
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Underage children are deemed to not have the capacity to give informed consent to sexual relationships with adults. They also aren't allowed to execute legal contracts (which is what marriage essentially is), legally drink alcohol, drive cars or serve the military either. Gay marriage between consenting adults wouldn't affect this status. Consent means consent, and part of giving consent is being deemed by the law (and psychologists) as having the capacity to do so.

It makes for a great red herring though.

[ 19. October 2010, 22:16: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...

A law that forbids anyone from playing water polo is non-discriminatory in your book. I can just imagine all the people who've never attempted to play water polo and have no interest in trying it shrugging their shoulders and saying "what's the problem?"

A silly analogy, imho; since marriage IS just about the most common institution in the world. It happens to also be the most important to most people. It has a name. If you would accept the challenge to come up with a special name for your special arrangement, instead of trying to topple the apple cart, there would not be an issue regarding equal rights.

You're ignoring the central qualifier to the issue of definition: "marriage" can be preserved just as it has always been. As clarified and admitted: hardly anyone in the USA is against equal rights, protections included, for homosexuals or any other minority.

The writer invites gays to come up with their own (creative, imaginative) term for their unions: Which will be precisely the same rights, privileges and obligations as "marriage". Since the gender attraction issue is the "difference" brought up by homosexuals themselves, it is up to them to define that difference with a word/term for their civil unions, instead of insisting that the majority are wrong to point out that that difference even matters. It obviously matters to "you" a great deal. And it also matters to the heterosexual majority.

At one and the same time, you are saying "We're Gay" and insisting that the distinction isn't worthy of mention in the marriage laws (unless, of course, you can win a special mention of gender not being a qualifier): AND fighting to include "sexual orientation/gender identity" to the "suspect classes" in the discrimination laws. The minority protection status is created by the GLBT advocacy itself. This is a natural reaction from a marginalized group who are fighting for equality. But it also validates the majority's fight to preserve the definition of "marriage" as traditional heterosexual monogamy.

Therefore you have nothing to argue for except a prideful desire to give some "payback" for all the generations of homosexuals who have lived in their private hells of fear and deprivation....

Another concept from discrimination law that clearly hasn't registered is that discrimination can consist of either failing to take a relevant difference into account, or taking an irrelevant difference into account.

You've conflated the two about half a dozen times in this post.

The whole point is that we are arguing that gender is NOT a relevant difference in a marriage. I don't want a special arrangement. I want the same arrangement you've got. And as I've already observed, if it really IS the same thing as you keep trying to tell me, it makes no sense to have 2 different names for it.

It's either a special arrangement or it's exactly the same. You can't rationally argue both of those things simultaneously.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

Homosexuals require the same rights to legally recognized unions as heterosexuals do. The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however,

Unsupported assumption; nobody knows that a majority of heteros is reluctant.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
is based on giving up everything

??? Giving up what, exactly? What rights, privileges, or status do "reluctant heteros" no longer have as the result of other people being allowed to marry?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese.

How? Right now, a "special minority class" exists which is denied (in most US states and federally) the right to marry -- a right extended to all adult heterosexuals but denied to all adult homosexuals. It's the denial which creates the "special minority class." Extending the right to marry to all adults eliminates that status; no legalese required.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes. There is a real danger here: wants cannot be held to be sufficient cause for minority "suspect class", specific recognition: Or else all the unmentioned wants will have equal claim for specific recognition. (I have already addressed this in a post a few minutes ago.).

How do you arrive at this? First, "marriage" does not equal "sex" (just ask any married couple who have made it past the first couple of years). Extending the right to marry to any adult citizen will not affect the number of people one can marry (currently limited to one); the age of the one person one intends to marry (varies somewhat under state law, but generally 18 or with parental consent at younger ages; or the unenforceable laws which no doubt remain on the books in many places about impermissible sexual practices.

People wanting to marry children will not be challenging this solely under relevant marriage laws, but under laws regarding the welfare of children. People wanting to marry members of other species will have to challenge this under laws regarding the welfare of animals (to say nothing of their putative rights and status under the law). People wanting to marry multiple partners simultaneously will have to challenge under inheritance laws (and probably others too) as well as marital law.

These aren't simply matters of degree, as you seem to assume; they are matters of different legal classes. Adult citizens belong to one legal class (or should); children belong to another, as do animals, and so on.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Where is this movement led by children and animals demanding the right to sign legal documents and legally own property? I'd think that would be a far more important step than securing the right to marry adults (which, again, involves comprehending and signing a legal contract and legally owning property.)

I get that this is a slippery slope logical fallacy, but generally slippery slopes slide into something plausible (though that doesn't make it any less fallacious.) This slope seems to be sliding into something that is really bizarre.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
...

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya

Hypothetically, assume that the SCOTUS agreed on that overarching verbiage applying to all the USA. Instant chaos! Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be? This is why nothing happens quickly when laws are altered or added. It takes years (thank heaven)....
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
...

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya

Hypothetically, assume that the SCOTUS agreed on that overarching verbiage applying to all the USA. Instant chaos! Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be? This is why nothing happens quickly when laws are altered or added. It takes years (thank heaven)....
How many two people unions can you think of, Merlin?

1. A man and a woman (or a woman and a man, these days)
2. A man and a man
3. A woman and a woman

Assuming the same rules about capacity and consent apply to 2 and 3 as they do to 1, what other issues can you articulate regarding this approach?
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Infertile adults marrying kinfolk; moms to sons, daddies to daughters, visa versa: then why not allowing such to adopt? Etc. Why not? What's the harm done? No possible genetic freaks are going to result from such unions. And isn't sexual expression an idividual, inalienable, God-given right?

Um, incest is illegal, and gay marriage doesn't change that. Gay people - as the saying goes - are asking to be able to marry somebody, not anybody. We would like to have the support of partners in life, like the rest of humanity - and in this age of "marriage for love," it's hard to see why this should be denied.
False dichotomy. The very same wording you used could be applied by a father and daughter wanting to marry each other; or twin sisters/brothers, etc. There is no reason against incest if the possibility of fertility is removed. The only possible objection is upon deap-seated, traditional grounds, i.e. religious grounds. Religion prohibits incest between consenting adults. But in this high-tech world where we control pregnancy, all such possible freaks of unnatural union are removed, ergo, the prohibition against incest is obsolete, on purely practical grounds (the "ick" will always be there: though for what proportion of the population cannot be known: morphing social "values" can swing the majority into all manner of conceivable sexual practices!). There was (is?) a case in OZ recently where, iirc, a man and his daughter wanted to be married. Even in OZ I suspect this is simply too over-the-top "icky" to be acceptable. But such a couple (infertile for whatever reason) cannot be simply denied on the basis of broad public "ick" factor. It must be shown how and why incest in such a couple is any more morally wrong than homosexuality. And it cannot be shown.

quote:


...

Your original claims about "one man and one woman" were "always," and "for thousands of years" - neither of which time frame fits the term of existence of the United States. If you'd stop being hysterical and use language that fits your arguments, nobody would challenge you on basic errors.

It's not a basic error. Polygamy and monogamy have existed side-by-side virtually "forever" (that's "always", for as long as we have any record to go by). And the culture of "The West" is decidedly Grecco-Roman, not African or Asian, where polygamy has existed and still does. The pressure for change in what "marriage" means is assaulting that monogamous institution bequeathed to us via the RCC, via the Roman empire, via Greek culture that held sway over the Mediterranean world for centuries.
quote:


I don't think many people are likely to be arguing for polygamy - and many fewer would support it, and there are lots of reasons why not. Multiple wives (as you note, by far the most common arrangement) and dozens of children are potentially big problems for the state, because most single men won't be able to support them - and who would, at that point? You guessed it - the rest of us. There have been recent cases of teenaged boys being dumped by the side of the road, ejected from polygamous groups because they are threats to the adult men. Gay people (for the thousandth time!) are asking only to be allowed to marry once, like everybody else can - not dozens of times.

It's ludicrous that we have say these things hundreds of times....

I agree with you! But that won't stop the bringing up of their "special practice" and fighting it to the bitter end. Polygamy is only natural in those rare (and temporary) situations where one gender greatly outnumbers the other. It isn't natural to Nature, no matter what "prophet" said so, quoting The Almighty in the bargain, so he asserted anyway....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Underage children are deemed to not have the capacity to give informed consent to sexual relationships with adults. They also aren't allowed to execute legal contracts (which is what marriage essentially is), legally drink alcohol, drive cars or serve the military either. Gay marriage between consenting adults wouldn't affect this status. Consent means consent, and part of giving consent is being deemed by the law (and psychologists) as having the capacity to do so.

It makes for a great red herring though.

I throw your red herring back at you. I didn't say anything about under-aged consent.

Interesting, though, how the image that leaped into your mind when the word "incest" came up, automatically inserted children being corrupted by their evil adult kinsfolk. The OZ case is (was) between two adults; who, as far as I heard, never engaged in sexual activities when the daughter was a child....
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
False dichotomy. The very same wording you used could be applied by a father and daughter wanting to marry each other; or twin sisters/brothers, etc. There is no reason against incest if the possibility of fertility is removed. The only possible objection is upon deap-seated, traditional grounds, i.e. religious grounds.

No, Merlin - that's not at all the "only possible objection." I can think of another, far better one without trying very hard: permitting incest of any kind would be the total ruination of the family unit.

Trust and love of the kind that currently exists between close family members would be utterly destroyed - believe me - if the incest taboo were lifted, and I'm pretty sure this is apparent to most people who think about it for even a second or two.


quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I agree with you! But that won't stop the bringing up of their "special practice" and fighting it to the bitter end. Polygamy is only natural in those rare (and temporary) situations where one gender greatly outnumbers the other. It isn't natural to Nature, no matter what "prophet" said so, quoting The Almighty in the bargain, so he asserted anyway....

Thanks for another good argument. It doesn't seem like a good idea, does it, to leave thousands of men in a permanently-unmarried condition?

[ 20. October 2010, 15:19: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
My comment wasn't directed at you. It was a general remark.

I still don't see how this relates to gay marriage. Same sex siblings can't get married just like anyone else.

(And where is the mass movement of oppressed people yearning to change this? Sexual orientation is recognized by both legal and psychological bodies as based on an attraction toward people based on general characteristics. In the few instances those who can overcome our biologically innate incest taboo, there is no sexual orientation toward a sibling, which would be an individual rather than people. We fall in and out of love toward individuals all the time.)

[ 20. October 2010, 15:21: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Another concept from discrimination law that clearly hasn't registered is that discrimination can consist of either failing to take a relevant difference into account, or taking an irrelevant difference into account.

You've conflated the two about half a dozen times in this post.

You are twisting the word "conflate" here: because what I was pointing out is precisely the equal nature of the two claims: gender shouldn't matter in obtaining equal treatment under the "marriage" laws; AND gender is historically, traditionally, societally a very large difference in defining what the word "marriage" has meant and still means to the heterosexual majority. (That many have thrown in the towel doesn't change their feelings on the issue one bit.)
quote:


The whole point is that we are arguing that gender is NOT a relevant difference in a marriage. I don't want a special arrangement. I want the same arrangement you've got. And as I've already observed, if it really IS the same thing as you keep trying to tell me, it makes no sense to have 2 different names for it.

It's either a special arrangement or it's exactly the same. You can't rationally argue both of those things simultaneously.

Yes "we" get it. And so do you. And the fact that this keeps coming up is because we both FEEL differently about the word "marriage".

It makes perfectly logical sense to have two different words for two different gender-based relationships. That the GLBT advocacy intends to destroy any distinction between them is discrimination reversed.

You want no distinction based on gender whatsoever. Have you even imagined what the ultimate outcome of such an agenda could be?...
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
You want no distinction based on gender whatsoever. Have you even imagined what the ultimate outcome of such an agenda could be?...
For marriage (which is what this thread is about)? The outcome is the awful nightmarish dystopia that is modern Canada, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, or Spain, or Belgium, or Norway, or Argentina, or Iowa, or Massachusetts, or Vermont, or New Hampshire, or Connecticut.

Awful awful places populated by hoards of hermaphrodites.

[ 20. October 2010, 15:41: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by testbear (# 4602) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
...

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya

Hypothetically, assume that the SCOTUS agreed on that overarching verbiage applying to all the USA. Instant chaos! Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be? This is why nothing happens quickly when laws are altered or added. It takes years (thank heaven)....
Um, no.

If beforehand there were limits on which particular pairs of men and women could marry, these will still apply. Removing the limitation of marriage from "one man and one woman" to "one person and one other person" does not change any of the qualifiers that existed beforehand (no incest, no under-age, informed consent, etc, etc) as they all still exist after the change.


Analogy:

Here are 3 rules for a (fictional) game:

1. No player is allowed to bite another player while the game is in progress.
2. All players of the game must be over 18.
3. Only human beings with brown eyes may participate in the game.

Let me then change rule number 3 to:

3. Only human beings with brown or blue eyes may participate in the game

Question: Have I changed anything about rules 1 or 2?
Answer: No. How could I have? Rule 3 does not state that human beings with brown or blue eyes are allowed to bite during the game, or that human beings under the age of 18 with brown or blue eyes can now participate in the game.


All the LGTB "brigade" want to do is change the "one man and one woman" part of the definition of marriage to "one person and one other person", and keep all the other parts of the definition of marriage exactly as they are.
In light of this, why, precisely, do you object to this becoming the legal definition of marriage?
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

Homosexuals require the same rights to legally recognized unions as heterosexuals do. The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however,

Unsupported assumption; nobody knows that a majority of heteros is reluctant.
You take ONE very recent poll to be an overturning of the blatantly obvious majority objection to the use of "marriage" to define homsexual unions. As pointed out by others, giving up isn't the same thing as being convinced, or having ones opinions/feelings altered a whit.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
is based on giving up everything

??? Giving up what, exactly? What rights, privileges, or status do "reluctant heteros" no longer have as the result of other people being allowed to marry?
You've apparently lost the thread of this piece of the conversation. "Marriage". Giving up the traditional meaning of that word is giving up everything. It really is the last and only arguing point: because "gay marriage" is happening and will apply everywhere eventually: it's just not wanting to call same-gender unions "marriage" that has been the majority's objection. It's what Prop 8 was all about; which, as you might choose not to recall, was voted FOR by a majority of Californians.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese.

How? Right now, a "special minority class" exists which is denied (in most US states and federally) the right to marry -- a right extended to all adult heterosexuals but denied to all adult homosexuals. It's the denial which creates the "special minority class." Extending the right to marry to all adults eliminates that status; no legalese required.
If you could secure equal rights without "suspect class" status, I'd agree with you: but that isn't the case is it? "Gender distinction/gender identity" are being fought for as insertions into the anti discrimination laws everywhere. So, too, are the same phrases into the marriage laws everywhere. That's the creation of a permanent minority class every bit as legally recognized as Race (which also does not exist except in the public mind). So here you claim that it is the long-standing marriage laws that cause the special minority called "homosexual marriage" to exist; and that inserting legalese into the marriage laws to include them will somehow erase the legal existence of this now-admitted minority group.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes. There is a real danger here: wants cannot be held to be sufficient cause for minority "suspect class", specific recognition: Or else all the unmentioned wants will have equal claim for specific recognition. (I have already addressed this in a post a few minutes ago.).

How do you arrive at this? First, "marriage" does not equal "sex" (just ask any married couple who have made it past the first couple of years).
Where did I say "marriage equals sex"? Marriage includes sex. Not the same thing.

quote:
Extending the right to marry to any adult citizen will not affect the number of people one can marry (currently limited to one); the age of the one person one intends to marry (varies somewhat under state law, but generally 18 or with parental consent at younger ages; or the unenforceable laws which no doubt remain on the books in many places about impermissible sexual practices.

People wanting to marry children will not be challenging this solely under relevant marriage laws, but under laws regarding the welfare of children. People wanting to marry members of other species will have to challenge this under laws regarding the welfare of animals (to say nothing of their putative rights and status under the law). People wanting to marry multiple partners simultaneously will have to challenge under inheritance laws (and probably others too) as well as marital law.

These aren't simply matters of degree, as you seem to assume; they are matters of different legal classes. Adult citizens belong to one legal class (or should); children belong to another, as do animals, and so on.

I appreciate your effort here to lucidly point out the differences in claims to recognition under the marriage laws.

I have already agreed that polygs will fight their own battle; but by using the success of the GLBT advocacy as an open door to be widened. So too will other relationships between TWO consenting adults that are more complex and even as equally distasteful to general society, e.g. incest where no fertility is possible.

The rest will also fight their battles for acceptance. If we are seeing one of the most fundamental laws governing society overturned utterly (including the very definition and use of the word "marriage"), then that is an open invitation to revisit ALL of the laws governing legally recognized relationships. You can't stop the flood once the lid is blown off. And your agenda is blowing off the lid. Or hadn't you noticed? THAT is the equality: break the china, and you invite every other patron to break more china....
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Since marriage has been separated from procreation through birth control, places like Tasmania have taken steps to separate it from sex altogether.

They have a domestic partner registry that allows an unmarried/dom. partrd. person to form a relationship with another unmarried/dom. prtnrd person of any relationship that gives them most of the benefits of marriage, including:

* Superannuation (pension/retirement benefits)
* Taxation
* Insurance
* Health Care
* Hospital Visitation
* Wills
* Property Division
* Employment Conditions (such as parenting and bereavement leave)

You can DP your mother, brother, child or your spouse or either sex. This allows a child to care and protect their elderly live in widowed parent, or invalid sibling or their partner and receive the same tax breaks and benefits a married couple would. Laws regulating sexual activity, consent, etc. are still in place.

Personally, I think we should throw out the archaic notions of civil marriage altogether and allow anyone to "marry" anyone else. It doesn't mean they will have a romantic or sexual relationship, but it does mean that everyone receives equal treatment under a law that takes into account modern life.

see: http://www.relationshipstasmania.org.au/index.html
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
The rest will also fight their battles for acceptance. If we are seeing one of the most fundamental laws governing society overturned utterly (including the very definition and use of the word "marriage"), then that is an open invitation to revisit ALL of the laws governing legally recognized relationships. You can't stop the flood once the lid is blown off. And your agenda is blowing off the lid. Or hadn't you noticed? THAT is the equality: break the china, and you invite every other patron to break more china....
Can you give me one real world example of this happening in any of the jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal? Are there incest and bestiality rights groups petitioning the Canadian Parliament for legal recognition? I'm not aware of it.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by testbear:
...

All the LGTB "brigade" want to do is change the "one man and one woman" part of the definition of marriage to "one person and one other person", and keep all the other parts of the definition of marriage exactly as they are.

In light of this, why, precisely, do you object to this becoming the legal definition of marriage?

I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

Why else, to you suppose, the OZ case between the father and daughter came up now? I'll answer that: Simply because the "gay marriage" agenda has made such progress lately everywhere (just look at TD's list of Shangri-Las). This encourages even smaller minorites to push for equal treatment. And if there cannot be shown reasonable doubt why a refusal should be made on civil rights grounds, those "minorities" will get their own exceptions passed into law as well.

Incest is a perception, not an absolute. Our perception is founded upon Greco-Roman culture overlaid with Judeo-Christian prohibitions. It is all very old. But not half so old as more venerable traditions regarding sex and marriage. There have been places where marrying your sister or brother was the way to maintain the dynasty (e.g. ancient Egypt). A double standard arises whenever you have social classes; the "elites" get to do whatever they want and put limits on everyone else.

So TubaMirum's "total ruination of the family unit" is relative to society's definition of what a family unit is supposed to look like. And we already have such an erosion of "the family" away from the traditional family that defining it as anything is practically discrimination against someone else's opinion. So this "total ruination of the family unit" has, imho, already occurred to such an extent as to make worrying about the kind of "love" a married couple have quite pointless: from a legal standpoint at least (which IS what this thread is about, not just "gay marriage")....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...

Personally, I think we should throw out the archaic notions of civil marriage altogether and allow anyone to "marry" anyone else. It doesn't mean they will have a romantic or sexual relationship, but it does mean that everyone receives equal treatment under a law that takes into account modern life.

see: http://www.relationshipstasmania.org.au/index.html

Oh goody. Complete caving in to the mounting pressure of minority claims from every quarter. This is good! [Ultra confused]

Of course, SEX is involved. It's just that "The State" will turn a blind eye. Until the daughter brings charges up against her DP, her dad in this case, of sexual abuse, coercion, rape, etc. ad nauseam. There will be no end to the bizarre cases, since EVERY DP permutation imaginable is okeedokee in "tak[ing] into account modern life".

There is no greater fallacious assertion than that somehow our species today (Ooo, we moderns) is different from all the other times we have experimented with giving ourselves unbridled license, and worse, made it all legal.
quote:


Can you give me one real world example of this happening in any of the jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal? Are there incest and bestiality rights groups petitioning the Canadian Parliament for legal recognition? I'm not aware of it.

Give it time, TD. Mutterings have already been alluded to on this thread alone; including my bringing up the OZ incestual marriage case. "Sex by eight or it's too late". "Patriarchal marriage is straight from the Old Testament". Animals? I can't think of any off-hand. But I am SURE "they" are paying strict attention to the climate of change and will manifest accordingly....
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc. Any such discrimination is already addressed and the media picks up on it right away; and the bigot is made to look very bad: and all without any changes required to the "suspect class" clauses already listed.

Unless of course you work in the US armed forces - though possibly not for much longer. We live in hope...
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Civil marriage is nothing more than a legal arrangement. Sex does not have to be involved and more than it has to be involved with any other legal arrangement.

If people want to have sex with their parents, children or siblings they are going to do that whether there is gay marriage, or a Tasmanian Domestic Partnership law, or not.

And telling me that other groups are going to lobby for legal recognition sometime isn't an acceptable response. Gay marriage has been law of the land for several years in these jurisdiction yet they haven't moved to change their contract law, sex laws or anything else. If these groups are out there and see gay marriage as the start toward legalizing their relationships, it makes sense that they would start advocating for it now while the momentum is high. This is nothing more than silly paranoid fantasy.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[qb] But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc. Any such discrimination is already addressed and the media picks up on it right away; and the bigot is made to look very bad: and all without any changes required to the "suspect class" clauses already listed.

[Killing me]


Exactly how would you know this?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc.

Almost no legal discrimination maybe. Do you really believe its all fine now?
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Incorrect: the answer is obviously "yes", in the context of modern Western perceptions of marriage. Marriage is seen as an exchange of love, honesty, respect, fidelity, and support between two consenting adults. Since LGBTQ people are capable of providing and exchanging these good things, they should be (and are, in Canada) able to legally marry. Their advocacy toward legal marriage supports and enhances the value of marriage! If they want it that badly, maybe it's worth something?

If you wish to resort to "the original meaning of the word marriage", I can sum that up for you: A deal made between two men in which x number of animals were exchanged for one virginally-intact housekeeper. If that is the definition of marriage which you wish to see preserved, undoubtedly there are still some cultures which will support you in that, but it will be a tough sell in current Western perceptions of personhood and marriage.

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
For marriage (which is what this thread is about)? The outcome is the awful nightmarish dystopia that is modern Canada, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, or Spain, or Belgium, or Norway, or Argentina, or Iowa, or Massachusetts, or Vermont, or New Hampshire, or Connecticut.

Awful awful places populated by hoards of hermaphrodites.

(Leaf looks down in puzzlement) Is that what happened? Huh.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
What Leaf said. Marriage is a different thing now than it was even 100 years ago. Even 60. With the advent of (fairly) reliable birth control and career options for women, marriage evolved from a dependency into a partnership of equals. If you (generic you) are still thinking of marriage as a way to provide support for calving heifers while they are most vulnerable, and tie the randy bull down to prevent straying and non-payment of support, then perhaps homosexuals getting married can be seen as absurd. But that's not what marriage is anymore.
 
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be?

No it doesn't. It allows all that aren't prohibited by other text. If you're talking about incest or polygamy, I don't see how the change I proposed would make them any more or less allowed than they are now.


quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by testbear:
In light of this, why, precisely, do you object to this becoming the legal definition of marriage?

I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no".

I would say the answer is obviously "yes". Something that is made more equal and less discriminatory is obviously strengthened.
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
I would say yes also, for a slightly different reason. Expanding the definition includes larger numbers of people. More people, more strength.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I would say yes also, for a slightly different reason. Expanding the definition includes larger numbers of people. More people, more strength.

Yes - absolutely.

But expanding the defnition doesn't 'expand' it or change it at all really - it simply brings much needed equality, which should always have been there.
 
Posted by testbear (# 4602) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

And I will add my agreement to those who say the answer is obviously "Yes".


quote:

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

"No." Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and doesn't stand up in court, legislature or debate. What is against the law remains illegal until those who decide what the law is decide otherwise. Your dislike of the popular (that is, supported by the populus) agreement on allowing homosexual couples to partake in the legal contract of marriage is not justification enough to stop it; the popular (that is, supported by the populous) agreement that the current wording of the law distriminates unjustly against homosexual couples who wish to partake in the legal contract of marriage is justification enough to change the law. It's called representative democracy. If you don't like it, you campaign to reform it (and if enough people agree, things change. Thus the beauty of it.)

quote:
Why else, to you suppose, the OZ case between the father and daughter came up now? I'll answer that: Simply because the "gay marriage" agenda has made such progress lately everywhere (just look at TD's list of Shangri-Las). This encourages even smaller minorites to push for equal treatment. And if there cannot be shown reasonable doubt why a refusal should be made on civil rights grounds, those "minorities" will get their own exceptions passed into law as well.
Um, no. The "GLBT brigade" are not pushing for some new human rights which they have to be recognised; they are campaigning because they believe that there is no qualitive difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship.

You believe that there is a qualitive difference; one that means witholding certain legal allowances for no reason other than the gender(s) (note, not sexuality; as a straight man I would currently be forbidden from marrying another straight man in many parts of the US even if we only married for, say, some hypothetical tax break) of those wishing to utilise that legal allowance.

The will of the people is now turning to recognise that denying people the opportunity to get married simply for this (gender) reason is no longer acceptable in the USA. And, just as the will of the people recognised that owning slaves was no longer acceptable in the USA, or that driving over a certain speed on public roads was no longer acceptable in the USA, things change, laws adjust to reflect that, and people get on with their lives.

Nobody currently believes that a daughter-father relationship is qualitively identical to either (or both) of a homosexual or heterosexual relationship. If that starts to change, it will have to overcome current thinking about protecting people in an unbalanced power relationship, and concerns about the effects of the genetics involved on any possible offspring.

quote:

The rest will also fight their battles for acceptance. If we are seeing one of the most fundamental laws governing society overturned utterly (including the very definition and use of the word "marriage"), then that is an open invitation to revisit ALL of the laws governing legally recognized relationships. You can't stop the flood once the lid is blown off.

Again, yes you can. You don't believe that the reasons presented are sufficient to change the law to include same-sex partners marrying; the populous disagrees with you. It's called representative democracy. If you don't like it, you campaign to reform it (and if enough people agree, things change. Thus the beauty of it.)

No adequate reasons have been presented which would allow any other reformation of the legal definition of marriage. Thus, no other reformation will occur until compelling (to the populous) reasons are presented. It's called representative democracy. If you don't like it, you campaign to reform it (and if enough people agree, things change. Thus the beauty of it.)

Oh, and it's not "one of the most fundamental laws governing society"; if it were, there would be many fewer co-habiting heterosexual couples.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc.

Almost no legal discrimination maybe. Do you really believe its all fine now?
No. It isn't "all fine now". But neither is it in the Deep South, or other places where minorities are discriminated against. Or reverse discrimination: like my sister-in-law in Texas, whose boss was a Black Lesbian, and treated her with utter contempt because she was White and Mormon.

Prejudice and bigotry will die away much more slowly, I am thinking, than the laws of the land stipulate....
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
But Blacks, Mormons and Whites all have recompense under the law if they are discriminated against. One can even argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did a great deal to change opinions because it changed the composition of the work place.

You advocate that gay people discriminated against or fired because they were gay have no recompense.

[ 21. October 2010, 17:55: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
And it's a contradictory argument:

Prejudice and bigotry have gone away so we don't need an anti-discrimination law, yet individuals and businesses would be unduly burdened if such a law was passed. It can't work both ways.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by testbear:
...

You believe that there is a qualitive difference; one that means witholding certain legal allowances for no reason other than the gender(s) (note, not sexuality; as a straight man I would currently be forbidden from marrying another straight man in many parts of the US even if we only married for, say, some hypothetical tax break) of those wishing to utilise that legal allowance.

Did you even read through the posts? Or just leap in at the end of what I've been saying?

Nowhere have I said, nor do I believe, that homosexuals ought to be "[withheld] certain legal allowances for no reason other than the gender(s)". I have been saying the exact opposite in fact.

The above objections to my assertion, that the current movement to legalize "gay marriage" is a weakening of the definition of "marriage", are all couched from a narrow, modern perspective: whereas my belief in stability includes retaining the venerable definitions of words. We can come up with a different word for what homosexuals want and are obtaining, i.e. equal civil rights under the existing marriage laws. There is no reason why "marriage" must necessarily be applied to homosexual legalized unions. By expanding the meaning of "marriage" to include something that it never has meant, the ORIGINAL meaning is diluted, i.e. not strengthened. We are not even talking about the same thing: I am talking about the original definition; and "you" are talking about a new, stronger, more ecumenical meaning/definition of the word "marriage": a modern one, inclusive of more people: hence "marriage" (the newer definition) IS stronger, if more people say so. Hell, we can chuck the entire English language if the democratic majority enforces such a move by law - or you can try at least.
quote:

The will of the people is now turning to recognise that denying people the opportunity to get married simply for this (gender) reason is no longer acceptable in the USA.

We have moved far beyond this point already on this thread. Nobody is arguing that homosexuals shouldn't be able to form "domestic partnerships" (I like that term, actually).

quote:

...

Nobody currently believes that a daughter-father relationship is qualitively identical to either (or both) of a homosexual or heterosexual relationship.

Well, nobody except the fathers and daughters who want to "marry" that way. A puny minority compared to the GLBT(Q?) advocacy. But since when was percentage of the total population a reason to justify or ignore the existence of a minority opinion? I thought that recognition, equal and admitted, was the hallmark of the Lib mantra of EQUALITY AND FAIRNESS.
quote:

If that starts to change, it will have to overcome current thinking about protecting people in an unbalanced power relationship, and concerns about the effects of the genetics involved on any possible offspring.

You really haven't read what I said, or the responses: I brought up the incestuous "marriage" case in OZ as an example of INFERTILE heterosexual relationships, between consenting adults, that are nevertheless illegal (as homosexuality itself was once illegal): and for what good reason? None I can think of, since homosexuals are determined to assert that sex has nothing to do with what they are fighting for; and there isn't a difference in their sexuality or any other. An infertile father-daughter, mother-son, sister-brother, sister-sister, brother-brother "marriage" is just as valid on the basis of "domestic partnership" as any other.

quote:

Oh, and it's not "one of the most fundamental laws governing society"; if it were, there would be many fewer co-habiting heterosexual couples.

And you think that society is well? A 50+% divorce rate is healthy?

It is argued BY sexually moral people, that such behavior is a sign of sickness: so how exactly does your facile dismissal of the truth stand up to reality? People sleeping around is running counter to the defenders of "gay marriage" on this thread, especially the GLBT(Q?)s themselves: they claim that marrying their SOs will strengthen marriage, thus society will benefit. So your quip about heteros "co-habiting" (fornicating, I presume you mean) is non sequitur....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But Blacks, Mormons and Whites all have recompense under the law if they are discriminated against. One can even argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did a great deal to change opinions because it changed the composition of the work place.

You advocate that gay people discriminated against or fired because they were gay have no recompense.

What? [Confused]

Of course "gays" have recourse, and possible recompense under the existing anti discrimination laws. The "suspect classes" are not supposed to be exhaustive; as I said, like the Bill of Rights, they point out the obviousness of an individual right to equality: they don't pretend to list ALL of the possible civil rights (suspect classes).

It happens famously that homosexuals win civil rights cases; this occurs more and more often as more of them take courage and fight for their rights in the open. That is momentum.

My sister-in-law could have taken her former bigoted, Black Lesbian Boss lady to court. Instead, she quit and got another job. Homosexuals do this all the time. So do most people who are harassed at work. No amount of fairness laws will make people stand up for themselves every time. As long as there are assholes there will be victims. Some of them fight, sometimes. And sometimes they win. Homosexuals are no exception even without any further changes to the legalese....
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

Doesn't this logic lead one to conclude that Loving v. Virginia (the last time the U.S. made a major revision to its marriage laws) was wrongly decided? Allowing inter-racial marriage could be argued to "dilute[] the original meaning of the word "marriage"". In fact, it was argued, as was your point that "ANY shift causes adjustments". If appeals to tradition and prejudice weren't sufficient to justify discrimination in that case, why should those arguments be accepted now?

BTW, the same question can be asked of your proposal for "Separate but Equal" nomenclature for same-sex marriages.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
They don't have legal recourse, in those jurisdictions where discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't prohibited. It is perfectly legal to fire someone because of sexual orientation in jurisdictions where it isn't forbidden. You can take that company to court, but you'll lose. If it isn't explicit in the law, it ain't illegal.

Quitting a job because of abuse by a supervisor based on race, gender, religion, etc. isn't legal recourse. Often you are throwing accumulated years of service (and the benefits it accrues away.) Many people don't want to leave their jobs. They want the harassment and discrimination to end. That's what these laws are for.

[ 21. October 2010, 18:55: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And it's a contradictory argument:

Prejudice and bigotry have gone away so we don't need an anti-discrimination law, yet individuals and businesses would be unduly burdened if such a law was passed. It can't work both ways.

That's a straw man, since I never said prejudice and bigotry have gone away. Look at the last few posts I have made. Clear as day. And I don't believe that I have even addressed the "burden" on businesses and individuals that further legalese would impose.

But since you brought it up: I believe that we need FAR fewer laws, not more. Nobody can tell when they are breaking "the law" anymore. Especially various trespassing laws: they are so complex and overlapping that nobody can tell where one set of laws ends and another begins (Fed, State, County, private jurisdictions: which holds sway and where and when, and what is allowed when, and where?, etc.) We don't need more laws; we don't require specially protected minority classes, let alone MORE of the same. We should be moving away from complexity/obscurity toward simplicity. Justice is very simple and clear; it doesn't require a rocket scientist level Law Degree to figure out.

But this is not going to change; laws multiply like noxious weeds, and the lawyers with them. I despair....
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Who cares whether there are fewer or more laws? Most people want effective laws that protect the innocent and vulnerable from being abused or unjustly treated. If the need is there, there should be a law.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But since you brought it up: I believe that we need FAR fewer laws, not more.

How about eliminating the laws requiring the parties to a marriage be opposite genders? That would simplify matters greatly and reduce one more legal hurdle for couples to contend with.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Justice is very simple and clear; it doesn't require a rocket scientist level Law Degree to figure out.

Who knew you needed to go to law school to design rockets? I guess NASA must have been doing it wrong all these years by hiring engineers and scientists.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
You wrote:

quote:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc.
Clear as day and demonstrably false.

That's why the laws are needed.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It is argued BY sexually moral people

Who are these people and who decides that they are such?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.

It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.

It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.

Although it would make inheritance and end-of-life care decisions hell. As they are now for many gay couples.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.

It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.

Although it would make inheritance and end-of-life care decisions hell. As they are now for many gay couples.
Not to mention marriage between citizens of different nations....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

Doesn't this logic lead one to conclude that Loving v. Virginia (the last time the U.S. made a major revision to its marriage laws) was wrongly decided? Allowing inter-racial marriage could be argued to "dilute[] the original meaning of the word "marriage"". In fact, it was argued, as was your point that "ANY shift causes adjustments". If appeals to tradition and prejudice weren't sufficient to justify discrimination in that case, why should those arguments be accepted now?
Because it was understood that objections to inter-racial marriage were largely a modern phenomenon and not grounded in historical marriage prohibitions at all. (and the shifts predicted DID occur; since the civil rights battle days the GLBT(Q?) advocacy has emerged and grown in strength, based on the precedent of victory for racial equality)

The SCOTUS could clearly see and demonstrate "American" prejudice, based solely upon old angst festering since the slavery days. It was specifically THAT prohibition that was being struck down and killed.

Taken to its logical, inescapable conclusion, ALL marriages are inter-racial, since it is proven fact that there is only one homo sapiens with variations only in appearance, not function. "Race" is all in the bigoted mind.

But no society or civilization, contributing to "Western Civilization" today, has offered same-sex unions recognition as legalized "marriages", with all that that implies in the GLBT(Q?) agenda. Call every other legalized union that isn't man and woman "domestic partnerships", I don't care. The word "marriage" means what it has always meant, still (but won't much longer I suspect).
quote:

BTW, the same question can be asked of your proposal for "Separate but Equal" nomenclature for same-sex marriages.

Not separate, anymore than the "suspect classes" under the exact same anti-discrimination laws are separate. Differences do exist; but the laws say they do not allow or admit discrimination based on differences. Everyone deserves the same equal rights.

Besides, the comparison of inter-racial marriage and "gay marriage" is not the same: "we the people" are not united (or even a majority) in trying to forbid homosexuals from obtaining equal rights under the marriage laws; "we" just want other kinds of legalized unions called something else besides "marriage". The bigots back in the day were trying for a complete ban on inter-racial marriage. So the comparison, intending to show an equivalent prejudice, does not stand....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
They don't have legal recourse, in those jurisdictions where discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't prohibited. It is perfectly legal to fire someone because of sexual orientation in jurisdictions where it isn't forbidden. You can take that company to court, but you'll lose. If it isn't explicit in the law, it ain't illegal.

When the SCOTUS rules that it is illegal everywhere in the USA, then the civil cases arising will win everywhere. Of course the comparison to the "Jim Crow" local laws is apt; and the current D.C. and especially Chicago discriminatory gun ordinances designed to skip around the recent rulings that the 2nd Amendment guarantees "an idividual right" that shall not be infringed: eventually, all such local aberrations of tyranny and bigotry will be over-turned because they are trying to enforce what the Constitution says is illegal.
quote:


Quitting a job because of abuse by a supervisor based on race, gender, religion, etc. isn't legal recourse. Often you are throwing accumulated years of service (and the benefits it accrues away.) Many people don't want to leave their jobs. They want the harassment and discrimination to end. That's what these laws are for.

I wasn't advocating that the discriminated against should just find another job: I was stating a fact on the ground. Most people will not fight. Changing the laws will still not make most people fight. They will flee instead. But at least the laws (will) give them the chance to fight if they choose to....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It is argued BY sexually moral people

Who are these people and who decides that they are such?
Laugh-in made fun of them: "the moral majority". But if you question their very existence, we can toss the word "moral(s)" too, along with "marriage", and just define it as "we the people". EveryBODY, man!

"How dare you accuse me of being immoral! What gives YOU the right to tell me what morality means"? Etc.

But my definition of sexual morality ought to be clear enough by now: people who join their lives together, including (often) their bodies in sexual union, and to none other, for as long as both shall live. If they don't have the right to define what sexual morality is, then the right never existed, and the words and their definition didn't either....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.

It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.

You're not serious. But I'll offer the obvious rebuttal anyway: inheritance and property rights are a clear interest of The State. Without clear definitions of what belongs to who and is inherited by whom, chaos and violence are the result....
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

Doesn't this logic lead one to conclude that Loving v. Virginia (the last time the U.S. made a major revision to its marriage laws) was wrongly decided? Allowing inter-racial marriage could be argued to "dilute[] the original meaning of the word "marriage"". In fact, it was argued, as was your point that "ANY shift causes adjustments". If appeals to tradition and prejudice weren't sufficient to justify discrimination in that case, why should those arguments be accepted now?
Because it was understood that objections to inter-racial marriage were largely a modern phenomenon and not grounded in historical marriage prohibitions at all.

<snip>

The SCOTUS could clearly see and demonstrate "American" prejudice, based solely upon old angst festering since the slavery days. It was specifically THAT prohibition that was being struck down and killed.

Do you see the contradiction between claiming that anti-miscegenation laws were "largely a modern phenomenon" and then tying them back to "the slavery days" for a case decided in 1967? At any rate, my point was that the state of Virginia argued, as you do, that the ban on inter-racial marriage was an ancient tradition under their law. The lower court judge who originally upheld the ban went even further.

quote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
That seems to be claiming an even more ancient pedigree for anti-miscegenation laws than you are claiming for anti-same-sex marriage laws. If "ancient tradition" is inadequate to deny inter-racial couples equality under the law, why is it okay to do so for same-sex couples?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Taken to its logical, inescapable conclusion, ALL marriages are inter-racial, since it is proven fact that there is only one homo sapiens with variations only in appearance, not function. "Race" is all in the bigoted mind.

But no society or civilization, contributing to "Western Civilization" today, has offered same-sex unions recognition as legalized "marriages", with all that that implies in the GLBT(Q?) agenda. Call every other legalized union that isn't man and woman "domestic partnerships", I don't care. The word "marriage" means what it has always meant, still (but won't much longer I suspect).

"Always"? Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race. A hundred years before that it meant a legal agreement under which the wife ceased to be a 'person' under the law. I'd say that the modern notion of marriage as a loving partnership of equals has already destroyed "traditional" marriage, and about time, too. Of course gay couples would consider "a loving partnership of equals" to be a much more accurate description of their own relationships than "an arrangement with strictly defined and legally enforced gender roles", as marriage was seen until recently. Which is why this issue is in many ways about nostalgia for an era of much more rigorously policed gender roles.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Always"? Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race.

This isn't true, by the way. Virginia had such a law, but many (most?) other states didn't.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
According to the Wiki:

Between 1913 and 1940, 31 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. 17 states - Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin (and the federal District of Columbia) never enacted them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

[ 22. October 2010, 20:21: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
According to the Wiki:

Between 1913 and 1940, 31 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. 17 states - Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin (and the federal District of Columbia) never enacted them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Yes, and if you read further down you'll see that most of these laws - except for those in the South and a few others, about 20 or so states - had been repealed by or before 1960.

[ 22. October 2010, 20:47: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Always"? Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race.

This isn't true, by the way. Virginia had such a law, but many (most?) other states didn't.
Interesting question. According to footnote 5 of Loving v. Virginia there were seventeen states (including Virginia) at the time of filing that had anti-miscegenation laws on the books. According to the 1970 Census (which we'd expect to be fairly close to the 1967 population) these states represent pretty much exactly a third (33.0%) of the U.S. population. Footnote five also notes that there were fourteen other states which had anti-miscegenation laws on the books but had repealed them in the past fifteen years. These additional states represent 18.4% of the U.S. population of the time, meaning that in mid-twentieth century America more than half the population lived with within a jurisdiction that forbade inter-racial (however defined) marriage.

Still, the main point is that the definition of "marriage" has significantly changed over time, contra MtM. A 1968 Gallup poll concluded that 72% of Americans disapproved of inter-racial marriage, so you can see a widespread belief in the general population that such marriages were invalid, or at least "wrong".
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.

It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.

You're not serious. But I'll offer the obvious rebuttal anyway: inheritance and property rights are a clear interest of The State. Without clear definitions of what belongs to who and is inherited by whom, chaos and violence are the result....
Rubbish.

All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.

In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.

It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.

All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.

A quick translation: "too lazy to write their own wills" = "too poor to hire a lawyer". While the size of the estate for someone in this position may be tiny by the standards of the state, it can be quite significant to that person's heirs.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.

I note you didn't respond to my point about end-of-life care decisions. EVEN WITH A POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR MEDICAL CARE many states will defer to the family over a long-term gay partner. But not over a spouse.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race. A hundred years before that it meant a legal agreement under which the wife ceased to be a 'person' under the law. I'd say that the modern notion of marriage as a loving partnership of equals has already destroyed "traditional" marriage, and about time, too. Of course gay couples would consider "a loving partnership of equals" to be a much more accurate description of their own relationships than "an arrangement with strictly defined and legally enforced gender roles", as marriage was seen until recently. Which is why this issue is in many ways about nostalgia for an era of much more rigorously policed gender roles.

Your points are all well presented. The logic is inescapable. As I said, "marriage" is going to get co-opted by the GLBT(Q?)s, and nothing the heterosexual "moral majority" can say or do is going to save the word for any heterosexually limited definition: I just marvel at the fact that millions of dollars spent on the issue can be lost with the stroke of a judge's pen. That alone is indication enough that the writing is on the wall for the USA as a whole.

Nevertheless, my personal feeling remains sympathetic to the historical, heterosexual-only definition of "marriage". Your bringing into the definition of "marriage" such things, e.g. the woman ceasing to be her own person 150 years ago, are non sequitur vis-a-vis the sexual ONLY aspect; which is the only one I was defending. I agree, that "marriage" in all other aspects has improved with the changes that have liberated women from virtual servitude and the status of a chattel. But lets not confuse the issue of gender with changing legal status....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.

In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.

It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.

Agreed. But the issue is changing what IS as little as necessary. And "marriage" is the method by which the State adjudicates property rights and inheritance.

You make it look so simple: just toss "marriage" out altogether and bring in something else simple to take its place. If we weren't dealing with people I'd agree. But the whole furor is caused by people who don't want change. What else is new!

An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race. A hundred years before that it meant a legal agreement under which the wife ceased to be a 'person' under the law. I'd say that the modern notion of marriage as a loving partnership of equals has already destroyed "traditional" marriage, and about time, too. Of course gay couples would consider "a loving partnership of equals" to be a much more accurate description of their own relationships than "an arrangement with strictly defined and legally enforced gender roles", as marriage was seen until recently. Which is why this issue is in many ways about nostalgia for an era of much more rigorously policed gender roles.

Your points are all well presented. The logic is inescapable. As I said, "marriage" is going to get co-opted by the GLBT(Q?)s, and nothing the heterosexual "moral majority" can say or do is going to save the word for any heterosexually limited definition: I just marvel at the fact that millions of dollars spent on the issue can be lost with the stroke of a judge's pen. That alone is indication enough that the writing is on the wall for the USA as a whole.
I'll conclude from your disparagement of judicial review that you do indeed think that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. After all, it's a similar example of "the stroke of [nine] judge's pen[s]" disregarding the will of the majority.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nevertheless, my personal feeling remains sympathetic to the historical, heterosexual-only definition of "marriage". Your bringing into the definition of "marriage" such things, e.g. the woman ceasing to be her own person 150 years ago, are non sequitur vis-a-vis the sexual ONLY aspect; which is the only one I was defending. I agree, that "marriage" in all other aspects has improved with the changes that have liberated women from virtual servitude and the status of a chattel. But lets not confuse the issue of gender with changing legal status....

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. That gay couples can get legally married by aren't allowed to have sex? [Confused]

At any rate, this is a complete contradiction of your earlier argument that because marriage has "always" been a particular way we daren't change it. Now it seems you're saying we are allowed to make changes to marriage law, like doing away with coverture, but for some unexplained reason we can't do away with the gender restriction.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....

It's always incredibly easy to tell other people to put their lives on hold for the comfort of bigots. It's very rarely productive, though.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
And full circle we come, the "bigot card". Easy dismissal by disparaging the objector as unworthy of consideration; he's a bigot! End of discussion.

And NO, I am not saying anything like "...gay couples can get legally married b[ut] aren't allowed to have sex"??? Where the hell did that come from? I am saying that heterosexual ONLY is a good enough reason to retain the definition of the WORD "marriage" as between man and woman.

Come up with a different word/term for what you want between homosexuals...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.

In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.

It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.

Agreed. But the issue is changing what IS as little as necessary. And "marriage" is the method by which the State adjudicates property rights and inheritance.

You make it look so simple: just toss "marriage" out altogether and bring in something else simple to take its place. If we weren't dealing with people I'd agree. But the whole furor is caused by people who don't want change. What else is new!

An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....

Let's see... the easiest thing to change out of what IS would be... one line in the definition of marriage!

Thanks Merlin, I'm glad you agree with us. [Snigger]

[ 24. October 2010, 00:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.

I note you didn't respond to my point about end-of-life care decisions. EVEN WITH A POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR MEDICAL CARE many states will defer to the family over a long-term gay partner. But not over a spouse.
I note I didn't respond either. That would be because I was busy playing devil's advocate and you actually made a GOOD point that was far harder to refute than Merlin's focus on inheritance.

I've said it a couple of times already, but I'll say it again. Putting aside my own views about the acceptability of gay marriage on a moral ground, the ridiculous complexity created by having 'separate but equal' categories just raises my hackles as a legislative drafter.

Homosexual couples have exactly the same needs as heterosexual ones when it comes to inheritance, to end-of-life care decisions, and for every other area where you might want the law to take note of who your family members are.

Having different tracks for establishing who your family is, depending on gender, and making one group of people go through much more complicated and problematic hoops while allowing the other people to take the marriage fast-track is precisely the kind of legal complexity that I would be telling my clients to get rid of. If the intention is to give the same end result in terms of rights, then use the same track. Change one line in the definition of marriage and hey presto, an entire body of recognised law is applicable. IT'S THE SIMPLEST CHANGE.

As the Californian judge observed in his excellent judgment, the only argument against doing this is a moral one, not a legal one. And as I think the moral argument depends on a bad misreading of the Bible, I certainly don't think the law should be reflecting it.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.

In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.

It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.

Agreed. But the issue is changing what IS as little as necessary. And "marriage" is the method by which the State adjudicates property rights and inheritance.

You make it look so simple: just toss "marriage" out altogether and bring in something else simple to take its place. If we weren't dealing with people I'd agree. But the whole furor is caused by people who don't want change. What else is new!

An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....

Let's see... the easiest thing to change out of what IS would be... one line in the definition of marriage!

Thanks Merlin, I'm glad you agree with us. [Snigger]

The irony is that it is usually CONSERVATIVES who complain that laws are too complex and should be simpler and shorter.

Yet because of their opposition to simply extending marriage to gay couples, conservatives are prepared to endure increased bureaucracy and more complex legislation because many of them at least acknowledge the injustice of denying a person the right to see their partner in the hospital.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.

I note you didn't respond to my point about end-of-life care decisions. EVEN WITH A POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR MEDICAL CARE many states will defer to the family over a long-term gay partner. But not over a spouse.
I note I didn't respond either. That would be because I was busy playing devil's advocate and you actually made a GOOD point that was far harder to refute than Merlin's focus on inheritance.
Oh. I guess I failed to pick up that you were playing devil's advocate. Sorry 'bout that. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Don't worry, it just proves I was doing it well.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The irony is that it is usually CONSERVATIVES who complain that laws are too complex and should be simpler and shorter.

Yet because of their opposition to simply extending marriage to gay couples, conservatives are prepared to endure increased bureaucracy and more complex legislation because many of them at least acknowledge the injustice of denying a person the right to see their partner in the hospital.

You got it in a nutshell. Wish I could have said it that simply.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You got it in a nutshell. Wish I could have said it that simply.

Given what you do for a living, it's frightening hearing you say that. [Biased]
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Come up with a different word/term for what you want between homosexuals...

Why? If marriage is seen as an exchange of love, respect, honesty, and fidelity between two consenting adults; and LGBTQ people are capable of providing and exchanging these goods; then why have a different word?

You continue to use the word "traditional" with regard to marriage, although I'm guessing you didn't like my helpful definition of the traditional view of marriage (a deal made between two men in which x number of animals were exchanged for one virginally-intact housekeeper).

I considered what time frame of marriage you might think is "traditional." You grant that it is not about a woman being property, but you seem still to want it to be about heterosexual reproduction.

That gives you a pretty narrow historical window. In Canada, women were not officially "persons under the law" until 1929: link here (or go to Wikipedia for the case of Edwards v. Canada, the "persons" case). On the other hand, chemical birth control became legal in Canada in 1969, which legally cuts the tie between sex and reproduction. So that forty-year window somehow becomes the standard, preferable, "traditional" definition of marriage. Why? Why should that brief historical moment become defining and binding on everyone?
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Come up with a different word/term for what you want between homosexuals...

Why? If marriage is seen as an exchange of love, respect, honesty, and fidelity between two consenting adults; and LGBTQ people are capable of providing and exchanging these goods; then why have a different word?
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify? And how long is this homosexuals acronym going to get?

You have different words when there is a DIFFERENCE. Heterosexuals invented the word "marriage". "They" have owned it for thousands of years. In all cultures and civilizations contributing to "Western Civilization" (the one Judeo-Christians are concerned about, because we live here), "marriage" has always been heterosexual.

Bringing up qualifiers, as lately done on this thread, to show how "marriage" has changed as society has progressed, is using a double standard in order to win the quibble-fest. "You" say, "it isn't about sex at all, it's about loving relationships". As the legality of the marriage contract has changed, the loving relationships of heterosexuals have changed HOW, exactly?

It cannot be shown that the altered legal status of women has altered the emotional context of marriage one bit. So asserting some emotional "higher moral ground" for homosexuals is a ridiculous ploy that cannot possibly be shown, so it is useless in any debate.

As "marriage" has always been the contract by which men and women bind themselves to each other legally it ought to remain defined as such. Fertility has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The marriage remained just as valid after decades of barrenness, right back into OT times. A man could not divorce his wife except for immorality on her part. In some cultures the woman had the right to divorce her husband for this and other reasons. Infertility was never one of them.

So "traditional" applies to the USA only as I use it; the combined marriage traditions caused ours to be strictly Judeo-Christian. That is, one man and one woman. All other aspects are non sequitur to the legality of the thing.

"Separation of church and state" has rendered "marriage" a purely secular thing; the religious overtones are gone from the legally recognized contract. So all recourse by me or any other advocate of the "traditional" meaning of "marriage, is at best supportable only on the grounds of the majority having the right to define what a word in the legalese means. If the majority find a way to vote on the legalese in the upcoming changes to the marriage laws, you will see the word "marriage" reserved for man and woman. That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.

Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society. And I thought that what "you" wanted more than anything else, is to be accepted, validated, and ultimately ignored by heterosexuals; so that "you" can go about living normally, invisibly and happily like anyone else. The way to do that is to avoid friction and divisiveness as much as possible. But as this thread shows, again: the GLBT(Q?) advocacy is after total victory at any price. That is the facade, because it takes everything unto itself and gives nothing in return. It IS about gaining special status: "you" can even rework the dictionary against the opinions of the majority....

(edit caught typo)

[ 24. October 2010, 15:36: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Um .... surely all we need to do is change it from 'one man and one woman' to 'two people'

Job done, no fuss, no problem - no other change needed. And certainly no change to society - except an improvement in equality.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Um .... surely all we need to do is change it from 'one man and one woman' to 'two people'

Job done, no fuss, no problem - no other change needed. And certainly no change to society - except an improvement in equality.

That's all they did in Canada.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Leaf, women were never property in the laws of Canada (or the laws of England that preceded them), and that "persons" case isn't about what you seem to think it is. You don't help a strong position quoting dodgy easily myths about the recent past.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify?

Queer

quote:

And how long is this homosexuals acronym going to get?

As long as it takes


quote:
..."Western Civilization" (the one Judeo-Christians are concerned about, because we live here), ...

WTF is a "Judeo-Christian"? I've never met one.

Does it include Mormons? If it does it ought to include Muslims whose religion is far closer to Judaism than Mormnonism is.

quote:

As "marriage" has always been the contract by which men and women bind themselves to each other legally

Yes, obviously

quote:

it ought to remain defined as such.

Why?

quote:

Fertility has nothing whatsoever to do with it.[...] Infertility was never one of them.

Thats not true, there have been plently of legal codes in which infertility was grounds for divorce.

quote:

That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.

Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society.

This is the part of your argument that is utter bollocks. I mean really its drivel. You obviously haven't thought it through.

Yes, all known human societies have recognised marriage. I agree with you there, In fact I go further. It looks quite likely that that sort of arrangement is pretty much soft-wired into our brains - if we didn't have it people would reinvent it, its the kind of thing that comes up again and again because its very natural to us.

Yes marriage is basically a contract between a man and a woman such that the woman's children (if she has any) are by default regarded as the man's children as well. That is the basis of what it is.

So yes, a civil partnership between two women, or two men, is noit in that sense a marriage. Even if it brings with it exactly the same legal rights and duties as a marriage. Fine, I agree with you.

But, if two people in such a partnership sentimentally think reasons that it is a marriage, and they want a wedding with the pretty dresses and pink champagne, what inconvenience is it to me?

And if some government or other decides to call such partnerships "marriage" in some law or other, who is harmed? The reality of the thing is not altered, only the name they use. You and me can carry on using the word for men and women together if we ewant. What on earth is the problem?

quote:

But as this thread shows, again: the GLBT(Q?) advocacy is after total victory at any price. That is the facade, because it takes everything unto itself and gives nothing in return. It IS about gaining special status: "you" can even rework the dictionary against the opinions of the majority....

I can't argue against that because there is nothing to argue against. Clearly ABCDEFG people are not out for "total victory at any price" if only because there are loads of them and they don't all agree on these issues. Nothing is taken from anyone by redefining gay partnerships as "marriage". There is no special status involved.

And as for dictionaries, dictionaries reflect usage, if people really call such things "marriage" then it gets in the dictionary, so what? Would you edit the AtoZ of London or the map of New York City to remove streets with gay nightclubs on them? Why try to edit dictionaries to remove word usages that originated with gays?
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
"Q" can also be "questioning", a term applied to people trying to figure out what they are.

Human sexuality is as complex as human beings are. It should be no surprise that there would be a few initials.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

WTF is a "Judeo-Christian"? I've never met one.

Does it include Mormons? If it does it ought to include Muslims whose religion is far closer to Judaism than Mormnonism is.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Messianic Jews? [Smile]
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
ken: Point taken, although you may be attributing to me a more simplistic interpretation than the one I actually hold. Before 1929 in Canada, the law was such that, on the basis of an 1876 British common law ruling,
quote:
"women were eligible for pains and penalties, but not rights and privileges."

Isn't that delightful? Women were not considered fully persons under the law, with rights to launch legal action, hold a seat in Parliament or the Senate, etc.

While not officially considered chattel property, women had no independent legal standing. From a legal standpoint, they had as little voice in proceedings as a child, a pet, or a box of widgets.

Upthread, Croesos helpfully linked to the legal doctrine of coverture, in which (according to Wikipedia) "a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband. Coverture was enshrined in the common law of England and the United States throughout most of the 19th century."
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
MerlintheMad: So your essential objection to the use of "marriage" when used of LGBTQ* legal relationships is that it's rude? Have I got that right? Even if I agreed with your concept of an offended majority - which I don't necessarily - how long should LGBTQ* people wait until what is rightfully theirs is granted?

Didn't the US have this conversation in the context of racial desegregation? Do you think African American people should have waited until it was broadly socially acceptable for them to have the same rights and public access as other Americans? Would they still be waiting?

*I left off 2S, for "two-spirited", in deference to your confusion about Q [Big Grin]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
"Q" can also be "questioning", a term applied to people trying to figure out what they are.

Human sexuality is as complex as human beings are. It should be no surprise that there would be a few initials.

Peterson Toscano, who sometimes posts on this Ship, has a wonderful skit on that. Ends up using pretty mich the whole alphabet.

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
ken: Point taken, although you may be attributing to me a more simplistic interpretation than the one I actually hold. Before 1929 in Canada, the law was such that, on the basis of an 1876 British common law ruling, [QUOTE] "women were eligible for pains and penalties, but not rights and privileges."

Which British common law ruling was that? I've got a horrid feeling that this is one of those tales that grows in the telling.


quote:


While not officially considered chattel property,

That's true.

quote:


women had no independent legal standing. From a legal standpoint, they had as little voice in proceedings as a child, a pet, or a box of widgets.

That isn't true either. Women could be accused of crimes and could accuse others of crimes and cpld address the court both as witnesses and in their cown defence. That's not the same as full legal equality with men - for exam,ple they couldnt be lawyers - but its far

Just more or less randomly browsing through the online
proceedings of the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey), the second case I came to has a women dfendant and women witnesses, who spoke in court.

Women could also prosecute in court. Up to the late 18th or early 19th century most cases were brought privagtely and the victim of the crime was often the prosecutor as well as the chief witness. According to that website about one in seven 18th century prosecutions was brought by a woman. (About half the victims of crime were but married women's cases were often brought by their husband)

Same for civil cases. The online records of the Court of Equity has thousands of cases involvng women plaintiffs from as far back as the 17th century.

It is certainly true that women were disadvantaged, unfairly treated, and intimidated by courts (though, then as now, they tended to receive lighter sentences than men convicted of the same crime). But its not true that they had no more voice in court than a box.

quote:


Upthread, Croesos helpfully linked to the legal doctrine of coverture, in which (according to Wikipedia) "a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband.

Yes. And while it was tremendously unfair in practice to women its not at all the same thing as women not being legal persons. And certainly nothing like the idea that women were property.

Which is one reason I get pissed off when people say they were.

By misrepresenting the immediate past this body of legend makes what we have achieved seem far more than it really is. Its fodder for the reactionary bigots who purport that feminism has achieved its ends, or even "gone too far" and that its time to start going backwards.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
ken: The main website I've used from Wikipedia, "Edwards v. Canada", cannot be linked with the URL thing because it has brackets ("The Persons Case"). That was where I got the quote about women being subject to pains and penalties but not rights and privileges. This seems more narrative and less researched than the Wiki page, but you get the idea.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You got it in a nutshell. Wish I could have said it that simply.

Given what you do for a living, it's frightening hearing you say that. [Biased]
Hey, I've got to give my brain some time off occasionally.

EDIT: Also, the thought of taking as long to compose a Ship post, and getting it cleared by someone first... if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

[ 24. October 2010, 21:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

And this is different from your normal mode of posting how? [Biased]
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify?

Queer
But that is a slur? [Confused] Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, are all terms applied by homosexuals to themselves. "Queer" is derogatory, like "faggot", and other even less complimentary terms applied by heterosexuals. So why tack "Q" onto the acronym?


quote:
quote:
..."Western Civilization" (the one Judeo-Christians are concerned about, because we live here), ...

WTF is a "Judeo-Christian"? I've never met one.

Does it include Mormons? If it does it ought to include Muslims whose religion is far closer to Judaism than Mormnonism is.

Yes, all the biblical, monotheistic religions. Mormonism is too, being a direct off-shoot of Protestant Christianity.

quote:
quote:

As "marriage" has always been the contract by which men and women bind themselves to each other legally

Yes, obviously
quote:
quote:

it ought to remain defined as such.

Why?
Because, the majority want it that way. Since when is democracy supposed to be a tyranny of the minority over the majority? If the minority are not in any way inconvenienced or deprived of their rights, what right do they have to demand and obtain a legalese that the majority objects to?

quote:
quote:

Fertility has nothing whatsoever to do with it.[...] Infertility was never one of them.

Thats not true, there have been plently of legal codes in which infertility was grounds for divorce.
Really, I haven't heard. "Plenty".

quote:
quote:

That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.

Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society.

This is the part of your argument that is utter bollocks. I mean really its drivel. You obviously haven't thought it through.

...

And if some government or other decides to call such partnerships "marriage" in some law or other, who is harmed? The reality of the thing is not altered, only the name they use. You and me can carry on using the word for men and women together if we want. What on earth is the problem?

I obviously haven't thought it through enough to be able to form a cogent reply.

You don't accept that the feelings of a major segment of society are valid; rather like the same (mostly) segment being annoyed or angered by the blatant intrusion of Islamists near Ground Zero. But the REAL WORLD is perceived through feelings. Emotions inherent in your neighbors are real things. To continually dismiss them as "not thought through enough" is hubris. And it will bite you and all of us in the ass....
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify?

Queer
But that is a slur? [Confused] Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, are all terms applied by homosexuals to themselves. "Queer" is derogatory, like "faggot", and other even less complimentary terms applied by heterosexuals. So why tack "Q" onto the acronym?


I think it's one of those 're-claimed' words. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer

I've never really understood what its non-derogatory use means, though.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Yes, all the biblical, monotheistic religions. Mormonism is too, being a direct off-shoot of Protestant Christianity.


But don't Mormons believe that all good Mormons (males anyway) get to become gods?

If true, it doesn't fit any definition of monotheism that I've heard.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because, the majority want it that way. Since when is democracy supposed to be a tyranny of the minority over the majority? If the minority are not in any way inconvenienced or deprived of their rights, what right do they have to demand and obtain a legalese that the majority objects to?

That's a pretty big 'if' right there. The whole idea that the majority gets to dictate what the minority even calls themselves in order to maintain a distinction under law between the two groups seems to be at the same time petty and dangerous.

The whole nomenclature argument is such an apparent contradiction that it's almost always advanced either in bad faith or without much thought. The argument is that everyone would be perfectly fine with gays, just so long as they don't get "uppity" and pretend that they're as good as straight folks. Sure they can have their rights, but only so long as they acknowldege that their civil unions or domestic partnerships or sodomitic pairings or whatever other term the majority finially agrees is acceptable are so completely different from good, godly straight marriages that they need a whole different category under the law. In other words, saying that the right name will make everything better is an argument that, at its base denies the idea that gay couples are the equals of straight couples.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And full circle we come, the "bigot card". Easy dismissal by disparaging the objector as unworthy of consideration; he's a bigot! End of discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.

Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society.

<snip>

You don't accept that the feelings of a major segment of society are valid; rather like the same (mostly) segment being annoyed or angered by the blatant intrusion of Islamists near Ground Zero. But the REAL WORLD is perceived through feelings. Emotions inherent in your neighbors are real things. To continually dismiss them as "not thought through enough" is hubris. And it will bite you and all of us in the ass....

I don't think it's reasonable to recycle a bunch of pro-Segregation arguments (just stick in 'gay' wherever it says 'negro' and you're good to go!) and then object when someone comments on the prejudice involved. When you advance a position that we should pander to the sensibilities of bigots (people who, in your terms, get pissed off at the suggestion that gay unions are the same as their own marriages) you shouldn't be surprised when it's noticed that you're pandering to the sensibilities of bigots.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The logic is inescapable. As I said, "marriage" is going to get co-opted by the GLBT(Q?)s, and nothing the heterosexual "moral majority" can say or do is going to save the word for any heterosexually limited definition: I just marvel at the fact that millions of dollars spent on the issue can be lost with the stroke of a judge's pen. That alone is indication enough that the writing is on the wall for the USA as a whole.

You used the scare quotes. I agree with them, BTW. Neither moral nor majority.

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

The bottom line is that you want to maintain your heterosexual privilege. In the US, at least, the foundational principle of the constitution (all being equal before the law) supports my point of view.

Get over it and spend your energy and passion on reducing the divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples. That's the tragedy.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
[Disappointed]

Sorry for trying to inject a little levity. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
I'll see your sorry and raise you. My misinterpretation. [Hot and Hormonal] Sorry.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
Merlin,

You have asserted several times that "the majority" want marriage ro remain defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. Can you provide a link to a report of a survey or something to back that up?

Joanna
 
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

Oy, that's my job! [Disappointed]
 
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,

You have asserted several times that "the majority" want marriage ro remain defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. Can you provide a link to a report of a survey or something to back that up?

Joanna

No sign of that majority in the UK.

From an article by The Times on 23 Feb 2010:

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

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

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

Almost two thirds (61 per cent) want gay couples to be able to marry, just like the rest of the population, not just have civil partnerships, while 68 per cent of the public back “full equal rights” for gay men and lesbians, suggesting that the Church, which opposes the ordination of gay priests, is out of touch with public opinion. "
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,

You have asserted several times that "the majority" want marriage ro remain defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. Can you provide a link to a report of a survey or something to back that up?

Joanna

Proposition 8. As a majority of Californians popularly voted to pass it, and it's all about protecting the original meaning and traditional sanctity of "marriage" (and not about equal rights being denied), then that says "majority" to me. How is the rest of the country different? Isn't it a maxim that "as California goes, so goes the rest of the USA"?...
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The logic is inescapable. As I said, "marriage" is going to get co-opted by the GLBT(Q?)s, and nothing the heterosexual "moral majority" can say or do is going to save the word for any heterosexually limited definition: I just marvel at the fact that millions of dollars spent on the issue can be lost with the stroke of a judge's pen. That alone is indication enough that the writing is on the wall for the USA as a whole.

You used the scare quotes. I agree with them, BTW. Neither moral nor majority.
"Scare quotes". Haven't heard of qualifying quotes as that before. The quotes ought properly to have been around "moral" only, if we are being literal: but "majority" is uncontrovertible, heteros being 90+% of the population
quote:


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

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


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

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

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

quote:

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

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


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

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

Since "you" continually point to your special love for each other, why not "divorce" yourselves from "marriage" altogether, as it has such a negative, failed connotation? "You" are getting your equal rights anyway. So there isn't a "heterosexual privilege" at all: aside from our disgustingly high divorce rate. Some privilege! Take your equal rights when you get them; but before that, leave the heteros to their "sacred matrimony" and their deplorable failure rate....
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Isn't it a maxim that "as California goes, so goes the rest of the USA"?...

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

On the previous page you have referred to "an enormous segment of society" and "a major segment of society", which to my mind at least, implies more than the 52% who approved Prop. 8 - but perhaps this is another pond difference.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There is currently some inequality in the laws that needs shoring up: to assure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. But that need does not admit a right to tyrannize the majority or any other minority.

This is what I thought of when imagining such a "tyrannizing" force.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because, the majority want it that way. Since when is democracy supposed to be a tyranny of the minority over the majority? If the minority are not in any way inconvenienced or deprived of their rights, what right do they have to demand and obtain a legalese that the majority objects to?

That's a pretty big 'if' right there. The whole idea that the majority gets to dictate what the minority even calls themselves in order to maintain a distinction under law between the two groups seems to be at the same time petty and dangerous.
Not half as dangerous as the tyranny of the few over the many. Because MOST people behave well in large groups. The same is not true of small, elite groups, as history proves time and again without fail.

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

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


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

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

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

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

quote:

The argument is that everyone would be perfectly fine with gays, just so long as they don't get "uppity" and pretend that they're as good as straight folks. ...

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

quote:


...

I don't think it's reasonable to recycle a bunch of pro-Segregation arguments (just stick in 'gay' wherever it says 'negro' and you're good to go!) and then object when someone comments on the prejudice involved.

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

quote:

When you advance a position that we should pander to the sensibilities of bigots (people who, in your terms, get pissed off at the suggestion that gay unions are the same as their own marriages) you shouldn't be surprised when it's noticed that you're pandering to the sensibilities of bigots.

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

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

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

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

And all this becomes requisite, because way back when, the Gov't over-stepped its authority and co-opted what was supposed to be essentially a religious rite, and was never intended to be defined by Gov't as a civil right or legally, secularly, recognized institution. The trouble didn't manifest, until Church and State were irrevocably severed: the Founders didn't even see it coming with their "separation of church and state": they thought they were protecting the privilege of private worship: and instead they opened it up to assault by the State, pressured into that assault by a clamorous minority demanding wants over the right of the majority to choose how they want to word their laws....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Isn't it a maxim that "as California goes, so goes the rest of the USA"?...

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

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

Don't confuse the actively voting percentage as the ONLY opinion still in objection. As I said, the main mass of people will throw in the towel, and fall squarely into the category of, "s/he who is convinced against their will is of the same opinion still". Why else do the main mass of voters not vote? Because they have no opinion? Of course, it is apathy and disillusionment and being demoralized by failure, etc....
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
There is something deeply weird going on in this thread and I have no idea what it is. Something I am just not getting. [Confused]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is something deeply weird going on in this thread and I have no idea what it is. Something I am just not getting. [Confused]

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

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

John
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
Merlin,

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

Joanna
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

Oy, that's my job! [Disappointed]
Different corner. [Razz]
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's what will happen: not being able to "save marriage" for the legalese, the majority will opt to refuse its use at all. If they can't have it, at least they can keep "you" from having it too. I predict that something as facile as "domestic partnership" will be what replaces "marriage" in the legalese.

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

I'm not saying this doesn't cause me the occasional head-snap. Yesterday on local radio they were interviewing "[John Doe] and his husband" who had an inflatable pumpkin stolen from their Halloween yard display. It left me thinking that I hope they get their pumpkin back. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

quote:

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

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

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

quote:

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

The divorce statistics would seem to support that.

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

quote:

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

Some gay folks hold that view. I don't. I'm a US citizen and I want to be treated equally under the law. So sorry that you find that threatens your privilege.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's what will happen: not being able to "save marriage" for the legalese, the majority will opt to refuse its use at all. If they can't have it, at least they can keep "you" from having it too. I predict that something as facile as "domestic partnership" will be what replaces "marriage" in the legalese.

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

Canadian sky defies predictions that it will fall for the 1,925th straight day. Details at 11.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

Oy, that's my job! [Disappointed]
Different corner. [Razz]
Shake hands, you two, then retreat to your corners.
 
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There is currently some inequality in the laws that needs shoring up: to assure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. But that need does not admit a right to tyrannize the majority or any other minority.

This is what I thought of when imagining such a "tyrannizing" force.
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Time to inject a different perspective:

There's a Fundamental Wrong in Letting Some People Marry
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
[Killing me] Horseman Bree
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
...

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

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

quote:
quote:

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

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

So if the word "marriage" gets stricken out of all the legalese, will you be treated equally then? Will you gain or lose some asserted privilege?...
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Time to inject a different perspective:

There's a Fundamental Wrong in Letting Some People Marry

Where did the original article come from? The word switcheroo ploy (in this case "homosexual" into "fundamentalist") is facile and possibly the oldest trick in the rhetorical bible. I won't even start pointing out the obvious fallacies created by that trick in this particular example....
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Merlin, why do you persist in ignoring the point that people have been making: That your predictions of what will happen to "marriage" if "gay marriage" is legalized have NOT OCCURRED in other countries where gay marriage IS legal?

It just hasn't happened!
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I thought that having the actual page of the newspaper shown in the link might have been a hint that there was a real source.

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

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

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

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

Why does it matter to you so much? You obviously married the sexual partner of your choice, and have remained committed to her. Why do you want to prevent other people from entering that commitment to each other?
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have already shared my prediction; that "marriage" will be successfully taken control of by the GLBTQs. There will be a fight (too late) by the heteros to strike all legalese use of "marriage"; but it will fail.

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

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

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

Edited: code

[ 27. October 2010, 23:03: Message edited by: iGeek ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
"'marriage' will be successfully taken control of by the GLBTQs" only if heteros take their marbles and go away in a huff because it isn't All About Them anymore.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
"'marriage' will be successfully taken control of by the GLBTQs" only if heteros take their marbles and go away in a huff because it isn't All About Them anymore.

Precisely.

If the heteros stick with it, the percentage of marriages that are heterosexual will drop from 100% to somewhere around 98%. Not much of a loss of control there.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
It seems strangely ironic that heteros are fleeing marriage in great numbers. The number of people who are just shacking up rather than tying the knot seems to be growing year by year and decade by decade. If anything GLBTs wanting to be legally married is showing a much greater respect for the institution of marriage than the heteros, as a group, are doing.
 
Posted by MrsDoyle (# 13579) on :
 
Havn't had time to think about this article yet but it seems of interest to this thread:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Rigorous separation of church and state never looked like such a fantastic idea...
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
It's true, you know? When I started seeing gay people voluntarily seeking to declare their commitment to each other in public ceremonies, supported by and accountable to their wider community and underpinned by the law, the first thing I thought was "Dammit, this is inolerable" and I divorced my wife immediately and abandoned monogamy and started sleeping with the next person I met.

It's the thin end of the wedge.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It would be very interesting to develop a comprehensive list of which countries recognise a religious wedding ceremony for legal/civil purposes, and which ones don't.

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

I mention this because one of the things that often bothers me about this argument is the presentation of the current model as self-evident or inevitable. But there are features of that model that are either relatively recent inventions (the last few centuries) or have never existed in some parts of the world.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Merlin, why do you persist in ignoring the point that people have been making: That your predictions of what will happen to "marriage" if "gay marriage" is legalized have NOT OCCURRED in other countries where gay marriage IS legal?

It just hasn't happened!

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

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

All the objecting I've been doing, about the word "marriage" being co-opted, is fighting what I know is a lost battle. But then, I've always enjoyed joining lost causes when they are worthy.... [Razz]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...

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

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

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

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

Imho, it ought to take a completely new SC case to determine what "marriage" (the word) signifies in the 21st century. The Loving v. Virginia decision has nothing whatsoever to do with alternate definitions of "marriage": not for homosexuals, polygamists or people who want to "marry" incestually, et al. the non legal categories of "marriage". The Prop 8 case will likely provide just that consideration by the SCOTUS of how "marriage" is to be disposed of in the legalese....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
...
You've not given any kind of understandable description of what it means for marriage to be "taken control of".

...

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

I agree completely: what "you" do in private between the two of "you" does not threaten my marriage, or take control of heterosexual marriage at all....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It would be very interesting to develop a comprehensive list of which countries recognise a religious wedding ceremony for legal/civil purposes, and which ones don't.

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

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

This is an apropos distinction. Let me use the Mormon example: "temple marriage" is only observable by a select few family and friends who are "card-carrying Mormons", i.e. possess temple recommends. So when in the USA, et al. countries where the religious ceremony is legally recognized, the marriage is performed, the main bulk of wedding guests are cooling their heels outside, waiting for the happy couple and their "elite" witnesses to emerge. But in those countries that demand a civil ceremony, because religious ceremonies are not legally recognized, the Mormon couple has their civil marriage as per secular custom: THEN, at their convenience, the already married couple enter a Mormon temple and are "sealed for time and all eternity" in the religious rite....
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So can you provide some evidence to back up your assertions which I can take at face value?

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

Am I to assume that the answer to my question is No?
Or is it true as you have now told us three times that it is?
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I've predicted that any such objection to the use of the word "marriage" is as doomed as Prop 8; and any fight to strike "marriage" utterly from the legalese will be too little too late and amount to nothing. "Marriage" is the word that will get used everywhere, as it is now.

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

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

Two things have occurred to me with the inception of this thread: (1) the changing nature of homophobia. Merlin has expressed opposition to the use of the word "marriage", but even he (depending on which of his predictions you think he means) thinks that it will become the law of the land. No one else on this thread, that I've noticed, has overtly spouted, "Teh gayz are ebil and you shoud all die!!!1!!one!!" It's a kinder, gentler oppression, now with 26 percent less vitriol. I'm not sure how much that matters to people on the receiving end of it, but it does seem less atrocious than it could be, or is in other fora. (2) This extensive argument is a way of keeping "you" "fornicators" (to borrow MerlintheMad's terminology) from that much more sinning by keeping you occupied online. If I were "you" I would consider taking immediate and creative action to rectify that [Biased]
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

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

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

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

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

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So can you provide some evidence to back up your assertions which I can take at face value?

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

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

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

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

The GLBTQ assertion that "marriage is a civil right" is based on their perception only: that they have already convinced millions of people to agree, does not change the historical meaning of legalized marriage to be only man and woman....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

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

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

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

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

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Oopsie. I don't see the bottom of the responses until I get there. Have I committed a "crime"? Sorry about that if I have....
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Not a 'crime' as such, MtM, but certainly a breach of a hostly request.

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

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If you contest the statement that the WORD "marriage" has always, and only, meant man and woman in the legal sense, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to disprove the statement.

Merlin,

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

Joanna
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If you contest the statement that the WORD "marriage" has always, and only, meant man and woman in the legal sense, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to disprove the statement.

Merlin,

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

Joanna

But, but, but, historically since when? The "one-man-several-(or even many)-women" model has been a popular option for centuries.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
But, it is changing.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
But, but, but, historically since when? The "one-man-several-(or even many)-women" model has been a popular option for centuries.

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


iGeek,

Thanks for that. It's a shame they didn't specifically ask about marriage.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If you contest the statement that the WORD "marriage" has always, and only, meant man and woman in the legal sense, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to disprove the statement.

Merlin,

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

Joanna

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

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

We all know that the way a poll question is worded can skew the results. For instance: if I was asked: "Are you in favor of gay marriage"? My answer would be flat out "No". But if the question was worded this way: "Are you in favor of equal rights for homosexuals"? I would say "Yes"....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
But, it is changing.

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

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

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

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

"Do you think [domestic partnerships] between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" I would have answered "Yes, just as valid as traditional marriages, and with the same rights"....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
...

iGeek,

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

They did, you must have missed the link.

I thought that back there in this thread, someone asserted that opposition to "gay marriage" had dipped below 50% for the first time ever: but that is clearly not the case. I asserted back, that a dip below 50% against "gay marriage" isn't any indicator that a majority are not in fact against it; only that a proportion of those opposed have "thrown in the towel", seeing "gay marriage" as inevitable, so why fight it?...
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
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
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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"?...
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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"?...
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
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
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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?...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
What about a certain shipmate who has pissed off half the other shipmates?
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
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.

 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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?...
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
stealing the symbol that "marriage" means to heterosexuals.

Stealing? That's an interesting idea. The Christian wedding service, in that case, was 'stolen' from the Greek Orthodox liturgy for blessing same-sex friendships - the crowning and all that.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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.


 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
[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.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
(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....)
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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"....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
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.....
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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

That's all that matters anymore, though. You are "other." It's all that has mattered in US politics for the past two years. It's what drives this right-wing loonery.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
...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.

I think you're conflating two different attitudes here. One is biological, the other is a social more. Social mores can change, especially these days because of legislation. Society isn't necessarily enhanced by the compromises, however. We all notice the distancing of people from each other over perceived differences. In our day we have far greater differences than societies dealt with in the past: and mainly because of this shift toward the equal rights movement(s). Yes, we are made "equal under the law". But we also retain our prejudices that are visceral, biological mandates on our natural feelings. Nothing is more clearly defined in this area than sexuality. You think that just because human reason has sided with "live and let live", i.e. equal rights for homosexuals, that the visceral disgust of the biological imperative is somehow weakened in most heterosexuals? Look at your own sexuality for the answer to that one.

quote:
... 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.
Why is "equal under the law" deemed inevitably "second class" if you can't have the word "marriage" in the legalese? This is not rational. Neither is assuming that if and when you get your way, this will affect heterosexuality such that most of "us" will be accepting your lifestyle without batting an eye.

(again for clarification: my use of "us" and "you" refers to the general classes of hetero and homosexuals, regardless of the post I am responding to)
quote:

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.

If feelings and empathy were all that is involved I'd agree with you. But we are talking about real people with deep-seated biological points of view overlaid on religion and their perception of sexual ethics, etc. What you are not pessimistic about seems to be an inexplicable overturning of our entire evolutionary structure in the main.



quote:
You can't determine "our" feelings about "you" through rewriting any laws or bringing about new ones....
quote:
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?


Only a portion of society as a whole; never the main part that once held a point of view that is essentially centered on a biological imperative.

For instance, racial prejudice is never going to entirely vanish or even significantly diminish any further as long as sexual attraction is involved: simply because some races are repugnant in appearance, which transforms into a racial rejection. A mature, compassionate person will train himself to behave justly toward all human beings; but that is a learned response demanded by a society that promotes justice for all. Divorce and abortion are not biologically mandated; sexuality is. That's why comparing this "marriage for all" issue to that kind of societal change wrought by changes in the laws is comparing disparate issues.
quote:

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.

I support "equality under the law". As noted by others, a significant portion of the GLBTQ community are satisfied with their unions being equally recognized by the "black-letter-law" (what a useful term!). So you are advocating more than many of the people you are supporting do.

quote:
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.

Hardly uncontroversial while an enormous religious prohibition yet exists. I agree that the uniting of two people under some kind of "domestic partnership" is a secular business. The word "marriage" is tied in the religious world view to "before God", and "holy matrimony", etc. So-called liberal off-shoots of various religions which now permit same-sex "marriages" have the right to perform whatever ceremony they choose: but unless the secular law recognizes such they are of no effect. Even when recognized, the secular legalese usually recognizes such as "civil unions" not "marriages", regardless of the religious nomenclature voiced in the ceremony. So you can't expect this to simplify itself and disappear.
quote:

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".

This term I have never used: I find it very odd, that "straight" is even acceptable to the GLBTQs; it implies that "they" are not straight, which means, what? Crooked? Confused? QUESTIONING?

quote:
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 won't claim that I am as pleased, not by a stretch. But I am more satisfied by that concept than pushing them into the dark and denying their existence. Couples in love should be free to live together like everyone else.

quote:
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.

Sentimentally I agree totally. Pragmatically, biologically, I can't see weird sexuality without being creeped out by it. I am not in a minority here; everyone is creeped out by some manifestations of sexuality (I say "everyone" in the sense that we are talking about normal people and not perverts that ought to be locked up or executed). And the religious aspects I already referred to, alone, will mandate definitions upon words that are inescapable. You've already alienated religious conservatives by the countless millions with your liberal view. The sentiment is laudable. And I share the sentiments about couples in love being free to share that without "under the law" meaning "with prejudice". But the historical, traditional, RELIGIOUS meaning of "marriage" is NOT secular in the least.

The division remains if that word gets co-opted; in the view of those I have described, "marriage" the word cannot be shared with homosexuality....
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
quote:
Why is "equal under the law" deemed inevitably "second class" if you can't have the word "marriage" in the legalese?
Because it is a legal principle that "seperate but equal is inherently unequal". Remember that phrase?

quote:
For instance, racial prejudice is never going to entirely vanish or even significantly diminish any further as long as sexual attraction is involved: simply because some races are repugnant in appearance, which transforms into a racial rejection.
WTF???????? [Eek!]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...
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?

In fact I don't think of homosexuals in those ways at all. I've already (in the OP, even) pointed out that "immoral" applies equally to everyone. It has a limited definition where sexuality is considered: betrayal of "the other" by sexual infidelity; or of the self by sexual promiscuity. I judge INDIVIDUALS to be insane, unpopular, deluded, whatever: I never brand groups of people.

GLBTQs can call their commitment to each other whatever pleases them. The battle is over the secular control of the legalese. That matters to religious people primarily in this case; but "ethical" people without a religious "gene" in their bodies also dislike "marriage" being altered into what it has never meant.
quote:

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?

I guess you don't emote with the popular antipathy regarding "words have meaning". Perhaps you don't care if "the Mother tongue" gets altered beyond repair or not. Liberalism creates all manner of new definitions "just because". But some, a few like "marriage", really ought to be saved; to connect us to our past as much as possible. Or perhaps you don't care about that either. In the future where "marriage" means any old domestic partnership, kids in school will not have a clue that once-upon-a-time homosexuals couldn't even admit their sexuality publicly, and "married" ones were unthinkable, unheard of. If "marriage" remains defined as "man and woman", then the historical truth remains as well. I think that is important. So co-opting, "stealing", is what is advocated for by the more radical GLBTQs. It seems simple enough....
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Well Merlin, now we're getting somewhere because you're frankly relating this to religious belief.

I don't believe that the Bible says anything against homosexuality in general, only against particular practices.

I can happily agree to disagree with you on that, because it's purely a matter of belief. But let us at least be open about it if religious belief is the ground for the argument.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I am no longer going to participate in this thread.

Being reminded each morning that I'm thought of as some kind of sick freak who needs to be handled at arm's length, lest I ruin everything, is having a noticeable effect on my mental health.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But we also retain our prejudices that are visceral, biological mandates on our natural feelings. Nothing is more clearly defined in this area than sexuality. You think that just because human reason has sided with "live and let live", i.e. equal rights for homosexuals, that the visceral disgust of the biological imperative is somehow weakened in most heterosexuals? Look at your own sexuality for the answer to that one.

Your prejudice, this "disgust" you feel *is* the result of a social more, and nothing more. Having grown up on a farm I know there is nothing biologically disgusting about homosexual relations - they're extremely common among animals. I know I certainly don't feel it as a dyed in the wool hetero either...I have no interest in sex w/ a man, but there's nothing repulsive about such.

It's purely social, and is rapidly changing.

Feel free to not keep up, but don't try to legislate the small-minded details of your disgust on the rest of people.
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
quote:
For instance, racial prejudice is never going to entirely vanish or even significantly diminish any further as long as sexual attraction is involved: simply because some races are repugnant in appearance, which transforms into a racial rejection.
WTF???????? [Eek!]
I second that.

I married (and I mean to stay with them forever and ever) someone of a different race. I don't remember anyone saying that because we are different races that it was wonderful that we didn't see each other as being repugnant.

I do remember the talks about different cultures, but not looks....
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But we also retain our prejudices that are visceral, biological mandates on our natural feelings. Nothing is more clearly defined in this area than sexuality. You think that just because human reason has sided with "live and let live", i.e. equal rights for homosexuals, that the visceral disgust of the biological imperative is somehow weakened in most heterosexuals? Look at your own sexuality for the answer to that one.

Your prejudice, this "disgust" you feel *is* the result of a social more, and nothing more. Having grown up on a farm I know there is nothing biologically disgusting about homosexual relations - they're extremely common among animals. I know I certainly don't feel it as a dyed in the wool hetero either...I have no interest in sex w/ a man, but there's nothing repulsive about such.

It's purely social, and is rapidly changing.

Feel free to not keep up, but don't try to legislate the small-minded details of your disgust on the rest of people.

And contrariwise I've no interest in having sex with a woman, but I don't wander around in a state of permanent repulsion direct against all the straight people around me. Why, some of my best friends are straight, some of them even married. (gosh) If I can accept being surrounded by people unlike me in this particular biological characteristic perfectly happily, I don't see why it can't work the other way around.

Oh, and I'll add another 'WTF?' to the comment about race. Any particular groups you find particularly repellent, or do you just not like anybody if they look 'diff'runt'?
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
For instance, racial prejudice is never going to entirely vanish or even significantly diminish any further as long as sexual attraction is involved: simply because some races are repugnant in appearance,

Sorry, but I'm having the teensiest bit of trouble unpacking this. Would you mind explaining how someone can be sexually attracted to an individual of another race while simultaneously finding that individual repugnant on the basis of racial differences (assuming the existence of these outside of various fevered imaginations)?

On second thought, no. Don't explain. I'm probably much better off not knowing.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
(again for clarification: my use of "us" and "you" refers to the general classes of hetero and homosexuals, regardless of the post I am responding to)

I just thought it was worth highlighting this as I found it quite revealing.


quote:
But we are talking about real people with deep-seated biological points of view overlaid on religion and their perception of sexual ethics, etc. What you are not pessimistic about seems to be an inexplicable overturning of our entire evolutionary structure in the main.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, could you please provide some evidence for your assertion that dislike/disgust/whatever of homosexuality is a biological, evolved trait and not cultural?


quote:
The word "marriage" is tied in the religious world view to "before God", and "holy matrimony", etc. So-called liberal off-shoots of various religions which now permit same-sex "marriages" have the right to perform whatever ceremony they choose: but unless the secular law recognizes such they are of no effect. Even when recognized, the secular legalese usually recognizes such as "civil unions" not "marriages", regardless of the religious nomenclature voiced in the ceremony. So you can't expect this to simplify itself and disappear.
Possibly, but "the religious world view" is not universal. In this country, couples who have a civil ceremony conducted by a registrar (where anything religious was until recently explicitly forbidden) are just as "married" as those who were married in church. Personally, I think of "married" as a legal term rather than a religious one. I am not sure if this is a pond difference or more of a personal one.


BTW I third Nicolemrw's post. Almost exactly my reaction.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well Merlin, now we're getting somewhere because you're frankly relating this to religious belief.

I don't believe that the Bible says anything against homosexuality in general, only against particular practices.

I can happily agree to disagree with you on that, because it's purely a matter of belief. But let us at least be open about it if religious belief is the ground for the argument.

It may be a matter of degree, but pretty much every religious person believes in sexual purity and fidelity. And since 90 to 99% are heterosexual it follows that THEIR interpretation of the Bible is going to be hard against ALL homosexuality; just like they are hard against fornication and adultery (or molesting children - the closest the Bible comes to directly addressing this is Jesus' condemnation in Matthew 18:6).

Objection to asserted bigotry because it is religiously based is one of the oldest tactics of the Neo-Liberals. Nothing is more simple than to dismiss the objector as being a homophobe.

But religious objection is a freedom of expression in the USofA too. Last I heard, new religious minority interpretations of the Bible (or Quran for that matter) do not possess more weight than the vast majority interpretations.

I happen to not base my objections about the assault on the word "marriage" on religious reasons. I'm acknowledging the reality here: religious belief is shared far more than disagreed upon....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I am no longer going to participate in this thread.

Being reminded each morning that I'm thought of as some kind of sick freak who needs to be handled at arm's length, lest I ruin everything, is having a noticeable effect on my mental health.

I am truly sorry if you feel this way. Just because I expect "you" to keep your sexuality discretely hidden from public demonstration/view isn't me telling you that "you" are freaks. I don't want to know anything about ANY of my neighbors' sexuality, period.

Just because you are in an extreme minority position, because your sexuality isn't shared by the vast majority of society, is reason enough to feel weird or like a visitor to a strange world. But as long as the aliens who inhabit this strange world are willing to ignore your weirdness and grant you equal rights under the law, your stay here should be bearable?

Don't piss off the natives. "When in Rome", etc., that's good advice for any group of people who find themselves surrounded by a prevailing culture.

But if you agitate to force change upon the world to suit your views, expect an enormous reaction....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
...

It's purely social, and is rapidly changing.

Feel free to not keep up, but don't try to legislate the small-minded details of your disgust on the rest of people.

What a response! How am I "legislating" anything? The majority have the right to retain the meaning of the words that are the official language. The MINORITY do not have that right. That's called democracy.

I assert that the changes are just about done. Only minor fluctuations are going to occur from this point on.

Your farmyard experiences notwithstanding, until recent times the vast majority of people were farmers; yet we have this strongly embeded, heterosexual religious view. You dismiss the biological mandate of our very evolution, and ascribe it to merely a "learned" social more. Sexuality is far more biological than it is some inculcated social response to PC behavior! Otherwise we'd see a lot more people keen on the "animal" behavior that you admit watching as you grew up....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
quote:
For instance, racial prejudice is never going to entirely vanish or even significantly diminish any further as long as sexual attraction is involved: simply because some races are repugnant in appearance, which transforms into a racial rejection.
WTF???????? [Eek!]
I second that.

I married (and I mean to stay with them forever and ever) someone of a different race. I don't remember anyone saying that because we are different races that it was wonderful that we didn't see each other as being repugnant.

I do remember the talks about different cultures, but not looks....

I point out an obvious, broadly-shared fact within our shared society: and by pointing it out I become it? How does that figure?

Personally I find women of all races gorgeous when they are, and plain or unattractive when they are not gorgeous; it is an individual thing and has nothing to do with "race" (which, if you have been reading what I say, you'll recall that I dismiss as a fallacy: there is no "race", only homo sapiens adapted to climatic, geographical differences). I can also look at men and determine for myself whether or not they are handsome; or if I were a woman if I would find them attractive, etc. This has nothing at all to do with what a huge segment of the human race does when looking upon "races" other than their own.

We live in the aftermath of the racial segregationists, after all. And just as many heterosexuals have merely fallen silent on the matter of "gay marriage", many, many racially prejudiced silent people remain in our midst and always will....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...
quote:
But we are talking about real people with deep-seated biological points of view overlaid on religion and their perception of sexual ethics, etc. What you are not pessimistic about seems to be an inexplicable overturning of our entire evolutionary structure in the main.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, could you please provide some evidence for your assertion that dislike/disgust/whatever of homosexuality is a biological, evolved trait and not cultural?
Arguably, the evidence and overwhelming accepted belief is what I said. If you dispute that, it is up to YOU to provide "evidence for your assertion" that homosexuality IN HUMANS (the only sapient species in the universe that we know of) is merely a learned, inculcated, societal response to sexuality. As the evidence supports heterosexuality as natural and imperative, it follows that homosexuality is otherwise: it may go through fluctuations of increase and decrease in the population because of population density changes and other factors: and this may be natural and evolutionary too: but a visceral attraction of the vast majority toward the opposite gender is surely mandated by evolution to provide for survival of the species. To assert otherwise, as you are apparently doing here, requires evidence.

Or am I detecting the forbidden subject: a hidden agenda (desire) to "convert" many heterosexuals into becoming at least bisexuals?
quote:

..."the religious world view" is not universal. In this country, couples who have a civil ceremony conducted by a registrar (where anything religious was until recently explicitly forbidden) are just as "married" as those who were married in church. Personally, I think of "married" as a legal term rather than a religious one. I am not sure if this is a pond difference or more of a personal one.

...

Someone pointed out that NZ and UK "marriage" definitions do not match up; "civil union" definitions do, and are recognized in both countries. So the legalese you assume exists as "married" for the "civil ceremony" probably doesn't exist. It seems that even in enlightened Britain, the old ingrained religious mores hold sway in the legalese....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
Ack! I missed the edit slit (hardly long enough to be called a "window"):

If you dispute that, it is up to YOU to provide "evidence for your assertion" that heterosexuality IN HUMANS (the only sapient species in the universe that we know of) is merely a learned, inculcated, societal response to sexuality.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I point out an obvious, broadly-shared fact within our shared society: and by pointing it out I become it? How does that figure?

Because the statement "some races are repugnant in appearance" is not an obvious, broadly-shared fact?

I'm just guessing here.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It may be a matter of degree, but pretty much every religious person believes in sexual purity and fidelity. And since 90 to 99% are heterosexual it follows that THEIR interpretation of the Bible is going to be hard against ALL homosexuality

Utter bullshit. Just like everything else you've typed in this thread.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Ack! I missed the edit slit (hardly long enough to be called a "window"):

If you dispute that, it is up to YOU to provide "evidence for your assertion" that heterosexuality IN HUMANS (the only sapient species in the universe that we know of) is merely a learned, inculcated, societal response to sexuality.

I was not arguing that homosexuality is learned but that an extremely negative reaction to it is. If that is not what you were saying, I apologise for misunderstanding you again.

I will get back to you on the civil marriage issue when I have done the research.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

..."the religious world view" is not universal. In this country, couples who have a civil ceremony conducted by a registrar (where anything religious was until recently explicitly forbidden) are just as "married" as those who were married in church. Personally, I think of "married" as a legal term rather than a religious one. I am not sure if this is a pond difference or more of a personal one.


Someone pointed out that NZ and UK "marriage" definitions do not match up; "civil union" definitions do, and are recognized in both countries. So the legalese you assume exists as "married" for the "civil ceremony" probably doesn't exist. It seems that even in enlightened Britain, the old ingrained religious mores hold sway in the legalese....
I have not found a copy of the relevant legislation yet, but
this page suggests that, as far as the govt is concerned, the civil ceremony is a marriage and, therefore, I assume that those who have gone through such a ceremony are married.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
This looks like pretty good legalese to me.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Wrong way round Merlin - marriage definitions match up, civil union definitions don't.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
Merlin-

You've repeatedly referred to marriage as a religious institution, complaining that it's being take over by secular civil law--that's just contrary to history. Marriage is, in its origins, a social convention that has been imbued with sacramental meaning by the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it's not a religious matter for most cultures in human history (even in Christian society it didn't require clergy until the end of the middle ages)--it's mainly been about mundane matters like property and inheritance (and male control of female reproductive capacity). Marriage is whatever a given society decides to make it--it has no intrinsic essence--anthropologists used to claim that marriage was one of those "cultural universals," but the only way to define it as universal is to broaden the definition so much as to empty it of all real meaning. This society is in the process of defining it as a union of two people in a loving sexual relationship, and that's pretty irreversible by now, though it'll be another generation before it's so taken for granted that no one even questions it any more (look at the survey statistics). Get over it--if you don't, your children will.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
Merlin, just because you've been carefully taught to hate and fear those different from you doesn't mean that the rest of us have. I'm hetero. I find the notion of finding a man's private parts sexy to be confusing. This doesn't mean that I think homosexuality should be banned. Far from it; the more men chasing each other rather than in loveless marriages, the more unpartnered women... (Being serious I simply wouldn't wish a fake marriage on anyone). And most straight men I know that aren't in the closet think the same way. The homophobes who want homosexuality banned aren't amongst the 90% in my experience - they are either among the subset of the 10% that are so far in the closet they can see Narnia or those who get off on hatred.

And there's nothing preventing gay people following purity and fidelity rules, same as everyone else. Just because I find it unattractive - I also find bottle blondes with breast implants very unattractive. Doesn't mean I'll stand in their way. Now, as a straight man, stop projecting your homophobia on me. It's because I'm straight that I have very little emotional reaction to such things - but I do have a reaction when someone wants to hurt my friends or deny them happiness (as you do).

Which is it, Merlin? Are you in the closet and that's why this touches you deeply? Or have you had the lesson that you should hate and fear drummed in your dear little ear? (Based on your equally racist views, I'm going to say the latter - believe it or not, not everyone finds the same things attractive that you do.)
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I point out an obvious, broadly-shared fact within our shared society: and by pointing it out I become it? How does that figure?

Because the statement "some races are repugnant in appearance" is not an obvious, broadly-shared fact?

I'm just guessing here.

The confusion is that I am OBSERVING human behavior. Do you claim to be one of the minority who do NOT find ANY physical types (what "we" erroneously call "race") repulsive?...
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Merlin-

You've repeatedly referred to marriage as a religious institution, complaining that it's being take over by secular civil law--that's just contrary to history. Marriage is, in its origins, a social convention that has been imbued with sacramental meaning by the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it's not a religious matter for most cultures in human history (even in Christian society it didn't require clergy until the end of the middle ages)--it's mainly been about mundane matters like property and inheritance (and male control of female reproductive capacity).

We agree on this. I was pointing out how a MAJORITY of people view "marriage" in Western culture, particularly the USofA, as that is my personal concern. Pointing this perception out in no way revises history: it only shows that prevailing social mores are what lie behind the feelings of resistance to any change to the meaning of the word "marriage". The religious see "God" behind the institution: the irreligious, yet hardwired heterosexual, see the historical definition - "man and woman" - and resent that being lost, eroded, destroyed.

quote:
Marriage is whatever a given society decides to make it--it has no intrinsic essence--

Of course. But being hasty, impatient and pushy about your desired changes to the language are running face-on into a wall of resistance.

Obviously, if hypothetically you could get everyone into a forum to discuss and follow up with a vote: and you convinced the vast majority of people to go for it, you could redefine "marriage" to mean whatever "we the people" choose it to mean. But that's not only a fantasy hypothesis, it is impossible.

quote:
anthropologists used to claim that marriage was one of those "cultural universals," but the only way to define it as universal is to broaden the definition so much as to empty it of all real meaning.

How so? I am sure that anthropology is only speaking to the evolutionary consistency of heterosexual union assuring survival. That is ONE kind of marriage only. And that is proven factually; 1 to 10% of a population don't assure anything about the future survival or extinction of a species.

quote:
This society is in the process of defining it as a union of two people in a loving sexual relationship, and that's pretty irreversible by now, though it'll be another generation before it's so taken for granted that no one even questions it any more (look at the survey statistics). Get over it--if you don't, your children will.

Not so. THIS society is wrangling over what a legally recognized UNION even means. "Domestic partnership" is devoid of sexual connotations. But unfortunately, the USofA hardly knows that Tasmania exists so isn't taking a lesson.

"You" cannot switch back and forth between saying, "sex has nothing to do with it", and "defining [marriage] as a union of two people in a loving sexual relationship". This just points out the lack of unity on what the GLBTQ community actually wants: just as some want "marriage" in the legalese, and some are satisfied with equal rights under the law, with "civil union" or any other legalese description.

I agree that this will be resolved in some future generation. Mine will be long gone.

I don't have anything to "get over"; other than hating to see the language co-opted by an extreme minority group. From my gut I support majorities getting to have their way in such matters as definitions in their laws being worded to their satisfaction. The way this issue is going, a "new suspect class" minority group is being created on an utterly flimsy excuse (sexual attraction); and that advocacy group is insisting that their definition of "marriage" trumps the majority's definition. That pisses me off....
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I guess I'm part of that "minority" too. I happen to think that most people are, in which case it's hardly a minority.

I do not find people of any race repulsive.

I find bigotry repulsive. I find racism repulsive. I find homophobia repulsive.

Somehow I don't think this is a minority viewpoint.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Merlin, just because you've been carefully taught to hate and fear those different from you

Oh, please! I was never taught to hate any people, only certain physical behaviors as "sinful". And I have long since abandoned any "God said so" causes behind my personal beliefs. But I won't lie to myself about my instinctive, biological imperatives. Everyone else has theirs too. It annoys me to talk with so many people who claim that their minds are somehow separate from their biology.

quote:
I'm hetero. I find the notion of finding a man's private parts sexy to be confusing.

Oh, please, again! It is a fact that MOST men are fascinated by their own junk, and make comparisons all the time to other men. Don't bother to protest or I will think less of you as an honest person.

quote:
This doesn't mean that I think homosexuality should be banned. Far from it; the more men chasing each other rather than in loveless marriages, the more unpartnered women... (Being serious I simply wouldn't wish a fake marriage on anyone).

I never said homosexuality should be banned either. I never have. It has existed throughout history. I used to be concerned about sexual immorality as a scourge undermining our strength as a society: I used to angst that immorality was increasing as "the end times" drew near: so that caused me to look upon homosexuals who indulged their urges as little better than duped minions of the devil. I awoke to the reality that the world is on the contrary IMPROVING generally, with a few "hot spots" of unrest and languishing inequality. The West is concerned to upgrade everyone to a good living standard and opened opportunities to education and equality with "us". That cannot fit the apocalyptic image of a "fallen world" hastening to the fiery destruction of the wicked: there is no rapidly hastening "separation of the righteous and the wicked" as I was raised to believe.

quote:
...

And there's nothing preventing gay people following purity and fidelity rules, same as everyone else.

Well, sure. That's what my OP proposed: equal and fair treatment based on the SAME "laws" of sexual morality. Not religious ones, to be sure: but social laws of equality will only work if everyone defines what fidelity means without any gender considerations whatsoever.

quote:
Just because I find it unattractive - I also find bottle blondes with breast implants very unattractive.

Ooo, Pamela Anderson. Mmmm. I like 'em all, women I mean.

quote:
Doesn't mean I'll stand in their way. Now, as a straight man, stop projecting your homophobia on me.

I will not stop "projecting" whatever it is that you want to call it. That's your problem not mine. No matter how many times I say it in how many ways, some people just can't read for context. They don't recognize truth in the written word. I don't possess a homophobic bone in my body.

quote:
It's because I'm straight that I have very little emotional reaction to such things - but I do have a reaction when someone wants to hurt my friends or deny them happiness (as you do).

Consider this a challenge, since you keep underscoring this assertion of homophobia in me: find ONE contextual comment of mine where I have advocated hurting homosexuals or denying them happiness.
quote:

Which is it, Merlin? Are you in the closet and that's why this touches you deeply? Or have you had the lesson that you should hate and fear drummed in your dear little ear? (Based on your equally racist views, I'm going to say the latter - believe it or not, not everyone finds the same things attractive that you do.)

Ah, the "racist card", yet again. Did you bother reading through this thread?

The last c. three pages have been almost exclusively a debate on the (un)wisdom of fighting to change the word "marriage" in the legalese to mean something it has never meant before. I said that this "fight" matters to me: both because I like to preserve the definition of ancient words/concepts, and I can't resist a lost cause: they draw me in when they are right. The rightness and wrongness of homosexuality is not what this discussion is about. Get up to speed.

I don't discuss my sexuality with anyone I'm not sexually involved with....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I guess I'm part of that "minority" too. I happen to think that most people are, in which case it's hardly a minority.

I do not find people of any race repulsive.

I find bigotry repulsive. I find racism repulsive. I find homophobia repulsive.

Somehow I don't think this is a minority viewpoint.

It would interesting (possibly upsetting) to be able to tell how many of us are devoid of these prejudices. As human beings are essentially unchanged throughout recorded history, I am pessimistic that MOST of our species have suddenly gotten enlightenment and are all in love with our new-found touchy-feely affections for each other and our differences.

One of the most "Liberal" states in the USofA is California. Nearly 80% of the voter bloc turned out and voted FOR Prop 8. That says something to me quite contrary to your wishful thinking here....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Wrong way round Merlin - marriage definitions match up, civil union definitions don't.

Thanks for pointing that out.

What I said is true: "Marriage" (even though "civil union" is open to homosexuals) is a protected word of historic and religious meaning in both the UK and NZ....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
Ack! again. I said: One of the most "Liberal" states in the USofA is California. Nearly 80% of the voter bloc turned out and voted FOR Prop 8. I meant, of course, that 80% voted and over 50% were in favor (there, I corrected myself)....
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Merlin, considering the historical rates of innter-racial breeding that have gone on any place where two racial groups overlap, I think to claim that there-s any biological feeling of "other races being repugnant" is demonstratably pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT!!!!!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I guess I'm part of that "minority" too. I happen to think that most people are, in which case it's hardly a minority.

I do not find people of any race repulsive.

I find bigotry repulsive. I find racism repulsive. I find homophobia repulsive.

Somehow I don't think this is a minority viewpoint.

It would interesting (possibly upsetting) to be able to tell how many of us are devoid of these prejudices. As human beings are essentially unchanged throughout recorded history, I am pessimistic that MOST of our species have suddenly gotten enlightenment and are all in love with our new-found touchy-feely affections for each other and our differences.

One of the most "Liberal" states in the USofA is California. Nearly 80% of the voter bloc turned out and voted FOR Prop 8. That says something to me quite contrary to your wishful thinking here....

Unchanged possibly, but not unenlightened or uneducated. When was the Gospel expressed? Didn't that initiate a very special basis for people to change the way they behave?

Or do you suggest that a spiritual change cannot influence the way people relate to one another? What we are may not change but our behaviour can.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Merlin, considering the historical rates of innter-racial breeding that have gone on any place where two racial groups overlap, I think to claim that there-s any biological feeling of "other races being repugnant" is demonstratably pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT!!!!!

As Sioni posted right after you: we can learn, or unlearn our biologically-mandated feelings enough to behave better.

I think that you over-state the inter-racial breeding. If it occurred as much as you assert, by now the world would largely look alike. "We" have been "overlapping" for quite a few centuries. Just look at Africa: arguably to most Euros a Black African is a Black African: but to the Africans they are enormously different: their "racial" prejudices are very clear and run very deep.

Rwanda: Hutu v. Tutsi: genotypically you have short and tall, wide nose and narrow nose, more "African looking" and more "European looking". The Hutu are indigenous and more numerous; the Tutsi formerly migrated in. Today they still view each other as distinct and separate. In the Rwandan genocide, the formerly ruling (preferred class) Tutsi were murdered by the hundreds of thousands: the Hutu deliberately targeted Tutsi by their "look", thus assuring thousands of "Hutu" died by mistake: because genetically they are one people: there has been inter-breeding/marriage the whole time, but only in the minority: just as you'd expect, and find, here in the USofA. "Race" tends to remain apart for the vast majority, who are not interested in marrying one of "them".

If your racial-interbreeding assertion was at all accurate, the two genotypes in Rwanda would have blended into a more composite visual type centuries ago.

Bringing this back on-topic: heterosexuals and homosexuals are even more divided in their feelings for the opposite gender, than racial discrimination is. A small percentage of GLBTQs can "swing both ways"; most "true" homosexuals do not "swing" but stay with their same-sex attraction. Heterosexuals by definition never "swing" to the same gender. This is purely a biologically mandated thing.

"You" denounce all heterosexual assertions that your sexual preferences are a choice: or even more, that you have just as much right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else, etc. And rightly so: since to marry someone of the opposite gender would be like lying to yourself: there is no way on God's green Earth that "you" will ever feel a flicker of sexual attraction for someone of the opposite gender. Similarly, when another person looks different in a biologically unattractive way, there is no way that "we" are going to summon the interest/gumption to engage in sex with them.

To accuse someone of "racism" or "bigotry" because they find someone sexually unattractive, is as unreasonable as it is for heterosexuals to assert that homosexuals have a choice in their sexuality....
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Hutu v. Tutsi: genotypically you have short and tall, wide nose and narrow nose, more "African looking" and more "European looking".The Hutu are indigenous and more numerous; the Tutsi formerly migrated in. Today they still view each other as distinct and separate.

Almost none of that is true.

The difference is one of class, or maybe caste, nothing racial or genetic at all. Mixed marriages are common and unexceptional, and until recenrly people often moved from one group to the other. They don't even have different accents - in that they are more like each other than Protestant and Catholic Irish are. Or working-class and upper-class English or French. No-one calls that a "racial" difference.

Have you ever actually met a Tutsi or Hutu? Do you know any? Where do you get your opinions on their appearance?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...
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?

I guess you don't emote with the popular antipathy regarding "words have meaning". Perhaps you don't care if "the Mother tongue" gets altered beyond repair or not. Liberalism creates all manner of new definitions "just because".

Words have meaning. Stealing means taking away somethignfrom someone so they don't have it any more. What has been taken away from you that you don't have any more?

Right-wingers seem to love redefining perfectly good English words to try to twist language to fit their ideology!
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

Rwanda: Hutu v. Tutsi: genotypically you have short and tall, wide nose and narrow nose...

PHENOTYPICALLY (ie you actually need pretty much the opposite of the word you chose, as your gross oversimplification is about outward appearance rather then genetic underpinnings), and Ken's points still disprove the conclusions being drawn from this questionable statement.

quote:
there has been inter-breeding/marriage the whole time, but only in the minority: just as you'd expect, and find, here in the USofA. "Race" tends to remain apart for the vast majority, who are not interested in marrying one of "them".
Tell that to my nephew, his parents, or any number of his biracial peers. Interracial marriage and childbearing has had a tremendous uptick in the States in recent years: statistics gleaned by demographers at the University of Michigan indicate that in 2008,5% of those under 10 were identified as bi- or multi-racial ( a fivefold increase over what's reported by people over 64.) You can say all you want about how this is still a minority, but it seems like yet another seachange you're positioning yourself against.

quote:
Bringing this back on-topic: heterosexuals and homosexuals are even more divided in their feelings for the opposite gender, than racial discrimination is. A small percentage of GLBTQs can "swing both ways"; most "true" homosexuals do not "swing" but stay with their same-sex attraction. Heterosexuals by definition never "swing" to the same gender. This is purely a biologically mandated thing.
Um, no. About a quarter of the people who self- identified as straight on a major US dating website also self-identified as having had a same-sex sexual encounter at least once.

The most recent Kinsey Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior noted that "While about 7% of adult women and 8% of men identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, the proportion of individuals in the U.S. who have had same-gender sexual interactions at some point in their lives is higher."

You're entitled, sir, to your own opinion. But you don't get to have your own set of facts.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
Merlin's mistake (well, one of hundreds) is to assume that it is biology that has dictated social mores. And that it is biology that dictates morality (best as I can infer from what he keeps spewing here, talking about how it's not from religion, and it's demonstrably not from reason).

He also infers that since his generation finds things problematic that all generations every-when and every-where will do so. Hogwash, as the numbers in the post above mine about multi-racial kids show. As numbers showing the rapidly increasing plasticity of sexuality show (more so women than men, but it appears to be increasing in men as well).

The younger generations just don't care. Get over your little crusade about words that we want to use. We don't give a fuck if you think we're stealing the word "marriage." At worst, we'll steal it once your "kind" has died out.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
To accuse someone of "racism" or "bigotry" because they find someone sexually unattractive, is as unreasonable as it is for heterosexuals to assert that homosexuals have a choice in their sexuality....

You didn't say "Find someone sexually unattractive" up above -- you used the word "repulsive."

As a straight woman I don't find other women sexually attractive. But I can admire another woman's appearance (perhaps with a tinge of envy!) and am not repulsed by her.

Calling members of another race "repulsive" is racism, no matter how you try to much to back-pedal.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... we can learn, or unlearn our biologically-mandated feelings enough to behave better. ...

Merlin,

Please can you provide some evidence that these feelings are "biologically-mandated"?

Joanna
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
So, Merlin, as a male I am biologically mandated to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible while my sister is biologically mandated to hold on to one male to bring up her children?

I am surprised that those who advocate 'natural law' haven't mandated this as Christian sexual morality. (Or have I been missing out?)
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So, Merlin, as a male I am biologically mandated to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible while my sister is biologically mandated to hold on to one male to bring up her children?

I am surprised that those who advocate 'natural law' haven't mandated this as Christian sexual morality. (Or have I been missing out?)

One thing I noticed is that heterosexual men tend to get off scot free when it comes to sexual morality. I remember my Catholic friend in college who said that if his daughter slept with an older man, he would be furious. But if his son slept with an older woman, in honesty, he would feel a tinge of pride.

Part of the problem with traditional sexual ethics is while in theory, both sexes should abstain from fornication according to classical Christian morality, in reality, in many instances it was the woman who was expected to be morally pure. Men of course couldn't help themselves. The most disturbing and IMHO blatantly criminal result of this understanding is the notion held, even by a few today, that a woman who was sexually assaulted and wearing provocative clothing was somehow "asking for it."

Feminist and queer criticism highlights the hypocrisy of this sexual ethic. This hypocrisy promotes male heterosexual supremacy at the expense of both women and homosexuals. Gay men in particular, are seen as violating this sexual ethic by in heterosexist eyes "choosing to be women." As well, the objectification of the male form discomforts the heterosexist because it highlights the acceptability in western art and culture of objectifying the female form.

A Christian sexual ethic rooted not in patriarchal heterosexism, should IMHO be rooted in a humble acceptance of the role of desire for both men and women. All people are sexual beings and desire intimacy in its many forms: spiritual, emotional, and physical. And yet this desire does demand responsibility. Not responsibility in the sense that everyone must live according to a rigid, written code of thou shalt and thou shalt nots. But responsibility, in the Christian fashion, to the command to love tenderly and attentively. As Christians, Our Lord teaches us to treat each other as fellow brothers and sisters, not objects that we can use and abuse.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:


A Christian sexual ethic rooted not in patriarchal heterosexism, should IMHO be rooted in a humble acceptance of the role of desire for both men and women. All people are sexual beings and desire intimacy in its many forms: spiritual, emotional, and physical. And yet this desire does demand responsibility. Not responsibility in the sense that everyone must live according to a rigid, written code of thou shalt and thou shalt nots. But responsibility, in the Christian fashion, to the command to love tenderly and attentively. As Christians, Our Lord teaches us to treat each other as fellow brothers and sisters, not objects that we can use and abuse.

Amen

This is the best word on the subject I've heard for a very long time.


[Overused]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Where are we commanded to love tenderly?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Where are we commanded to love tenderly?

By Elvis?
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...

Have you ever actually met a Tutsi or Hutu? Do you know any?

Nope. It was an example of how people view each other: racially different for the most part.
quote:

Where do you get your opinions on their appearance?

From the Internet, of course. Google "Hutu Tutsi" and you come up with plenty of theories on where the Tutsi originated from; including a fair amount of apparent historic revisionism going on.

Oh, and my mom told me about a book as she was reading it; the author is a Tutsi woman survivor. So far I haven't run into any evidence that the Hutu and Tutsi have viewed each other as distinctly different from each other.

Another anecdote from way back that I learned, is an Afar or Ethiopian legend about how they came to be: it involved a comparison to lighter skinned Sudanese, et al. N. Africans (closer to Europe, obviously), who the gods took out of the oven too soon so they were under-cooked; the various sooty black types, who the gods left in the oven too long and they got burnt: and finally themselves: taken out of the oven just right, a nice medium, rich color.

And recall that these various Africans preyed upon each other to supply the European slave trade.

quote:

Words have meaning. Stealing means taking away somethignfrom someone so they don't have it any more. What has been taken away from you that you don't have any more?

Right-wingers seem to love redefining perfectly good English words to try to twist language to fit their ideology!

If the MAJORITY no longer possess the power to define the legalese they way that they choose, they have had that power and right stolen by a minority agenda....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Merlin's mistake (well, one of hundreds) is to assume that it is biology that has dictated social mores. And that it is biology that dictates morality (best as I can infer from what he keeps spewing here, talking about how it's not from religion, and it's demonstrably not from reason).

Your powers of inference are weak, then: as I never said squat about what dictates morality beyond the majority saying so. And as the vast majority is heterosexual both in inclination and practice, the biological link cannot be tossed.

Besides, if you toss out the biologically mandated sexual attraction angle, where then is "your" argument: that you are helplessly gripped by your sexual attractions, i.e. you have no choice in the matter? If social mores and morality can be created because we choose to - biology be damned - then surely "you" do have a choice in whether or not to be sexually immoral or not. But no, you CHOOSE instead to demand the right to dictate to the majority what sexual morality even means.
quote:

He also infers that since his generation finds things problematic that all generations every-when and every-where will do so. Hogwash, as the numbers in the post above mine about multi-racial kids show. As numbers showing the rapidly increasing plasticity of sexuality show (more so women than men, but it appears to be increasing in men as well).

The younger generations just don't care. Get over your little crusade about words that we want to use. We don't give a fuck if you think we're stealing the word "marriage." At worst, we'll steal it once your "kind" has died out.

And yes sir, here we have it. Out of the closet in full battle regalia: the "you're a bigot and homophobe" champion has just shown his true colors: in fact bigotry is nearly always demonstrated first and most clearly by the first accuser.

The posts above yours show nothing to disprove what I said: the racial intermarriage trends remain in the extreme minority. And "25%" of heterosexuals have had an encounter (intercourse, even) with same-sex partner(s). That is real proof that self-identifying heterosexuals one-quarter of the time decide to swing and be bisexual instead. (my mistake was in using the superlative "never")

Unlike "you", I don't expect any of this hardwired, socially mandated tradition to die out at all, much less by the time my generation is gone. But, time will tell....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
To accuse someone of "racism" or "bigotry" because they find someone sexually unattractive, is as unreasonable as it is for heterosexuals to assert that homosexuals have a choice in their sexuality....

You didn't say "Find someone sexually unattractive" up above -- you used the word "repulsive."
Well excuse me: nobody who's repulsive is sexually attractive. And I find very few people repulsive. YMMV, especially if you have a racism problem. Many people do.
quote:

As a straight woman I don't find other women sexually attractive. But I can admire another woman's appearance (perhaps with a tinge of envy!) and am not repulsed by her.

Indeed. Women seem to admit, in the main, that their gender is beautiful especially compared to men. I happen to agree: to the extent, actually, that I find women's physical attraction toward men mystifying.
quote:

Calling members of another race "repulsive" is racism, no matter how you try to much to back-pedal.

Again, I observe the phenomenon: and here, again, you accuse my observation of racism in human beings as evidence that I am a racist!

Here's another one: the GOP took many political offices into their control in the recent US election. But by saying that I have observed this fact I am not a Republican. I am a RINO (because the stupid party won't let you vote for any of their candidates without GOP membership)....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... we can learn, or unlearn our biologically-mandated feelings enough to behave better. ...

Merlin,

Please can you provide some evidence that these feelings are "biologically-mandated"?

Joanna

If they are not biological, how does the GLBTQ get away with claiming: "I do not have a choice in who/what I find myself sexually attracted to"?...
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
There's a statistic I read recently (I can't remember the source, and I tried to track it down without success--but why should I hold myself to more stringent standards of evidence than initiator of this thread?) that many people (in the 20-40% range, IIRC) who identify as straight, and who have never had a same-sex encounter, admit they find the idea of same-sex encounters appealing, at least in the abstract. The numbers are higher for women than for men, but even so... I'll even admit that I'm one of them. Everything that gay people do is something I've done or had done to me, and I wouldn't ask a woman I loved to do something I found intrinsically disgusting. So sorry--the inherent biological disgust reaction theory doesn't wash. Not that it would justify legal discrimination if it did.

I don't even claim that sexual orientation is biologically determined (there are probably biological factors, but I believe there are many pathways to sexual orientation, and we are nowhere near understanding them). I just believe that people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about emotional and sexual relationships, and that we as a society have an obligation to support families, however they are formed.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Where are we commanded to love tenderly?

By the chap who stated to Love God and to love our neighbour. I think we call him Lord and Saviour.

I read one writer who said that sex, like everything, ultimately finds its ethics in Christ's command to love God and love thy neighbor as thyself. This doesn't make it easier, but it does mean that instead of looking to verses from Leviticus to decide on sexual ethics, we should look instead to the context of Christ's moral teaching in the Gospels.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Merlin's mistake (well, one of hundreds) is to assume that it is biology that has dictated social mores. And that it is biology that dictates morality (best as I can infer from what he keeps spewing here, talking about how it's not from religion, and it's demonstrably not from reason).

Your powers of inference are weak, then: as I never said squat about what dictates morality beyond the majority saying so.
So morality is whatever the majority thinks is right? I'm reading your wrong, or your position is more stupid than I thought.

quote:
And yes sir, here we have it. Out of the closet in full battle regalia: the "you're a bigot and homophobe" champion has just shown his true colors: in fact bigotry is nearly always demonstrated first and most clearly by the first accuser.
Uhmm...get over yourself.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Oh, please! I was never taught to hate any people, only certain physical behaviors as "sinful".

Yet you're calling those of other raes objectively repugnant.

quote:
[/qb]Oh, please, again! It is a fact that MOST men are fascinated by their own junk, and make comparisons all the time to other men. Don't bother to protest or I will think less of you as an honest person.[/qb]
My own, possibly. Excluding medical visits, I've had a total of two conversations in my life with other men about theirs. I just don't care.

quote:
I awoke to the reality that the world is on the contrary IMPROVING generally, with a few "hot spots" of unrest and languishing inequality. The West is concerned to upgrade everyone to a good living standard and opened opportunities to education and equality with "us". That cannot fit the apocalyptic image of a "fallen world" hastening to the fiery destruction of the wicked: there is no rapidly hastening "separation of the righteous and the wicked" as I was raised to believe.

There is something we can agree on!

quote:
Well, sure. That's what my OP proposed: equal and fair treatment based on the SAME "laws" of sexual morality.

You mean the OP in which you put scare quotes round the word marriage, and later in the thread clarified that you thought "Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group."

If you want the same laws for sexual morality, start campaigning for gay marriage. Not against it, or for separate but equal. Instead you want to impose rules without granting the societal sanction - i.e. you want to explicitely make things harder for gay people than you do for straight ones.

quote:
Not religious ones, to be sure: but social laws of equality will only work if everyone defines what fidelity means without any gender considerations whatsoever.
Fine. So give them legal protection under the law. I.e. Marriage.

quote:
I will not stop "projecting" whatever it is that you want to call it. That's your problem not mine. No matter how many times I say it in how many ways, some people just can't read for context. They don't recognize truth in the written word. I don't possess a homophobic bone in my body.

I have no idea what your 'bone' is doing when you think about gay people. I do know that you are in favour of institutional discrimination against them. You want to continue their pain and their status as second class under the law. That's more than enough for me to consider you a homophobe.

quote:
Consider this a challenge, since you keep underscoring this assertion of homophobia in me: find ONE contextual comment of mine where I have advocated hurting homosexuals or denying them happiness.

Your entire OP is an accusation of arguing in bad faith. And you are trying to deny equality under the law. You can, I suppose, make the claim that hurting them is not denying them happiness.

quote:
Ah, the "racist card", yet again. Did you bother reading through this thread?

"some races are repugnant in appearance" - you can not make a statement like that without being racist yourself. Especially as it's obvious if you have any knowledge of history that standards of attractiveness change over time. And that sociologically most people find their own groups generally more attractive. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - your attempt to claim that some races were repugnant is your attempt to claim that only your eyes matter.

quote:
The last c. three pages have been almost exclusively a debate on the (un)wisdom of fighting to change the word "marriage" in the legalese to mean something it has never meant before.
You mean the last few pages have been you kicking and screaming to ensure that marriage means only what you want it to mean and not what others do?

quote:
I said that this "fight" matters to me: both because I like to preserve the definition of ancient words/concepts, and I can't resist a lost cause: they draw me in when they are right. The rightness and wrongness of homosexuality is not what this discussion is about. Get up to speed.
No. Just because you think that words are completely abstract entities whose meaning doesn't hurt people doesn't make it so. Rightness and wrongness may not be. But privilege and pain and suffering are. And you are on the side that is in favour of continued pain and suffering. Just because you want to fight for a lost cause. Get up to speed.

quote:
I don't discuss my sexuality with anyone I'm not sexually involved with....
Yet you apparently discuss your junk with them.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If the MAJORITY no longer possess the power to define the legalese they way that they choose, they have had that power and right stolen by a minority agenda....

And if the majority disagrees with you, do you instantly swing to the side of the majority? If not, why not? Because what the majority believes is rapidly changing on this issue. If you end up in the minority (as you will), are you going to try and steal the power and right for your agenda?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It would interesting (possibly upsetting) to be able to tell how many of us are devoid of these prejudices. As human beings are essentially unchanged throughout recorded history, I am pessimistic that MOST of our species have suddenly gotten enlightenment and are all in love with our new-found touchy-feely affections for each other and our differences.

In the words of Avenue Q, "Everyone's a little bit racist". And no one is utterly devoid of prejudice. I do my best to get over it. And as for "suddenly", human organisation and interactions have been changed markedly since the Industrial Revolution, since decent public health, and since the internet. If I'm right when I read you, you're at the left wing of your own society - and wouldn't have a clue of how right wing that society was without sites such as this.

[ 08. November 2010, 12:15: Message edited by: Justinian ]
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
<<snip>> There's a statistic I read recently (I can't remember the source, and I tried to track it down without success--but why should I hold myself to more stringent standards of evidence than initiator of this thread?) that many people (in the 20-40% range, IIRC) who identify as straight, and who have never had a same-sex encounter, admit they find the idea of same-sex encounters appealing, at least in the abstract. <<snip>>

That last bit -- "in the abstract" --is very important. I am closely acquainted with a rape survivor who (pre-attack; no longer) used to have sexual fantasies about rape. In fantasies, the fantasizer is always in control of what happens and can direct the fantasy along whatever lines she or he chooses.

In real life, not so much; and therein lies all the difference.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
Let's try another angle. Merlin: Two couples present themselves at City Hall for marriage licenses.

All four individuals are adult residents of the city in question. They are all legally competent, currently unmarried, and none is closely related to another by blood. They have done the medical tests &/or waiting periods or whatever local ordinances require. All four individuals are law-abiding citizens; they all vote, own property, and pay taxes to the city in question.

Couple A consists of a man and a woman; couple B consists of two women.

On what legal or logical basis -- in a country claiming equality under the law for all citizens -- can a city clerk grant a marriage license to Couple A and deny one to Couple B?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... we can learn, or unlearn our biologically-mandated feelings enough to behave better. ...

Merlin,

Please can you provide some evidence that these feelings are "biologically-mandated"?

Joanna

If they are not biological, how does the GLBTQ get away with claiming: "I do not have a choice in who/what I find myself sexually attracted to"?...
Nor do straight people.

But it isn't merely biology, it's cultural conditioning. When you said that you find some races repugnant, people have attacked you for being racist. However, some people simply don't fancy Chinese people or whatever - that's cultural rather than biological, I expect.

[ 08. November 2010, 14:18: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But it isn't merely biology, it's cultural conditioning. When you said that you find some races repugnant, people have attacked you for being racist. However, some people simply don't fancy Chinese people or whatever - that's cultural rather than biological, I expect.

Correction. What he actually said was "some races are repugnant in appearance". He did not merely say that he found some races repugnant. He said that they were repugnant. An entirely different kettle of fish. He appears to think that his tastes are more than just his tastes and are some universal moral principle. If he'd said "Some people don't fancy people of other races" or "Some people don't fancy people of specific races", putting the eye of the beholder into the foreground then it would have been IMO a simple factual statement.

As it is, his arguments appear to be entirely those of the sort of reactionary jackass who thinks that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Loving v Virginia - with, I think, all his arguments here (including "some races are repugnant in appearance" as well as his insistance that democracy is three wolves and a sheep arguing about dinner) applying equally to that case and decision.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

But it isn't merely biology, it's cultural conditioning. When you said that you find some races repugnant, people have attacked you for being racist. However, some people simply don't fancy Chinese people or whatever - that's cultural rather than biological, I expect.

Biological or cultural it is clearly racist of course.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
How is it racist if a person is simply not sexually attracted to somebody of a different race or genetic heritage? Some white person might not find black people attractive, or some person from east Asia might not fight people with stereotypically western European features attractive. How is that racist? In order to be non-racist do I have to try to force myself to feel sexual attraction toward people I just don't? To avoid being homophobic, then, should I try to manufacture sexual feelings towards other men?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
"Repugnant" is a heck of a lot stronger than "not attracted to"!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

But it isn't merely biology, it's cultural conditioning. When you said that you find some races repugnant, people have attacked you for being racist. However, some people simply don't fancy Chinese people or whatever - that's cultural rather than biological, I expect.

Biological or cultural it is clearly racist of course.
You have here explicitly stated that not fancying Chinese people is "clearly racist." Have you changed your mind?
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,

Please can you provide some evidence that these feelings are "biologically-mandated"?

Joanna

If they are not biological, how does the GLBTQ get away with claiming: "I do not have a choice in who/what I find myself sexually attracted to"?...
When you posted on 3 November
quote:
But we also retain our prejudices that are visceral, biological mandates on our natural feelings. Nothing is more clearly defined in this area than sexuality. You think that just because human reason has sided with "live and let live", i.e. equal rights for homosexuals, that the visceral disgust of the biological imperative is somehow weakened in most heterosexuals?
I assumed that you were saying that heterosexual prejudice against homosexuality was biologically-mandated, rather than the homosexuality itself.

This was confirmed, I thought, later in that post:
quote:
quote:
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.

If feelings and empathy were all that is involved I'd agree with you. But we are talking about real people with deep-seated biological points of view overlaid on religion and their perception of sexual ethics, etc. What you are not pessimistic about seems to be an inexplicable overturning of our entire evolutionary structure in the main.
If I was wrong, please can you explain what you meant in the bits I have quoted above. Otherwise, please give some evidence that prejudices are biological.

Or are you seriously equating one person's sexuality with your "visceral disgust" at it?
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:


A Christian sexual ethic rooted not in patriarchal heterosexism, should IMHO be rooted in a humble acceptance of the role of desire for both men and women. All people are sexual beings and desire intimacy in its many forms: spiritual, emotional, and physical. And yet this desire does demand responsibility. Not responsibility in the sense that everyone must live according to a rigid, written code of thou shalt and thou shalt nots. But responsibility, in the Christian fashion, to the command to love tenderly and attentively. As Christians, Our Lord teaches us to treat each other as fellow brothers and sisters, not objects that we can use and abuse.

Amen

This is the best word on the subject I've heard for a very long time.


[Overused]

I say Amen to that as well.

But the Real World is populated by religious opinions that are Legion. All the while said-religious opinions also have plenty to say about how to love your fellow man and woman.

In the modern democracy we the people accept equal rights under the law for everyone. We also accept that majority does rule where preferences are concerned. This neo-liberal trend of allowing a minority voice to steal what the majority wants to remain traditional has got to stop; it's already been running amok for far too long....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Merlin's mistake (well, one of hundreds) is to assume that it is biology that has dictated social mores. And that it is biology that dictates morality (best as I can infer from what he keeps spewing here, talking about how it's not from religion, and it's demonstrably not from reason).

Your powers of inference are weak, then: as I never said squat about what dictates morality beyond the majority saying so.
So morality is whatever the majority thinks is right? I'm reading your wrong, or your position is more stupid than I thought.

...

Then you'll have to move to a more enlightened country, because in the West that is exactly how morality and the law intertwine: the majority agrees on the existence of the concept of morality in the first place: the minority that asserts that there is only relativity, that morality is merely a human construct and never absolute, are a lot closer to understanding this than you obviously are. If the majority cannot have the power to define morality FOR society, then we do not have a hope of democracy ever remaining: we will find the world slipping back into secular and religious tyranny of the elites over the masses: whatever seemeth good to the elite ruling classes will be the law: it will be their morality and none other....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...
If you want the same laws for sexual morality, start campaigning for gay marriage. Not against it, or for separate but equal. Instead you want to impose rules without granting the societal sanction - i.e. you want to explicitely make things harder for gay people than you do for straight ones.

I won't campaign for giving the power of the minority to dictate to the majority in matters of choosing the legalese.

You continue to dissemble, refuse to quote me, and misconstrue even what the OP was saying....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Let's try another angle. Merlin: Two couples present themselves at City Hall for marriage licenses.

All four individuals are adult residents of the city in question. They are all legally competent, currently unmarried, and none is closely related to another by blood. They have done the medical tests &/or waiting periods or whatever local ordinances require. All four individuals are law-abiding citizens; they all vote, own property, and pay taxes to the city in question.

Couple A consists of a man and a woman; couple B consists of two women.

On what legal or logical basis -- in a country claiming equality under the law for all citizens -- can a city clerk grant a marriage license to Couple A and deny one to Couple B?

The legalese hasn't been brought up to speed? "Marriage" is "man and woman"; almost everywhere, as I understand this issue, THAT is clearly defined: even in the UK where same-sex "unions" are legally recognized they are not called "marriage". Otherwise, equal in every way....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... we can learn, or unlearn our biologically-mandated feelings enough to behave better. ...

Merlin,

Please can you provide some evidence that these feelings are "biologically-mandated"?

Joanna

If they are not biological, how does the GLBTQ get away with claiming: "I do not have a choice in who/what I find myself sexually attracted to"?...
Nor do straight people.

But it isn't merely biology, it's cultural conditioning. When you said that you find some races repugnant, people have attacked you for being racist. However, some people simply don't fancy Chinese people or whatever - that's cultural rather than biological, I expect.

I said that racism finds some races repugnant; that is the basis for racism, it's how it exists in the first place. Observing racism does not make one a racist. (how many times have I said this by now?)

If sexual attraction isn't mandated almost entirely by biology, then the heterosexuals who fear that homosexuality will increase if it is condoned are right to fear: and homosexuals who shoot back with, "We're not trying to recruit anyone; we just want to love each other and be accepted for our love like you are", are dissembling with the truth. Actually "you" would be tickled if the GLBTQs inherited the earth....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,

Please can you provide some evidence that these feelings are "biologically-mandated"?

Joanna

If they are not biological, how does the GLBTQ get away with claiming: "I do not have a choice in who/what I find myself sexually attracted to"?...
When you posted on 3 November
quote:
But we also retain our prejudices that are visceral, biological mandates on our natural feelings. Nothing is more clearly defined in this area than sexuality. You think that just because human reason has sided with "live and let live", i.e. equal rights for homosexuals, that the visceral disgust of the biological imperative is somehow weakened in most heterosexuals?
I assumed that you were saying that heterosexual prejudice against homosexuality was biologically-mandated, rather than the homosexuality itself.

This was confirmed, I thought, later in that post:
quote:
quote:
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.

If feelings and empathy were all that is involved I'd agree with you. But we are talking about real people with deep-seated biological points of view overlaid on religion and their perception of sexual ethics, etc. What you are not pessimistic about seems to be an inexplicable overturning of our entire evolutionary structure in the main.
If I was wrong, please can you explain what you meant in the bits I have quoted above. Otherwise, please give some evidence that prejudices are biological.

Or are you seriously equating one person's sexuality with your "visceral disgust" at it?

I'm having difficulty understanding exactly what your difficulty is with what I said.

Biologically mandated feelings are our most dominant, instinctual reaction to other people and situations, etc. So how can a "hardwired" sexuality NOT be biological? How can the GLBTQs claim to be what they are "from birth" if their sexuality isn't biological? Of course there is social overlaying of mores including "morality".

I am in the camp that believes that sexuality is a combination of both birth (biology) and socially inculcating what defines outward sexual expression for the genders. This is all lately in a great deal of flux and confusion.

As far as I recall, the "visceral disgust" I was referring to was an observation of its real existence in all of us: don't try and turn the observation into a guessing game about me. I speak in general terms, not about individuals (especially not myself)....
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Let's try another angle. Merlin: Two couples present themselves at City Hall for marriage licenses.

All four individuals are adult residents of the city in question. They are all legally competent, currently unmarried, and none is closely related to another by blood. They have done the medical tests &/or waiting periods or whatever local ordinances require. All four individuals are law-abiding citizens; they all vote, own property, and pay taxes to the city in question.

Couple A consists of a man and a woman; couple B consists of two women.

On what legal or logical basis -- in a country claiming equality under the law for all citizens -- can a city clerk grant a marriage license to Couple A and deny one to Couple B?

The legalese hasn't been brought up to speed? "Marriage" is "man and woman"; almost everywhere, as I understand this issue, THAT is clearly defined: even in the UK where same-sex "unions" are legally recognized they are not called "marriage". Otherwise, equal in every way....
How about addressing the question and the point?

Citizens should be treated equally. So where's the logic in denying a civil license to marry to any couple which meet the criteria -- pairs of competent adult unrelated unmarried resident citizens?
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So how can a "hardwired" sexuality NOT be biological? How can the GLBTQs claim to be what they are "from birth" if their sexuality isn't biological? Of course there is social overlaying of mores including "morality".

I am in the camp that believes that sexuality is a combination of both birth (biology) and socially inculcating what defines outward sexual expression for the genders. This is all lately in a great deal of flux and confusion.

I agree with all this. What I am trying to work out is whether you also believe that the "visceral disgust" that some people feel at homosexuality is as biologically "hard-wired" as the sexuality.

I don't know that I can put it any simpler than that.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As far as I recall, the "visceral disgust" I was referring to was an observation of its real existence in all of us:

But "we" don't all have "visceral disgust" for homosexuality. Some of "us" do. Some feel it for all homosexuality. Some have it for certain acts but not others. Some have it for gay men but not lesbians (and possibly v.v.). Some start off feeling it and then get used to (or even enthusuiastic about) the idea. Some of "us" feels it intensely. Some experience only mild distaste. Some see it as a moral insight. Some see it as morally irrelevant. Some see it as a fault. And some of "us" do not feel it at all.

If you are going to assert disgust for homosexuality as a biologically hard-wired fact in 90% of the population, you need some evidence for it, because all my experience (and, from this thread, not just mine) suggests that this isn't so.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...
If you want the same laws for sexual morality, start campaigning for gay marriage. Not against it, or for separate but equal. Instead you want to impose rules without granting the societal sanction - i.e. you want to explicitely make things harder for gay people than you do for straight ones.

I won't campaign for giving the power of the minority to dictate to the majority in matters of choosing the legalese.
And here you miss quite what campaigning is meant to do. It is meant to change which the majority position is. As you tie your defence to the majority, I assume that as soon as the demographic changes swing it so the majority position is in favour of marriage equality and preventing the minority dictating who can't get married, you will then support the majority position and oppose the minority dictating who can and can't get married? Or is this a spurious argument? Also, you are ducking the issue of Loving v Virginia and that your logic is claiming that it was a bad decision. Was it?

quote:
You continue to dissemble, refuse to quote me, and misconstrue even what the OP was saying....
We can see the post that MtM was responding to, how much of it he quoted, and how much of one of his I was quoting. It's pretty obvious who's not quoting whom, and who's dissembling. As for the OP - unlike you I understand the consequences of what you were writing.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have here explicitly stated that not fancying Chinese people is "clearly racist." Have you changed your mind?

[Roll Eyes]

Like Leo, I was talking about Merlin's clearly expressed racism. That's surely obvious.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I said that racism finds some races repugnant; that is the basis for racism, it's how it exists in the first place. Observing racism does not make one a racist. (how many times have I said this by now?)

Except that's not what you said. What you said was For instance, racial prejudice is never going to entirely vanish or even significantly diminish any further as long as sexual attraction is involved: simply because some races are repugnant in appearance, which transforms into a racial rejection. A mature, compassionate person will train himself to behave justly toward all human beings; but that is a learned response demanded by a society that promotes justice for all. Divorce and abortion are not biologically mandated; sexuality is. That's why comparing this "marriage for all" issue to that kind of societal change wrought by changes in the laws is comparing

You said that some races are repugnant in appearance. Phrased as an objective fact. Not that "racism finds" - whoever racism is. Or even that you do. You said they were - and are now trying to spin what you said into something else with an apparent lack of awareness that we can see what you actually said.

And for the record, standards of attractiveness have changed massively over time - and racism as we know it didn't even really get rolling until the abolitionist movement got underway and the conservatives were trying to find a justification for slavery. The claim you are now claiming you made was wrong. The claim you made at the time isn't what you are now dissembling to.

quote:
If sexual attraction isn't mandated almost entirely by biology,
It isn't. There's definitely sociology involved. And personal history. And tastes.

quote:
then the heterosexuals who fear that homosexuality will increase if it is condoned are right to fear:
Oh, it will. People will come out of the closet because they will no longer fear getting beaten up for it.

quote:
and homosexuals who shoot back with, "We're not trying to recruit anyone; we just want to love each other and be accepted for our love like you are", are dissembling with the truth.
No they aren't. People leaving the closet will be a consequence of what they want. That doesn't mean the goal is to recruit. It means that more people will be able to be honest.

quote:
Actually "you" would be tickled if the GLBTQs inherited the earth....
I'd be impressed if GLs inerited the earth. I'd also wonder how that was achieved.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have here explicitly stated that not fancying Chinese people is "clearly racist." Have you changed your mind?

[Roll Eyes]

Like Leo, I was talking about Merlin's clearly expressed racism. That's surely obvious.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have here explicitly stated that not fancying Chinese people is "clearly racist." Have you changed your mind?

[Roll Eyes]

Like Leo, I was talking about Merlin's clearly expressed racism. That's surely obvious.

No, it was not. You clearly riffed upon the words in Leo's final post, in which he gave an opinion that such-and-such a thing --which was other than what Merlin had said-- was not racist. You linked to the adjectives in his claim that something wasn't racist, then said it was. You may have not meant that, but that's what you did.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

In the modern democracy we the people accept equal rights under the law for everyone. We also accept that majority does rule where preferences are concerned. This neo-liberal trend of allowing a minority voice to steal what the majority wants to remain traditional has got to stop; it's already been running amok for far too long....

As another poster has noted with regards to Loving Vs. Virginia, marriage is an equal-rights-under-the-law kind of thing, despite "majority rule where preferences are concerned" lining up more at that time with the asinine statement by trial judge Leon Brazile :
quote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Honestly, Merlin, your insufficient appeals to various biological imperatives and the "majority view" remind me a fair bit of this kind of logic: putting forth as self-evident something that may well, on later reflection, be seen as spectacularly fallacious and exceptionally unsound.

ETA that, in reality, I understand and freely admit that good solid people can have different opinions on gay marriage at this stage in the game. What's tweaking me off more on this thread is the OP's general tendency to put forward extremely flawed views of minority populations (be they the "repugnant" other races, the deviant biracial couples, or the wildly non-monogamous non-heterosexuals) as self-evident representations of How Things Really Are.

[ 10. November 2010, 14:01: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
What I am trying to work out is whether you also believe that the "visceral disgust" that some people feel at homosexuality is as biologically "hard-wired" as the sexuality.

I don't know that I can put it any simpler than that.

I can't possibly say. Can anybody, really? Isn't this what all the arguing is about? Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp): homosexuality is biological, ergo "I have been this way from birth and cannot change what I am" (that's the GLBTQ camp): and homosexuality is a combination of biological and social conditioning (that's the middle-of-the-road camp, mine). There is too much variation here for justifying either assertion that sexuality is entirely biological or socially inculcated. So my hypothesis is that at birth, MOST people are actually biologically bisexual (especially females?). And it is the natural mandate of survival that pushes the vast majority of us into heterosexuality.

If this is true, then there really is some substance to the hetero fear that condoning/encouraging homosexuality will see a marked increase in the percentage of homosexuals....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As far as I recall, the "visceral disgust" I was referring to was an observation of its real existence in all of us:

But "we" don't all have "visceral disgust" for homosexuality. Some of "us" do. Some feel it for all homosexuality. Some have it for certain acts but not others. Some have it for gay men but not lesbians (and possibly v.v.). Some start off feeling it and then get used to (or even enthusuiastic about) the idea. Some of "us" feels it intensely. Some experience only mild distaste. Some see it as a moral insight. Some see it as morally irrelevant. Some see it as a fault. And some of "us" do not feel it at all.

If you are going to assert disgust for homosexuality as a biologically hard-wired fact in 90% of the population, you need some evidence for it, because all my experience (and, from this thread, not just mine) suggests that this isn't so.

I wasn't suggesting that ALL 90 to 99% of the population feel "visceral disgust" for ALL homosexual expressions. But I dare say that MOST heterosexuals are less than interested in exploring the possibilities, for a complex of reasons. You are quite right: nothing is more complex than sexuality! And it changes with the aging person....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I won't campaign for giving the power of the minority to dictate to the majority in matters of choosing the legalese.

And here you miss quite what campaigning is meant to do. It is meant to change which the majority position is. As you tie your defence to the majority, I assume that as soon as the demographic changes swing it so the majority position is in favour of marriage equality and preventing the minority dictating who can't get married, you will then support the majority position and oppose the minority dictating who can and can't get married? Or is this a spurious argument?
I've made clear my reasons for discussing/debating the (un)wisdom of changing the traditional definition of "marriage" to include homosexuality: I can't resist fighting for "lost causes" that I consider right. And I want "marriage" to retain its historic definition by preserving the word in the legalese to be "man and woman". "You" can have your domestic partnership, and even "marriage" can be a domestic partnership; but only "man and woman" can be referred to in the legalese as a "marriage".

quote:

Also, you are ducking the issue of Loving v Virginia and that your logic is claiming that it was a bad decision. Was it?

I said, Loving v. Virginia is asserted by the GLBTQ advocacy to apply to them: when in fact the SC decision and legalese applied ONLY to "marriage" as understood in 1967.

Prop 8 will likely be the SC case that turns the word "marriage" into an unprecedented definition: the traditional meaning will be lost on future generations: which will form a confusing split requiring education in order to clearly see what "marriage" meant in pre-21st century times.

...
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...What you said was For instance, racial prejudice is never going to entirely vanish or even significantly diminish any further as long as sexual attraction is involved: simply because some races are repugnant in appearance, which transforms into a racial rejection. A mature, compassionate person will train himself to behave justly toward all human beings; but that is a learned response demanded by a society that promotes justice for all. Divorce and abortion are not biologically mandated; sexuality is. That's why comparing this "marriage for all" issue to that kind of societal change wrought by changes in the laws is comparing

You said that some races are repugnant in appearance. Phrased as an objective fact. Not that "racism finds" - whoever racism is. Or even that you do. You said they were - and are now trying to spin what you said into something else with an apparent lack of awareness that we can see what you actually said.

I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.

I do appreciate you finding and quoting me in full. That is friendly. The clue to the context I intended is there: "racism finds" is poorly stating an observation that crosses over into every culture and perceived racial difference. And I was specifically talking about racism not ever vanishing as long as racial differences are attached to sexual attraction: because some racial types are "repugnant" sexually: stating that isn't anything but fact: everyone has physical types that they find either utterly unattractive or even repulsive: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", is one of our oldest aphorisms, it is universal: what part of this do you not get? And that's all I meant: racism will never die out as long as differences are perceived through sexuality, which I consider to be and to remain inevitable.
quote:


And for the record, standards of attractiveness have changed massively over time - and racism as we know it didn't even really get rolling until the abolitionist movement got underway and the conservatives were trying to find a justification for slavery.

In the USA, but racism is as old as people have been around. I marvel at your altruistic lens on the past ages of mankind.

quote:
If sexual attraction isn't mandated almost entirely by biology,
quote:
It isn't. There's definitely sociology involved. And personal history. And tastes.


We disagree is all. Imho, biology is the mainspring of sexual feelings. A more melting pot kind of culture is going to possess far more broadly admitted and accepted sexually attractive types, that's all: such a culture will not eradicate sexual prejudices entirely.

quote:
then the heterosexuals who fear that homosexuality will increase if it is condoned are right to fear:
quote:
Oh, it will. People will come out of the closet because they will no longer fear getting beaten up for it.


That's not an increase in incidence; only increased visibility. That's not what heterosexual fear is about and I think you know it: heteros fear that by encouraging homosexual behavior/identification, that a significantly larger proportion of the rising generation will ID as GLBTQ: and the generation following theirs will do likewise, increasing the real presence of homosexuality as society becomes altered by it. If sexuality is partially socially inculcated, it remains unknown to what degree: it could be a lot, and that would completely change everything, including population growth....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
As another poster has noted with regards to Loving Vs. Virginia, marriage is an equal-rights-under-the-law kind of thing, despite "majority rule where preferences are concerned" lining up more at that time with the asinine statement by trial judge Leon Brazile :
quote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Honestly, Merlin, your insufficient appeals to various biological imperatives and the "majority view" remind me a fair bit of this kind of logic: putting forth as self-evident something that may well, on later reflection, be seen as spectacularly fallacious and exceptionally unsound.

ETA that, in reality, I understand and freely admit that good solid people can have different opinions on gay marriage at this stage in the game. What's tweaking me off more on this thread is the OP's general tendency to put forward extremely flawed views of minority populations (be they the "repugnant" other races, the deviant biracial couples, or the wildly non-monogamous non-heterosexuals) as self-evident representations of How Things Really Are.

'Tis a complex subject! One can easily become confused as to intent. I've already cleared up the Loving v. Virginia reference: "marriage is a right" was ONLY about marriage as understood in 1967; there wasn't the slightest trace of "gay marriage" about any of it: Loving v. Virginia was about "man and woman", period. Any SC justice worth his/her salt will toss the GLBTQ cause harnessed to Loving v. Virginia out of court. Context is everything; context is what must be used to establish definition of precedent....
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp

No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If this is true, then there really is some substance to the hetero fear that condoning/encouraging homosexuality will see a marked increase in the percentage of homosexuals....

“Hetero fear”??? Once again, you’re lumping all heterosexual persons with your homophobic bunch. I’m hetero, and I do NOT want to included in these generalizations.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.

Where you actually live, over 95% of the population is white, according to Wikipedia. So that may be why you don’t “come across as a racist.”

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
…because some racial types are "repugnant" sexually: stating that isn't anything but fact

No, it’s an opinion – and a pretty disgusting one.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That's not what heterosexual fear is about and I think you know it: heteros fear that by encouraging homosexual behavior/identification, that a significantly larger proportion of the rising generation will ID as GLBTQ: and the generation following theirs will do likewise, increasing the real presence of homosexuality as society becomes altered by it.

You did it again! This hetero doesn’t fear a larger number of people identifying as GLBTQ. Would you please stop lumping all heterosexual people in with the homophobes! Why would we care how many people identify as gay? I’d much rather have my gay friends (and other gays, for that matter) be able to be open and honest about who they are than face all sorts of discrimination by coming out.

If you want to be racist and homophobic that’s up to you, but I seriously doubt that a majority of heterosexuals share your prejudices.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Pigwidgeon:

[Overused]

and

[Overused]

and

[Overused]

and

[Overused]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Why would we care how many people identify as gay? I’d much rather have my gay friends (and other gays, for that matter) be able to be open and honest about who they are than face all sorts of discrimination by coming out.

If you want to be racist and homophobic that’s up to you, but I seriously doubt that a majority of heterosexuals share your prejudices.

Amen - very well said Pigwidgeon.


I don't know ANY heterosexuals who share such racism or homophobia - PTL X100000000000.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp

No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
OKAY. But did you ever meet a homosexual who was a homophobe? Eh??

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If this is true, then there really is some substance to the hetero fear that condoning/encouraging homosexuality will see a marked increase in the percentage of homosexuals....
quote:
“Hetero fear”??? Once again, you’re lumping all heterosexual persons with your homophobic bunch. I’m hetero, and I do NOT want to included in these generalizations.


Ditto my first response: you've really got to develop some capacity for reading nuance into the context of what people say.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.
quote:
Where you actually live, over 95% of the population is white, according to Wikipedia. So that may be why you don’t “come across as a racist.”


Malarky! HALF of the population where I live (west side of Salt Lake valley) is Hispanic: of the rest a portion are S. Pacific islander and Black and Asian. I am actually a minority now; not being part of the dominant demographic group. I've watched this shift happen in my 31+ years living in the same house: and trust me: IF I was going to be racist, it would be directed toward Mexicans.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
…because some racial types are "repugnant" sexually: stating that isn't anything but fact
quote:
No, it’s an opinion – and a pretty disgusting one.


I'm not talking about YOU. I'm talking about the human race, worldwide, and "there" racism is a fact of life from the beginning. If you deny it that's your problem; living in the world and not understanding or admitting its characteristics has to be pretty hard.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That's not what heterosexual fear is about and I think you know it: heteros fear that by encouraging homosexual behavior/identification, that a significantly larger proportion of the rising generation will ID as GLBTQ: and the generation following theirs will do likewise, increasing the real presence of homosexuality as society becomes altered by it.
quote:
You did it again! This hetero doesn’t fear a larger number of people identifying as GLBTQ.


At this point that doesn't surprise me at all. Again, I am not talking about YOU, but rather a huge segment of heterosexuals that you claim to not agree with.

quote:
Would you please stop lumping all heterosexual people in with the homophobes!

I didn't: you asserted that is what I meant.

quote:
Why would we care how many people identify as gay?

Who's this "we"? Are you now asserting that ALL heterosexuals have no fear of GLBTQs "inheriting the earth"? Are you talking to the only hetero homophobe on the planet? (me, as far as you're concerned)

quote:
I’d much rather have my gay friends (and other gays, for that matter) be able to be open and honest about who they are than face all sorts of discrimination by coming out.

That's happening. It will be a fully realized change within a few more years, or I am much mistaken.
quote:

If you want to be racist and homophobic that’s up to you, but I seriously doubt that a majority of heterosexuals share your prejudices.

I never asserted a percentage of heterosexuals as homophobic or racist; I never asserted that homosexuals are NOT heterophobic (I haven't even used the term till this moment) or NOT racist. You will find communication much easier if you don't leap to these conclusions....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Why would we care how many people identify as gay? I’d much rather have my gay friends (and other gays, for that matter) be able to be open and honest about who they are than face all sorts of discrimination by coming out.

If you want to be racist and homophobic that’s up to you, but I seriously doubt that a majority of heterosexuals share your prejudices.

Amen - very well said Pigwidgeon.


I don't know ANY heterosexuals who share such racism or homophobia - PTL X100000000000.

Then mingle with a more diverse portion of your "fellowman". That will solve your myopia and hubris!...
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp

No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
OKAY. But did you ever meet a homosexual who was a homophobe? Eh??
I don't presume to answer for Pigwidgeon, but in my own personal experience, I have met at least two homophobic homosexual people (out of I-don't actually-recall-how-many homosexual people I've known).

Hating oneself for some slaient aspect of one's own identity is a well-known and particularly damaging side-effect of prejudice and discrimination.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.

If that is true then you must be a good actor. Much of what you post here is explicitly, objectively, and quite nastily racist, and I think you know it. So if it doesn't show at home you must be putting on an act either here or their.

"Repugnant" did it for me. Either you aren't telling the truth or you are in fact something of a bigot. Either way I guess this thread can;t contain the discussion.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp

No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
OKAY. But did you ever meet a homosexual who was a homophobe? Eh??
I don't presume to answer for Pigwidgeon, but in my own personal experience, I have met at least two homophobic homosexual people (out of I-don't actually-recall-how-many homosexual people I've known).

Hating oneself for some slaient aspect of one's own identity is a well-known and particularly damaging side-effect of prejudice and discrimination.

Meet my friend Peter. He spent years angrily denouncing gay people before finally coming to terms, in his 50s, with the fact that he was one of them. Something he'd known all along.

Peter is hardly unique.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.

If that is true then you must be a good actor. Much of what you post here is explicitly, objectively, and quite nastily racist, and I think you know it. So if it doesn't show at home you must be putting on an act either here or their.
One could also consistently come across as not-racist simply by only being in the company of people more racist than oneself.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp

No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
OKAY. But did you ever meet a homosexual who was a homophobe? Eh??
I don't presume to answer for Pigwidgeon, but in my own personal experience, I have met at least two homophobic homosexual people (out of I-don't actually-recall-how-many homosexual people I've known).

Hating oneself for some slaient aspect of one's own identity is a well-known and particularly damaging side-effect of prejudice and discrimination.

Meet my friend Peter. He spent years angrily denouncing gay people before finally coming to terms, in his 50s, with the fact that he was one of them. Something he'd known all along.

Peter is hardly unique.

This is quite common actually (and sadly.)
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp

No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
OKAY. But did you ever meet a homosexual who was a homophobe? Eh??
I don't presume to answer for Pigwidgeon, but in my own personal experience, I have met at least two homophobic homosexual people (out of I-don't actually-recall-how-many homosexual people I've known).

Hating oneself for some slaient aspect of one's own identity is a well-known and particularly damaging side-effect of prejudice and discrimination.

And you win! If pointing out that mentally and emotionally ill people are among us, then you win. The topic, I thought, was pointing out the existence in mainstream humanity of commonly held prejudices. Personally I have not experienced a homosexual who is also homophobic; and even if I did know a GLBTQ who hated him/herself, I wouldn't leap to the assertion that s/he is homophobic. I have known quite a number of (I assume) heterosexuals who hate themselves sexually, or apparently do. These I would assume to have some latent problem with SEX per se; and I would not assert that their self-hate is because they are somehow heterophobic!...
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.

If that is true then you must be a good actor. Much of what you post here is explicitly, objectively, and quite nastily racist, and I think you know it. So if it doesn't show at home you must be putting on an act either here or their.

"Repugnant" did it for me. Either you aren't telling the truth or you are in fact something of a bigot. Either way I guess this thread can;t contain the discussion.

"Repugnant! Repugnant!! REPUGNANT!!! Don't be silly. I was specifically referring to the factual observation that people who are racists do NOT find the object of their bigotry/prejudice sexually attractive because instead they find them repugnant sexually. I never knew a racist who wanted to have sex with the race that they hate. All you can do is pick on little ol' me, instead of addressing this fact in our midst. I further elucidated, in the face of "your" failure to read what I said in context, that I find women in virtually all races sexually appealing: that I judge (or rather my body does) each woman I see on an individual basis: and when I find myself sexually attracted to an individual it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with race. This shared fact about myself I offered as evidence that I am not in any way a racist. But by now "you" will simply accuse me of protesting too much. To which I will reply now: "Fine. Have it your way. I don't live anywhere near you and don't have to care what you think about me"....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meet my friend Peter. He spent years angrily denouncing gay people before finally coming to terms, in his 50s, with the fact that he was one of them. Something he'd known all along.

Peter is hardly unique.

And Peter is not a homophobic homosexual. He's a homosexual who for years was living a lie, but finally came to terms with his own sexuality. To be a homophobic homosexual the person in question would have to admit they are in fact homosexual, and at the same time blatantly feel irrational hatred for homosexuals. Sound like anybody you know?...
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One could also consistently come across as not-racist simply by only being in the company of people more racist than oneself.

Then the community I live in must be composed of even better actors than myself....
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.

If that is true then you must be a good actor. Much of what you post here is explicitly, objectively, and quite nastily racist, and I think you know it. So if it doesn't show at home you must be putting on an act either here or their.

"Repugnant" did it for me. Either you aren't telling the truth or you are in fact something of a bigot. Either way I guess this thread can;t contain the discussion.

"Repugnant! Repugnant!! REPUGNANT!!! Don't be silly. I was specifically referring to the factual observation that people who are racists do NOT find the object of their bigotry/prejudice sexually attractive because instead they find them repugnant sexually. I never knew a racist who wanted to have sex with the race that they hate. All you can do is pick on little ol' me, instead of addressing this fact in our midst. I further elucidated, in the face of "your" failure to read what I said in context, that I find women in virtually all races sexually appealing: that I judge (or rather my body does) each woman I see on an individual basis: and when I find myself sexually attracted to an individual it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with race. This shared fact about myself I offered as evidence that I am not in any way a racist. But by now "you" will simply accuse me of protesting too much. To which I will reply now: "Fine. Have it your way. I don't live anywhere near you and don't have to care what you think about me"....
Um, slave-owners are well-documented as producing mixed-race children; slaves on the way from Africa are well-documented as having been raped by the ship crews - oh well, you might say, there was nothing better available - but if they were truly repugnant, say as appealing as a Brussel Sprout (pace all vegephiles out there), then they would not even have contemplated such a thing!

Clue: not everyone sees everyone else thru the lens of sexuality derrrrr - that your dick rules your brain is your issue.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
There are huge populations of mixed race people in historically highly racist societies: apartheid South Africa, German South West Africa (Namibia today), colonial Angola, Moçambique, Rhodesia, Kenya, Algeria and with the Mestizo (mixed Native-Spanish) populations of Latin America. Racists may find people inferior but not physically repugnant.

[ 12. November 2010, 18:37: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meet my friend Peter. He spent years angrily denouncing gay people before finally coming to terms, in his 50s, with the fact that he was one of them. Something he'd known all along.

Peter is hardly unique.

And Peter is not a homophobic homosexual. He's a homosexual who for years was living a lie, but finally came to terms with his own sexuality. To be a homophobic homosexual the person in question would have to admit they are in fact homosexual, and at the same time blatantly feel irrational hatred for homosexuals. Sound like anybody you know?...
Yeah. Peter during the years that he knew perfectly well he was homosexual.

The first person you admit your homosexuality to is yourself. I fail to see why it requires a worldwide audience to pass that test.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively. We can refer to this "repugnance" as essentially biological: it cannot be unlearned (if it could, then the GLBTQ assertion that they cannot change something they were born with would be shot down): at best, a victim of this biologically mandated perspective can recognize it for the bigotry-producing feeling that it is, and not give it expression. The same holds true for the racist bigot: his/her "repugnance" for the other race is irrational because it is connected to a complex of mandated feelings: biological attraction/repugnance and socially inculcated mores. It may take a lifetime to overcome these feelings enough to not give them expression. And many (most?) never get over their bigotry (e.g. famously Mel Gibson and even more so his father)....
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively.

All aren't. Some aren't repelled but just not turned on. Some may find it worth exploring. Human sexual preference is not binary. But "repelled" and "repugnance" are simply too strong, and don't apply at all (as has been demonstrated) in the realm of race. It's not that we're far afield, it's that you are just dead wrong.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively. We can refer to this "repugnance" as essentially biological: it cannot be unlearned (if it could, then the GLBTQ assertion that they cannot change something they were born with would be shot down): at best, a victim of this biologically mandated perspective can recognize it for the bigotry-producing feeling that it is, and not give it expression. The same holds true for the racist bigot: his/her "repugnance" for the other race is irrational because it is connected to a complex of mandated feelings: biological attraction/repugnance and socially inculcated mores. It may take a lifetime to overcome these feelings enough to not give them expression. And many (most?) never get over their bigotry (e.g. famously Mel Gibson and even more so his father)....

See, this is where you can only speak for yourself, Merlin (and it speaks volumes). My sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business but I shall just say that I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all. For one thing, what we do with our squishy bits may be viewed as equally wonderful/icky/ludicrous no matter who is doing what with which to whom - I kinda find it more useful in life to consider people as rather more than Genitals on Legs.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively.

All aren't. Some aren't repelled but just not turned on. Some may find it worth exploring. Human sexual preference is not binary. But "repelled" and "repugnance" are simply too strong, and don't apply at all (as has been demonstrated) in the realm of race. It's not that we're far afield, it's that you are just dead wrong.
Precisely. Some gay men I know are quite 'ewww' at the thought of sex with women. Some are merely disinterested.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
Beyond the uselessness of the notion of using yourself as a norm by which to measure the rest of Homo Sapiens, Merlin, there's the idea, hinted at in your post just above, that whenever somebody disagrees with you, that person has simply misunderstood your words.

In a text-based medium, the issuer of the words bears responsibility for making him- or herself clear. This thread's on page 10, with the bulk of the posts coming from you, scrabbling over your own words in an effort to make unacceptable assertions more palatable to people who buy neither the assertions nor your efforts to make "unacceptable" look "presentable."

A person who's not racist doesn't write racist BS. If s/he does write racist BS, s/he's either very stupid about handling language, or s/he's racist (possibly without realizing it).

A person who's not homophobic doesn't write homophobic BS. If s/he does write homophobic BS, s/he's either very stupid about handling language, or s/he's homophobic (possibly without realizing it).
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I understand your words perfectly Merlin - what I don't understand is how you can begin to hold such racist and homophobic views.

I have noticed that there is not one person on this (long) thread who even begins to agree with you. Does this not say something to you?

<typo>

[ 14. November 2010, 13:59: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively.

All aren't. Some aren't repelled but just not turned on. Some may find it worth exploring. Human sexual preference is not binary. But "repelled" and "repugnance" are simply too strong, and don't apply at all (as has been demonstrated) in the realm of race. It's not that we're far afield, it's that you are just dead wrong.
Where and when did I ever say "ALL"? If I am discussing a feature of bigotry, be it sexuality- or race-focused, that is the only portion of the demographic that I am focused on: that's why I said we seem to have lost focus in this discussion. Back there, several of "you" leaped on the words; made the assertion that I am talking about "ALL" homosexuals or heterosexuals, when clearly - if "you" are reading without bigotry yourselves - this erroneous leap of logic is a distortion of my position: and furthermore includes assertions that I am the kind of person that I am talking about!...
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively.

All aren't. Some aren't repelled but just not turned on. Some may find it worth exploring. Human sexual preference is not binary. But "repelled" and "repugnance" are simply too strong, and don't apply at all (as has been demonstrated) in the realm of race. It's not that we're far afield, it's that you are just dead wrong.
Where and when did I ever say "ALL"? If I am discussing a feature of bigotry, be it sexuality- or race-focused, that is the only portion of the demographic that I am focused on: that's why I said we seem to have lost focus in this discussion.
Who is "we?" As I read this thread, the discussion seems to have become more and quite intensely focused. Do you perhaps mean to say "the discussion has headed in a direction I don't care for?"

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back there, several of "you" leaped on the words; made the assertion that I am talking about "ALL" homosexuals or heterosexuals, when clearly - if "you" are reading without bigotry yourselves - this erroneous leap of logic is a distortion of my position: and furthermore includes assertions that I am the kind of person that I am talking about!...

Then perhaps you need to use more care in phrasing your assertions. When you MEAN "some" of a group, you might consider WRITING "some members of group X . . . " instead of writing "Group X does Y" or "Group M feels Q."

In normal discourse, at least in my experience, writing and/or saying "Group X is like Z" generally implies that the writer or speaker intends the generalization to apply to all members of that group, which is precisely the mechanism which renders such statements racist or homophobic or sexist or whatever "-ist" applies to the situation. Hence, "White men can't jump" is a racist and/or sexist generalization most people understand to apply (according to the speaker or writer) to ALL white men, not merely to "some" of them. If someone means to say "Some white men can't jump," it's necessary to (A) think "some" and (B) say or write "some" to make that meaning clear.

In a text-based medium, it's necessary to make one's thought processes (as well as one's thoughts) explicit rather than expecting readers to intuit the writer's meaning. The assumption I suspect many readers make is that the writer, who is choosing the words after all, carefully selects those words which most precisely express his/her meaning. Omitting or including qualifiers like "some" or "many" or "most" in a generalization is one of the choices writers are faced with. The inclusion of qualifiers carries one meaning; the omission carries the opposite meaning, as we see in this thread.

It seems to me that you are trying to hold readers responsible for the results of your own word choices. We didn't choose your words, though; you did.

[ 14. November 2010, 15:54: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
... My sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business but I shall just say that I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all. For one thing, what we do with our squishy bits may be viewed as equally wonderful/icky/ludicrous no matter who is doing what with which to whom - I kinda find it more useful in life to consider people as rather more than Genitals on Legs.

I have not discussed my sexuality at all in any degree. I pointed this out several/many posts back.

Several of "you" seem incapable of seeing this difference: as here: you claim that your "sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business"; and then provide intimate details about your own sexuality that I never solicited or encouraged.

Merlin and Jahlove have nothing to do with the topic(s) at hand. Jahlove does not show anything about society at large by talking about his/her personal sexuality. By comparison, I have not used myself to illustrate demographics of thought and feelings within the homosexual and heterosexual communities: I do not assert that ALL heterosexuals are as myself: but "you" do assert that this is what I do The discussion ought to remain general; about populations and demographics within populations. I speak to this: and "you" leap to the conclusion that I can only really, genuinely talk about myself, my attitudes and prejudices.

If this is a limitation imposed upon everyone, then shouldn't we be able to get a character study from every scholar who has written about controversial subjects, such as the Holocaust? Or partial-birth (late) abortions? Or about racial prejudice as an ill in our society? Or the hypothetical threat presented to the stability of society by encouraging more homosexuality?

If someone writes in an effort to understand "the other side" of an issue: using this logic, applied by "you" to myself here, demands that each person making said-effort at understanding is in fact incapable of it, because s/he must be the very type of bigot that they are trying to get into the heads of.

I hope that you can see, from this dichotomy in logic that I have pointed out, that your assertions are far afield about my prejudices on other races and homosexuality: simply because you lack knowledge of such - I have not talked about myself, ergo I have not provided any of "you" with information sufficient for "you" to judge me.

Notice, if you will be so kind, that, iirc, I have not once judged any of you good people individually: I certainly never intend to do so, and if I have slipped up, I apologize. If you are taking offense at words I have used, then perhaps this exposes some bigotry and prejudice on your part instead.

Back to the topic:

AGAIN: "racism" is in the mind of the beholder; homo sapiens is ONE species; there is no such thing as "race" at all.

The same cannot be said for sexual preferences: there are distinct differences; and the largest of these is the separation into hardwired homosexual and heterosexual.

When you share your lack of "repugnance" for any entertained sexual encounter, you are only indicating that likely as not you are biologically and socially a bisexual. If you paid attention: up there in this thread, I asserted that in my hypothesis, AT BIRTH, MOST people are biologically bisexual: and social mores are inculcated through upbringing, which tends to discourage homosexuality, making heterosexuality massively dominant....
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Sexuality and attraction are far more complicated than you seem to understand, Merlin.

For example, in my little corner of the fandom community, I know committed lesbians who enjoy and get off on reading/writing stories of male/male sexual encounters. Figure that one out.

That's ignoring the far more common phenomena of straight women who enjoy it. In fandom terms it's called "slash" and it's immensely popular.

There's also the category of femslash, depictions of female/female sex, not quite as popular among straight women, but not non-existent either.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Beyond the uselessness of the notion of using yourself as a norm by which to measure the rest of Homo Sapiens, Merlin, there's the idea, hinted at in your post just above, that whenever somebody disagrees with you, that person has simply misunderstood your words.

Seems so. And as my most recent posts repeat: I am not talking about ME. We are (or ought to be, I am) discussing demographic tendencies, not individuals.
quote:

In a text-based medium, the issuer of the words bears responsibility for making him- or herself clear. This thread's on page 10, with the bulk of the posts coming from you, scrabbling over your own words in an effort to make unacceptable assertions more palatable to people who buy neither the assertions nor your efforts to make "unacceptable" look "presentable."

The problem is that I remain interested in attempting to create understanding, where that quality seems to be lacking in the readers here.

Last I checked, "repugnant", "repelled", "visceral", were all perfectly sound words. It's like my daughter's friend: "Moist" is a word she hates, it makes her queasy. "You" have reacted to words I have employed to describe commonly held feelings and emotions among the more entrenched or possibly even bigoted segments of society.
quote:

A person who's not racist doesn't write racist BS. If s/he does write racist BS, s/he's either very stupid about handling language, or s/he's racist (possibly without realizing it).

Or he is speaking to observed historical trends and currently held opinions of millions of people.
quote:

A person who's not homophobic doesn't write homophobic BS. If s/he does write homophobic BS, s/he's either very stupid about handling language, or s/he's homophobic (possibly without realizing it).

Look again: where have I said anything about my sexuality or opinion on race? Oh, I just repeated myself: look at the post just about this one. "Racism" is made up by racists. In reality, there is no such thing as race. But there is such a thing as homosexuality and heterosexuality: that's the difference.

Seeing the confusion that my illustrating with racism has caused, I would go back and never bring it up. You can't handle the topic, at, all, it seems.

I wonder if "you" can handle discussing the subject of heterosexual feelings versus GLBTQ agenda....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
...Then perhaps you need to use more care in phrasing your assertions. When you MEAN "some" of a group, you might consider WRITING "some members of group X . . . " instead of writing "Group X does Y" or "Group M feels Q."

Point taken. In my mind the context made such distinction redundant. Obviously, judging by the reactions up to this moment, I was mistaken.

quote:

...

In a text-based medium, it's necessary to make one's thought processes (as well as one's thoughts) explicit rather than expecting readers to intuit the writer's meaning. The assumption I suspect many readers make is that the writer, who is choosing the words after all, carefully selects those words which most precisely express his/her meaning. Omitting or including qualifiers like "some" or "many" or "most" in a generalization is one of the choices writers are faced with. The inclusion of qualifiers carries one meaning; the omission carries the opposite meaning, as we see in this thread.

Again, I had assumed from the discourse already, that my position was clear: I was talking about the prejudiced/bigoted parts of both groups; not ALL people who belong to those groups. And again, I was mistaken: my position was not clear: several/many here were reading my posts assuming that they were in the "presence" of a bigot: that of course colored everything that I said. The fault is not mine in this regard. I doubt that even using qualifier words would make much if any difference to many readers who are already defensive about the subject.
quote:

It seems to me that you are trying to hold readers responsible for the results of your own word choices. We didn't choose your words, though; you did.

Context. It is everything. Of course, you have to read dispassionately enough to see context in the first place.

I appreciate your comments on my writing style. Helpful observations are always welcome....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Sexuality and attraction are far more complicated than you seem to understand, Merlin.

For example, in my little corner of the fandom community, I know committed lesbians who enjoy and get off on reading/writing stories of male/male sexual encounters. Figure that one out. ...

Seems perfectly understandable to me: sex, ALL of it, is a fascinating subject. I am a pacifist, in fact, I might run for office as our king. [Razz] Yet I write about violence, war, death; and I find the study of weapons and armor fascinating.

Everything has a name in fandom. Lacking awareness of such does not make a non fan some kind of noob to a subject.

I do not find sexually explicit material rewarding because it is addicting. Why mess with the parts "God" gave you? Do you think that you can improve on the design or something? Addiction to crutches is always regrettable....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I understand your words perfectly Merlin - what I don't understand is how you can begin to hold such racist and homophobic views.

I have noticed that there is not one person on this (long) thread who even begins to agree with you. Does this not say something to you?

Your first sentence proves that you in fact do NOT understand my words, much less "perfectly".

As for the rest of "you", look at my responses above to other posts. I need not repeat here....
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
... My sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business but I shall just say that I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all. For one thing, what we do with our squishy bits may be viewed as equally wonderful/icky/ludicrous no matter who is doing what with which to whom - I kinda find it more useful in life to consider people as rather more than Genitals on Legs.

I have not discussed my sexuality at all in any degree. I pointed this out several/many posts back.

Several of "you" seem incapable of seeing this difference: as here: you claim that your "sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business"; and then provide intimate details about your own sexuality that I never solicited or encouraged.

*Sigh*

Perhaps language in general is the problem, here.

I won't claim to speak for Jahlove, but could you, Merlin, please list, from Jahlove's post, which you quoted above, what "intimate details" were revealed about Jahlove's sexuality? I can't even guess how you've construed the post. Here is the sum total of what I read there: Jahlove is not repelled by contemplation of other people's sexual activities, in part because Jahlove rarely engages in such contemplation. Frankly, on the basis of those two details (which do not strike me as especially intimate, but YMMV), I can tell almost nothing about Jahlove's sexuality.

Is it possible that you are reading details into Jahlove's post that are not in fact there?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Merlin and Jahlove have nothing to do with the topic(s) at hand. Jahlove does not show anything about society at large by talking about his/her personal sexuality.

Again, I can't see where Jahlove has written about his/her personal sexuality. However, I think it's safe to assume that Jahlove is a member of society, as are you, and in saying s/he doesn't give sexuality much weight in thinking about other people, s/he differs from those who do: that is, s/he demonstrates there are differences in society in how, and on what basis, different members of society react to one another.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
By comparison, I have not used myself to illustrate demographics of thought and feelings within the homosexual and heterosexual communities: I do not assert that ALL heterosexuals are . . . <<snip>> .

But in fact you do, each and every time you make a generalized statement such as "Heterosexuals do this" or "Heterosexuals feel thus-and-such." It's possible you do not INTEND to say "all," or MEAN "all," but in common parlance among users of standard English, that is what such a statement means to most users. If you mean only part of a group when referring to it, it's up to you to make that clear, e.g., "Many" or "some" heterosexuals react so-and-so . . . "


quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
. . . as myself: but "you" do assert that this is what I do The discussion ought to remain general; about populations and demographics within populations. I speak to this: and "you" leap to the conclusion that I can only really, genuinely talk about myself, my attitudes and prejudices.

It's possible that I've missed part of the discussion on the thread. However, I don't recall anyone claiming that you can only talk about yourself. Could you help us out a bit by pasting a quote from one or more specific individuals who've claimed you can only speak about your own experience?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If someone writes in an effort to understand "the other side" of an issue:

By "someone" in the sentence above, are you referring to yourself? I ask because I must say that the title of this thread -- "GLBT is a facade" doesn't come across, at least to this reader, as "an effort to understand 'the other side' of an issue." It comes across to me as a fairly hostile assertion about people who would self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered -- that in your view people in these categories are engaged in some kind of pretense.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
. . . using this logic, applied by "you" to myself here, demands that each person making said-effort at understanding is in fact incapable of it, because s/he must be the very type of bigot that they are trying to get into the heads of.

If other posters on this thread were claiming you had written things you have not written, I'd agree. What people are taking issue with is what you HAVE written, e.g., "other races are repugnant." People are quoting what you wrote and arguing against what you wrote. You are claiming either that you didn't write such things, or that people aren't interpreting your posts correctly.

The only person on this thread capable of accurately articulating your ideas is you. If you are being consistently misinterpreted, then it might behoove you to read your own posts more carefully, and to be more specific and precise in how you word your thoughts.

If, on the other hand, you've accurately expressed yourself, then you might want to take Boogie's advice, offered above.

And that's all I have time for at the moment.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
. . . Context. It is everything. Of course, you have to read dispassionately enough to see context in the first place.

I appreciate your comments on my writing style. Helpful observations are always welcome....

Then here's more:

I agree that context is important. In text-based media, writers create that context through the words they select. "The context" in your mind, or mine, or anyone else's, is irrelevant; in a text-based medium, the only context we can mutually observe, create, participate in, or respond to, is the one that appears, in writers' chosen words, on the screen. Thus there's an enormous difference between . . .

"GLBT is a facade" and

"It seems to me that many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are using the "marriage" fight to push society in a more sexually-permissive direction."

Language, being something of a blunt instrument, has to be used with thought and care. Blanket statements like "Group X is Z" do not come across as dispassionate; they come across as generalizations. In our individualistically-oriented society, many people dislike being lumped into a large group this way. Why? Because any given generalization, when applied to an indivivdual, may be false.

If I am male, and consider myself sensitive, I am not going to respond well to being told, "Men are emotional idiots."

If I am a law-abiding Italian-American, I won't react well to being told that "Italians are tied to the Mob."

Negative generalizations (like race producing repugnance) won't be read dispassionately because of the negativity they contain. "Repugnance," while a perfectly legitimate word, has negative vibes; it means something negative. Do you know anybody who'd like being described as "repugnant?" Is there any group ever brought up during this thread each and every one of whose members could fairly and accurately be described as "repugnant?" Of course not. But that's how your statements are being read, because of how they're worded. And they're worded that way by you.

Positive generalizations (though equally inaccurate) may slide by, simply because they're positive.

2. Generalizations -- because they are often inaccurate when applied to individuals -- tend to generate heat, not light; argument, not dispassion.

If you want people to listen instead of arguing, stop generalizing. For example, consider dropping the "you" business. We are not all saying the same thing; we are not all reacting to the same issues. Respond to us as the individuals we are.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
In normal discourse, at least in my experience, writing and/or saying "Group X is like Z" generally implies that the writer or speaker intends the generalization to apply to all members of that group

That is, indeed, how the English language works. If I say, "Women are bad drivers," that is equivalent to saying, "All women are bad drivers." The "all" is automatically implied. That's the way it works in English.

You** can't say "Women are idiots" and then come back later and claim you weren't speaking about ALL women, just SOME women. You were, in fact, speaking about ALL women. You might not have MEANT to speak about all women, but when you say "Women are X" you are, in fact, given the way the English language works in the year AD 2010, speaking about ALL women. Truly. Honest. Look it up.

quote:
...which is precisely the mechanism which renders such statements racist or homophobic or sexist or whatever "-ist" applies to the situation.
Yup.

FOOTNOTE
--------
**generic "you" -- not referring to Apocalpso, who clearly gets it

[ 15. November 2010, 06:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Repugnant! Repugnant!! REPUGNANT!!! Don't be silly. I was specifically referring to the factual observation that people who are racists do NOT find the object of their bigotry/prejudice sexually attractive because instead they find them repugnant sexually.

That might have been what you intended to say. But it's not what you said. What you actually said was that people are repugnant sexually. Which is a world of difference. It's the difference between saying that Mormons are lunatics obsessed with sacred underwear and that some people think that Mormons are lunatics obsessed with sacred underwear.

You didn't say what you meant. And are blowing up because people are responding to what you actually said rather than what you intended to say.

quote:
I never knew a racist who wanted to have sex with the race that they hate.
If this was actually the case then inter-racial porn wouldn't be a significant category in its own right rather than simply something that happens. (That you have never met one who admitted it is something I can believe).

quote:
I further elucidated, in the face of "your" failure to read what I said in context,
You did not put it in context in your comment. And have at no point had the courtesy to acknowledge that it was your end where the communication was fucked up. Instead you are just winging and saying that we didn't read a context that wasn't actually in the comment that is being objected to.

Saying you mis-spoke is nothing to be ashamed of. I've said things I didn't mean on a regular basis. And when I've realised this I've normally apologised and tried to correct the misunderstanding. Doubling down and calling us big poopy-heads because we didn't telepathically intuit a context you never actually put in your comment is a violation of the first rule of holes - if you're at the bottom of one, stop digging.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
... My sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business but I shall just say that I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all. For one thing, what we do with our squishy bits may be viewed as equally wonderful/icky/ludicrous no matter who is doing what with which to whom - I kinda find it more useful in life to consider people as rather more than Genitals on Legs.

I have not discussed my sexuality at all in any degree. I pointed this out several/many posts back.

Several of "you" seem incapable of seeing this difference: as here: you claim that your "sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business"; and then provide intimate details about your own sexuality that I never solicited or encouraged.

*Sigh*

Perhaps language in general is the problem, here.

I won't claim to speak for Jahlove, but could you, Merlin, please list, from Jahlove's post, which you quoted above, what "intimate details" were revealed about Jahlove's sexuality? I can't even guess how you've construed the post. Here is the sum total of what I read there: Jahlove is not repelled by contemplation of other people's sexual activities, in part because Jahlove rarely engages in such contemplation. Frankly, on the basis of those two details (which do not strike me as especially intimate, but YMMV), I can tell almost nothing about Jahlove's sexuality.

Is it possible that you are reading details into Jahlove's post that are not in fact there?

Nope. I personally consider, - "I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all" - to be an intimate detail of Jahlove's sexuality. I didn't say that it was more than "almost nothing": it is a singular detail addressing attitude toward sexual activity in others. Of course, "YMMV" applies here: I would not offer even that much about my "contemplation" of sexuality in others, without first considering carefully whether or not I ought to, or even why I would want to, in the first place.

quote:
...
there are differences in society in how, and on what basis, different members of society react to one another.

I never said there are not differences. The topic was on prejudice/bigotry being the problem; that's why I (foolishly) illustrated the reality of heterosexual prejudice with an appeal to racism: something I thought ALL could agree on as irredeemably entrenched in all societies. Turns out I was mistaken on several aspects about that one: not about the reality of racism, but the ability of some people to discuss it rationally. Seems also that discussing heterosexual AND homosexual prejudice is equally fraught with irrationality.

quote:
...
It's possible you do not INTEND to say "all," or MEAN "all," but in common parlance among users of standard English, that is what such a statement means to most users. If you mean only part of a group when referring to it, it's up to you to make that clear, e.g., "Many" or "some" heterosexuals react so-and-so . . . "

Yes, I've already agreed that my assumption that my meaning was clear was mistaken: I was talking about a specific section of heterosexuals and homosexuals, i.e. the "hardwired" section who view each other as "icky": the ones who are biologically incapable of contemplating such sexual union without "repugnance". As the context made this obvious, it didn't occur to me until too late that the context was only clear in my own mind.


quote:

It's possible that I've missed part of the discussion on the thread. However, I don't recall anyone claiming that you can only talk about yourself. Could you help us out a bit by pasting a quote from one or more specific individuals who've claimed you can only speak about your own experience?

I claim that the reaction to my contextual addressing of homosexuality and racism as inevitable elements in society is proof that I can't talk about (observe) these obvious factual demographics without my being labelled by some (in this case most) people as part and parcel the same thing of which I speak: in other words, the reaction shows that in their view, I am merely describing myself when I observe bigotry or prejudice or outraged feelings (of "repugnance" even).

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If someone writes in an effort to understand "the other side" of an issue:
quote:
By "someone" in the sentence above, are you referring to yourself? I ask because I must say that the title of this thread -- "GLBT is a facade" doesn't come across, at least to this reader, as "an effort to understand 'the other side' of an issue."


I admitted way back there, that the title was deliberately provacative. The question: "Is the GLBT(Q) advocacy actually pushing for special, protected minority status?" was put forward by me as part of the followup to the thread title. So of course, it is my effort to understand the thinking of others, especially "members" of the GLBTQ community.

I have further asserted that, just as a segment of the heterosexual demographic are prejudiced toward homosexuals, that the "hardwired" homosexuals must therefore contain a segment that is prejudiced toward the heterosexual majority: I consider that the blatant attack on the historic meaning of the word "marriage" is evidence of this entrenched prejudice: to the degree that said-segment of the GLBTQ advocacy will even fight for the power to overturn the majority feeling about retaining "marriage" to mean "man and woman".

That is the facade: "fairness under the law" actually means: "It is fair for US to dictate to the majority what marriage is going to mean in the legalese from now on".

quote:
It comes across to me as a fairly hostile assertion about people who would self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered -- that in your view people in these categories are engaged in some kind of pretense.

If they are in fact after special protected minority status; and in fact will not settle for less than "marriage" meaning homoseuxal unions in the legalese: then yes, their overt claims to fairness are a pretense.

quote:
...
What people are taking issue with is what you HAVE written, e.g., "other races are repugnant." People are quoting what you wrote and arguing against what you wrote. You are claiming either that you didn't write such things, or that people aren't interpreting your posts correctly.

I never calimed that I didn't write the words quoted: only that the context is missed or lost in the quoting.
quote:

The only person on this thread capable of accurately articulating your ideas is you. If you are being consistently misinterpreted, then it might behoove you to read your own posts more carefully, and to be more specific and precise in how you word your thoughts.

Too true! This latest exchange has been very instructive for me. Thanks for the time you've given to helping me understand the problem....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
...there's an enormous difference between . . .

"GLBT is a facade" and

"It seems to me that many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are using the "marriage" fight to push society in a more sexually-permissive direction."

Yes there is. If I had thought it through a tad longer, I would have given the title this way: Is GLBT a facade? A question instead of a blatant statement of fact.
quote:

Language, being something of a blunt instrument, has to be used with thought and care.

And what do I do all too often? Take the blunt instrument and make it blunter!

quote:
Blanket statements like "Group X is Z" do not come across as dispassionate; they come across as generalizations. In our individualistically-oriented society, many people dislike being lumped into a large group this way. Why? Because any given generalization, when applied to an indivivdual, may be false.

Inevitably WILL be false to the individual who sees him/herself as the exception. There are many of "us" on The Ship.

quote:
... Do you know anybody who'd like being described as "repugnant?" Is there any group ever brought up during this thread each and every one of whose members could fairly and accurately be described as "repugnant?" Of course not. But that's how your statements are being read, because of how they're worded. And they're worded that way by you.

I appeal to context again. But as you fairly point out: dispassionate reading of my verbiage was already NOT on offer when I used the words that have burned. So I ought to have been a ton more careful than I have been. Some of my posts were made when I was either tired or rushed: never effective ingredients in composing the written word!

quote:
If you want people to listen instead of arguing, stop generalizing. For example, consider dropping the "you" business. We are not all saying the same thing; we are not all reacting to the same issues. Respond to us as the individuals we are.

I vow to endeavor to persevere to remember all that you have said from this point on.

And thanks again....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...

You didn't say what you meant. And are blowing up because people are responding to what you actually said rather than what you intended to say.

I'm calm now. Lookee up there.

quote:
...
And [you] have at no point had the courtesy to acknowledge that it was your end where the communication was fucked up. Instead you are just winging and saying that we didn't read a context that wasn't actually in the comment that is being objected to.

I admit I fucked it up. Read my responses to Apocalypso for the full version.

quote:
...
Doubling down and calling us big poopy-heads because we didn't telepathically intuit a context you never actually put in your comment is a violation of the first rule of holes - if you're at the bottom of one, stop digging.

How selfish of me: I have enjoyed this part of the thread (the last and off-topic part) the most: you are talking about my "skills" as a writer. There are few things I take more serious interest in than how to do this better.

So thanks to you too, for your insights on how I fucked up: hopefully I won't nearly as often or as well in the future....
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I personally consider, - "I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all" - to be an intimate detail of Jahlove's sexuality.

Then you have a radically different concept of what constitutes *intimate detail* from mine - and, dare I say, from that of most people.

But I guess that shouldn't be surprising since you also apparently believe that if someone doesn't find other folks' sexuality repugnant* (or even consider it much) then that person must be bisexual.


* And, since it the majority of respondents here are saying similar things, it doesn't seem unfair to suppose that this *repugnance* is, indeed, your own attitude; one which, in the western world at least, is becoming less and less that of a majority and is increasingly viewed as societally unacceptable and uncivilized.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
First, I appreciate your owning up to miscommunicating, and celebrate any efforts you make toward expressing yourself clearly. In furthering clarity, I wonder if you could unpack the following:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Yes, I've already agreed that my assumption that my meaning was clear was mistaken: I was talking about a specific section of heterosexuals and homosexuals, i.e. the "hardwired" section who view each other as "icky": the ones who are biologically incapable of contemplating such sexual union without "repugnance". As the context made this obvious, it didn't occur to me until too late that the context was only clear in my own mind.

What confuses me here is that, in my own comments immediately preceding this post of yours, I reacted to differences between your posts and your claimed intentions in those posts. I didn’t mention specific content; I only discussed posting style.

As a result, I don’t understand your next sentence, which strikes me as a complete non sequitur: “I was talking about a specific section of heterosexuals and homosexuals, i.e. the "hardwired" section who view each other as "icky": the ones who are biologically incapable of contemplating such sexual union without "repugnance".”

First, I’m not aware of any evidence that anybody is born “hardwired” to find anybody or anything “icky.” Infants have to be taught not to handle their own feces because they don’t find feces “icky.” If we’re not “hardwired” for something as basic as that, how likely are we to be hardwired for other “icky”reactions? If such evidence exists, you’d help your case by producing it. If you can’t locate such evidence, you might want to reconsider your position.

Second, what has this sentence to do with your inability to match your intended meaning with your actual posts?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I claim that the reaction to my contextual addressing of homosexuality and racism as inevitable elements in society is proof that I can't talk about (observe) these obvious factual demographics without my being labelled by some (in this case most) people as part and parcel the same thing of which I speak: in other words, the reaction shows that in their view, I am merely describing myself when I observe bigotry or prejudice or outraged feelings (of "repugnance" even).

Say what?

1. What is “contextual addressing?”
2. How is others’ disagreeing with you about the “inevitability” of racism and homophobia “proof” that you can’t bring these up without being branded racist and homophobic? Are you now claiming that your wording of certain posts is NOT what prompted people to so label you?
3. I have no idea what “obvious factual demographics” are. What “facts” are you referring to? What evidence can you show that they ARE facts? We are, of course, entitled to form our own opinions. Nobody is entitled to transform opinions into their own facts. As for “observing” what goes on around us, that just doesn’t work as any sort of norm OR fact; what goes on in rural Manitoba may bear zero resemblance to what goes in Manhattan.

I’m sorry to subject you to these unpleasant scrutinies; after repeated encounters on various threads, I have unfortunately come to wonder about your sincerity. Ramblings about “obvious factual demographics” which are not obvious, may not be factual and probably aren’t demographics do little to bolster my confidence.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
hardwired homosexuals

There's that odd phrase again.

I am wondering if it refers to some electronic sex doll.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
First, I appreciate your owning up to miscommunicating, and celebrate any efforts you make toward expressing yourself clearly. In furthering clarity, I wonder if you could unpack the following:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Yes, I've already agreed that my assumption that my meaning was clear was mistaken: I was talking about a specific section of heterosexuals and homosexuals, i.e. the "hardwired" section who view each other as "icky": the ones who are biologically incapable of contemplating such sexual union without "repugnance". As the context made this obvious, it didn't occur to me until too late that the context was only clear in my own mind.

What confuses me here is that, in my own comments immediately preceding this post of yours, I reacted to differences between your posts and your claimed intentions in those posts. I didn’t mention specific content; I only discussed posting style.
Yes, I see that, now. But when I wrote that I was still very much thinking of the content and context: right after that I was with you in discussing "my style" of writing. So I had both topics going on at the same time, and the writing critique took precedence later for me than it did for you.

quote:
...


First, I’m not aware of any evidence that anybody is born “hardwired” to find anybody or anything “icky.”

A poor turn of phrase on my part perhaps. "Hardwired" has to include attraction and its opposite; call it something besides "icky" or "repugnant", then, I don't care.

quote:
Infants have to be taught not to handle their own feces because they don’t find feces “icky.” If we’re not “hardwired” for something as basic as that, how likely are we to be hardwired for other “icky”reactions?

Now you've fallen for the very thing you accused me of doing: "Infants ... don't find feces 'icky'". ALL infants? Certainly not. I have nine children, and yes, MOST of them were not particularly bothered by the "ickyness" of poop as infants. But without any input on our part, by the time they were ready to toilet train, MOST of them really disliked that sensation and came to regard it as "icky": exceptions to that occurred also.

quote:
If such evidence exists, you’d help your case by producing it. If you can’t locate such evidence, you might want to reconsider your position.

Atavism exists. What else is it besides some form of "genetic memory"? It is therefore biological. Any powerful, instinctual reaction is "hardwired"; it cannot be denied, only embraced or resisted, as expediency seems to require.


quote:
...
1. What is “contextual addressing?”

Redundant, for one thing. Not a phrase I intend to use again! I meant that my verbiage on a subject does not de facto associate me with the subject being addressed: respondents who link me to the subject are avoiding or missing the context: I am not the context.
quote:

2. How is others’ disagreeing with you about the “inevitability” of racism and homophobia “proof” that you can’t bring these up without being branded racist and homophobic?

Did somebody argue that racism and homophobia are NOT inevitable in our midst? I didn't see that. The argument turned upon my failure to use proper qualifying words: thus I annoyed those who assumed that I must be making a tar brush assertion about ALL heterosexuals or ALL homosexuals or ALL racists.

quote:
...
3. I have no idea what “obvious factual demographics” are. What “facts” are you referring to?

First of all, the separation of homosexuals from heterosexuals: then within each we have those who are not repelled by the imagining or viewing of the opposite kinds of sexual acts: maybe even to the point of putting themselves into hypothetical participation: yet nobody would think by so doing that these individuals are somehow other than how they ID themselves sexuality-wise. Within both groups we have an unknown percentage who, if the truth could be exposed, are racists, and (or) homophobic or heterophobic: we also have the bisexuals who, again if the truth could be exposed, are a separate group: so we actually have THREE major demographics of sexuality: and all three share racism in common. There is nothing unfactual about what I have just said: but knowing the actual statistical size of these known demographics is the problematic part. In the original context of my pointing this out, I intend to show that a minority point of view (e.g. "gay marriage") ought not to ignore the existence of a prevailing point of view (e.g. "marriage is defined as man and woman"): because the prejudices and phobias of the majority are not to be ignored or flouted without very negative consequences: among which are the precedent set by allowing a minority to dictate to the majority vis-a-vis the meaning and defining of the legalese; and the disregard for their concern of a minority lifestyle being granted legal, protected "suspect class" status, even governmental approval and promotion in the face of popular disapproval.

quote:
...
I’m sorry to subject you to these unpleasant scrutinies; after repeated encounters on various threads, I have unfortunately come to wonder about your sincerity. Ramblings about “obvious factual demographics” which are not obvious, may not be factual and probably aren’t demographics do little to bolster my confidence.

Perhaps "demographics" is too specific a term? I don't think so: the term does not require hard lines and percentages to justify itself. We do know that sexuality is expressed by groups of like-minded people; who do not share other kinds of sexuality. And it is not even arguable, that heterosexuality is publicly expressed by 90%+ of the population....
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
Merlin, I'm bowing out, and it's only fair to explain why.

At work, my staff and I must report our activities every month with every client we serve (54 at last count) to the agencies who fund us. No report, no money; no money, no pay, so we churn out some 200+ pages of reports every month.

Four of my six staff have English as a second language; the remaining two, while native speakers, have trouble producing coherent English (poorly educated, learning differences, who knows).

As one result, many of my work hours each month get spent translating very murky prose into reports that are (A) true, (B) precise and detailed, and (C) easily understandable by some bureaucrat who has never set foot in our agency or met any of my clients (or staff, or me). It’s not my favorite activity. I like discussing ideas. I don’t much like trying to work out, line by tedious line, what somebody's idea IS.

Your latest post appears to acknowledge your own miscommunication, but also continues it. I don’t know if this means you’re unwilling to change or unable to, and at this point, I no longer care to find out. Here are a few examples of phrases from your latest post that obscure rather than communicate meaning:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
. . . and the writing critique took precedence later for me than it did for you.

Huh? Do you know what it means for something to “take precedence?” That’s a question for you to pose to yourself, BTW; there’s no need to write me an answer, because I won’t be returning here to read it.

Then this:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Hardwired" has to include attraction and its opposite; call it something besides "icky" or "repugnant", then, I don't care.

Again, huh? What dictionary are you using? What meaningful connection exists between the term “hardwired” and ANY of the other words in that sentence? Do you actually know what “hardwired” means, either literally or metaphorically?

Then there’s this (and yes, I used a generalization):

quote:
Infants have to be taught not to handle their own feces because they don’t find feces “icky.” If we’re not “hardwired” for something as basic as that, how likely are we to be hardwired for other “icky”reactions?

Now you've fallen for the very thing you accused me of doing: "Infants ... don't find feces 'icky'". ALL infants? Certainly not. I have nine children, and yes, MOST of them were not particularly bothered by the "ickyness" of poop as infants. But without any input on our part, by the time they were ready to toilet train, MOST of them really disliked that sensation and came to regard it as "icky": exceptions to that occurred also.[/qb][/QUOTE]

The point of my post was that typical people seem to learn many of their reactions, rather than being born with built-in ones. I submit that your experience with your own children, briefly described above, supports this view: most were not bothered by poop as infants, but by potty-training time, they were. In other words, this was a learned reaction. You claim to have had no input into this; I claim that’s nonsense. Did you and other caretakers carefully control your vocal intonations and facial expressions at every diaper change, to avoid communicating your own reactions to poop? Rubbish; it’s from their carers that kids learn to consider poop icky.

And this:

quote:
If such evidence exists, you’d help your case by producing it. If you can’t locate such evidence, you might want to reconsider your position.

Atavism exists. What else is it besides some form of "genetic memory"? It is therefore biological. Any powerful, instinctual reaction is "hardwired"; it cannot be denied, only embraced or resisted, as expediency seems to require.[/qb][/QUOTE]

With respect, how does “atavism exists” respond to advice from me that you produce evidence for your claims? Do you know what an “atavism” is – a throwback to an earlier biological type or form?

Then you go on to claim that atavism is a form of genetic memory (whatever that means), and is therefore biological, and then leap to the conclusion that any powerful instinctual reaction is “hardwired.”

Well, I’ll go for instincts being metaphorically “hardwired.” But how much human behavior, atavistic or not, is actually instinctual?

Beyond that, I still can’t work out how those statements connect to my call for evidence. An assertion is not evidence.

Personally, I enjoy reading well-written and clearly-thought-out posts (of which there are many) on the Ship. If I have something to say in response, I try to address points raised by the other poster, and I try to make my own thoughts clear. I think most of us make similar efforts (and obviously, most occasionally miss the mark).

About your efforts, I’m not sure. I’m not sure you’re sincere, and I’m not sure you actually have ideas worth exploring, because it’s so difficult figuring out what your ideas actually are. I only know that the payoff, for me, of figuring out what the heck you’re trying to say is not worth the work and time I’m putting in, so I don't plan to continue.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
Sorry; I not only screwed up the coding, I failed to notice it in time to edit.

[ 17. November 2010, 23:43: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
You won't see this if you don't return: but I think this thread is done. Done IN as well. I take what you've said vis-a-vis my writing "style" seriously. I think there's a real communication gap here. And since you're "bowing out" I won't bother with more than an admission to this gap being partly caused by my use of some words. But it seems that also, you have too pedantic and demanding an understanding of the words that I use that cause you trouble. Perhaps you need to read with more intuition: people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it seems that also, you have too pedantic and demanding an understanding of the words that I use that cause you trouble. Perhaps you need to read with more intuition: people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....

I'd dispute this, since I've never seen a thread anywhere go on for nearly 500 posts with people still having problems understanding what the OP means.

I think it's a testament to how strongly people have tried to understand you that they didn't leave the thread a month or more ago.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You won't see this if you don't return: but I think this thread is done. Done IN as well. I take what you've said vis-a-vis my writing "style" seriously. I think there's a real communication gap here. And since you're "bowing out" I won't bother with more than an admission to this gap being partly caused by my use of some words. But it seems that also, you have too pedantic and demanding an understanding of the words that I use that cause you trouble. Perhaps you need to read with more intuition: people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....

Or maybe everyone's head is done in trying to communicate that every piece of backpedalling you try, Merlin, only digs the rut deeper.

You say the problem is caused by your use of *some words* - good - you're getting somewhere with them ole Qualifiers innit. However, I would guess the majority of your interlocutors on this (and other) threads, are, not so much *pedantic and demanding* as very practised at close textual analysis. You say also that *people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....* - you'd get more of a pass on this if the words that you write were not dealing with such highly-contentious material; since they are, it behooves you to to be extremely precise.

All I really wanted to say was to second Apocalypso's point about parental input to *poo=icky* - kids don't naturally feel that; some never grow out of it (I could put up links to support this assertion but they are not ARRRRRGH-safe [Biased] )
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
You say the problem is caused by your use of *some words* - good - you're getting somewhere with them ole Qualifiers innit. However, I would guess the majority of your interlocutors on this (and other) threads, are, not so much *pedantic and demanding* as very practised at close textual analysis. You say also that *people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....* -

Could be none of the above, could just be that Merlin is using words in a way nobody understands to express the thoughts he later says he meant. If everybody understands you except one person, you can blame the audience. If nobody understands you, you have to blame the speaker.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
...

You say the problem is caused by your use of *some words* - good - you're getting somewhere with them ole Qualifiers innit. However, I would guess the majority of your interlocutors on this (and other) threads, are, not so much *pedantic and demanding* as very practised at close textual analysis.

This is what I am talking about. You just said it a different (better) way. I've noticed that the more educated the responder the less likely s/he is to be lenient when there is actually a perceived difference of opinion. If s/he agrees with the sentiment of the post in question then sure, common understanding is extended. If on the other hand s/he disagrees with the perspectives or assertions of said-post, then the author of it gets skewered over misuse of the language: this is called in scripture, "making an offense out of a word" (Isa 29:21). You can "win", if faulting the way a point is made deflects the debate away from the context and intent.

quote:
You say also that *people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....* - you'd get more of a pass on this if the words that you write were not dealing with such highly-contentious material; since they are, it behooves you to to be extremely precise.

Your advice is good. But am I to be faulted for suspecting that cheap, rhetorical gimmickry is being resorted to in order to disengage from the discussion and at the same time score in some one-upmanship game?
quote:

All I really wanted to say was to second Apocalypso's point about parental input to *poo=icky* - kids don't naturally feel that; some never grow out of it ...

I agree; except that you, too, have said "kids don't"; and the reality is some/most kids don't: otherwise, you'll have to tell me what some of my children are if they are not kids; because definitely, long before they can talk, they are sending communication that they hate being clasped by a messy diaper/nappie.

And the same atavistic revulsion could be said regarding sexual parallels. And the point is? MOST heterosexuals do not find homosexuality appealing, let alone a topic that they ruminate over casually throughout the day. The same is true for MOST homosexuals in reverse. In between we find individuals who find ALL sexual topics interesting and they imagine all sorts of sexual encounters and situations: rather like the kid who grew up and never did develop a distaste for poo....
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
You say the problem is caused by your use of *some words* - good - you're getting somewhere with them ole Qualifiers innit. However, I would guess the majority of your interlocutors on this (and other) threads, are, not so much *pedantic and demanding* as very practised at close textual analysis. You say also that *people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....* -

Could be none of the above, could just be that Merlin is using words in a way nobody understands to express the thoughts he later says he meant. If everybody understands you except one person, you can blame the audience. If nobody understands you, you have to blame the speaker.
As the problem with communicating only appeared near the end of this thread, I imagine that "nobody understands" is a disingenuous dismissal. Are you bowing out because you don't understand, or because you can claim that the fault is the way I write, ergo you do not have to address the points being made?

This week I was told, inside and outside of court, by the defense and members of the media who interviewed me, that I am articulate. Apparently the only trouble I have using the language is when I take advantage of the luxury of time that writing offers, and compose my sentences with even greater care! (that's said with sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell....)
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As the problem with communicating only appeared near the end of this thread

You only recognized it then. Most of the thread was us taking your words at face value, not realizing that was a silly thing to do here.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:


If s/he agrees with the sentiment of the post in question then sure, common understanding is extended. If on the other hand s/he disagrees with the perspectives or assertions of said-post, then the author of it gets skewered over misuse of the language: this is called in scripture, "making an offense out of a word" (Isa 29:21). You can "win", if faulting the way a point is made deflects the debate away from the context and intent.


Not quite what I meant - not that you'd be given a *pass* on sloppy construction if I agree with you and v.v. rather that, since the issue IS highly-contentious, arguments need to be well-crafted and unambiguous; that is to say, there is no need to apply close analysis to posts on say, a Heaven or All Saints-style thread - it IS appropriate wrt Purgatory and DH posts. You might note that plenty of people disagree with Ingo's arguments but he is a model of clarity.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
You say the problem is caused by your use of *some words* - good - you're getting somewhere with them ole Qualifiers innit. However, I would guess the majority of your interlocutors on this (and other) threads, are, not so much *pedantic and demanding* as very practised at close textual analysis. You say also that *people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....* -

Could be none of the above, could just be that Merlin is using words in a way nobody understands to express the thoughts he later says he meant. If everybody understands you except one person, you can blame the audience. If nobody understands you, you have to blame the speaker.
As the problem with communicating only appeared near the end of this thread, I imagine that "nobody understands" is a disingenuous dismissal. Are you bowing out because you don't understand, or because you can claim that the fault is the way I write, ergo you do not have to address the points being made?

This week I was told, inside and outside of court, by the defense and members of the media who interviewed me, that I am articulate. Apparently the only trouble I have using the language is when I take advantage of the luxury of time that writing offers, and compose my sentences with even greater care! (that's said with sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell....)

Your ability to express your views is not disputed. The problems are rooted in the content of your posts, which is often offensive, changing your own position whenever you are countered and altering your target according to the arguments presented to you.

Cross-examination in court, making statements to the press, participation in discussion and debating are very different.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
The three of you who posted since yesterday don't even agree: I am getting my points across; and I never was making a point, because my words are not to be taken at face value; and this issue is contentious and clearly beyond my capacity to write clearly on it.

I declare this thread dead and nothing resolved; other than my determination to find some other way to discuss these contentious and clearly confusing issues other than on this forum. What a complete waste of time!
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
Wrong. This thread is dead because because of posts like "Homosexuals like purple, heteros like green". Followed by the "clarifiation" that only SOME homo/heterosexuals like purple/green, but unsupported by any evidence other than assertion, even when asked repeatedly. That's not discussion, that's just listening to oneself type. OliviaG
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I declare this thread dead

Thanks be to God.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The three of you who posted since yesterday don't even agree: I am getting my points across; and I never was making a point, because my words are not to be taken at face value; and this issue is contentious and clearly beyond my capacity to write clearly on it.

Case in point: as written, this appears to mean that MtM believes he is getting his points across, not making a point, using words at other than face value and writing on an inssue beyond his capacity to write clearly. WHile some (many, I suspect) would agree, I think he is actualy trying to highlight the (contradictory) points of some of the others in this debate. There are ways of making this clear, but MtM has used none of them.

quote:

I declare this thread dead

Oh no you don't. Only a Hell Host can do that, and so far none of them has done so. You're free to ignore it, as are others, and when you and they do so, it will sink to the bottom of the page and (eventually) disappear.


quote:

[I declare] nothing resolved; other than my determination to find some other way to discuss these contentious and clearly confusing issues other than on this forum. What a complete waste of time!

Go indeed and discuss them elsewhere. But you'll find those discussions just as much a waste of time unless you find a forum where "words mean what I choose them to mean" (Alice in Wonderland), and not what everyone else means -- and it's the responsibility of the reader to intuit the "special" meaning of words and statements that, so far as anyone can tell from the text, have ordinary meanings and logical meanings.

John

[ 21. November 2010, 22:36: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
<snip> I declare this thread dead

Originally posted by John Holding:
Oh no you don't. Only a Hell Host can do that, and so far none of them has done so. You're free to ignore it, as are others, and when you and they do so, it will sink to the bottom of the page and (eventually) disappear.<snip>

Actually on this Board only a Dead Horses Host can do that .....

I had thought that this thread was dying some time ago - or at least was succumbing to terminal repetitude - but it has staggered on.

If it dies I shall offer up a heart-felt 'Thanks be to God', but it hasn't yet reached the stage where I feel euthanasia would be the better option.

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0