?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I'm not gay but...



Go Canada!

Everyone is entitled to the same legal freedoms (and restrictions). Everyone. Race, creed, religion, or sexuality should not come into it, not in a modern equal society anyhow.

Comments

( 37 comments — Leave a comment )
lousy_timing
21st Jul, 2005 11:50 (UTC)
Frankly?
I think that's the most beautiful flag I've seen yet.
darkcryst
21st Jul, 2005 13:06 (UTC)
Re: Frankly?
I know! I loved it, so had to use that image :)
razorboi
12th Jan, 2006 00:55 (UTC)
I'm interested to know what you think of this.

'Marriage' is out, 'ceremony' is in

Jan 11 2006


David James, South Wales Echo


Heterosexual couples will no longer be allowed to tie the knot in a wedding room - to ensure gay equality.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=16572380%26method=full%26siteid=50082%26headline=-marriage--is-out---ceremony--is-in-name_page.html
darkcryst
12th Jan, 2006 02:53 (UTC)
Well that sounds like some overly-PC nonsense. It's certainly not offical government policy.

Though really? I don't care what its called as long as everyone is treated as having the same rights. They could call it "getting wanged" for all I care.

However I do think that the move is a bit silly...
razorboi
12th Jan, 2006 14:17 (UTC)
Well that sounds like some overly-PC nonsense.

It seems obvious to me that once you grant a previously excluded group, in the name of equality, full inclusion in society, anything that excludes that group must be done away with. That's what the logic of political correctness leads to. In this case, the words "marriage" and "ceremony" are being removed because they're thought to privilege heterosexuals, and, ergo, exclude homosexuals.
darkcryst
12th Jan, 2006 15:08 (UTC)
Which is my point: they are thought to be, but aren't, at all, in any way.

That is why it is nonsense.

And "being done away with" can be including the exluded group in the terms, not getting rid of the terms. In this case that would be the more logical solution, but I guess the idea of gay people getting "married" is offensive to some, and that is another topic entirely...
razorboi
13th Jan, 2006 00:29 (UTC)
And "being done away with" can be including the exluded group in the terms,

Well, I suppose it can, but only by twisting the meaning those terms have traditionally had. Marriage has traditionally been a union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of creating and rearing children to perpetuate society. Its central purpose has little or nothing to do with rights, feelings, survivor benefits or whatever reason homosexuals give for marrying.

You can change the traditional definition of marriage to accomodate homosexuals, but by doing so you are radically redefining what marriage has traditionally been.
darkcryst
13th Jan, 2006 01:20 (UTC)
by doing so you are radically redefining what marriage has traditionally been.

The number of flaws in that idea are... well... numerous.

Marriage is, traditionally, the exchange of property - in this case, the tying of a woman to a man's lineage. That's it. That's the traditional view of it. Property.

But we don't subscribe to that view anymore. Even in the last 50 years the "traditional" views on marriage have changed incredibly.

If you mean traditional by "its always been done this way" then we may as well throw any kind of progress out of the window for anything if we are going to start living our lives by that.

"or the purpose of creating and rearing children to perpetuate society." If that is to define what marriage is then we need to only allow barren couples to have "civil unions" and stop them from getting married.

If you intend to talk about the religious view of marriage as opposed to the civil view, then that is different. I agree that gay couples can't realistically get Christianly married. That's bigoted, but its part of the faith. Ok, moving on.

BUT that isn't what the issue is, it is the government view on marriage and the associated laws, rights, and protections that come with it that are being discussed.

You seem to be confusing the concept of marriage with the concept of a marriage that has been "concecrated by god" (how most religeous ceremonies put it). One is marriage, a legal and rights bound concept from the moment it was conceived, the other is a religious concept.

The UK and the US are not theocracies, and therefore it is not up to religious ceremonies to dictate what the legal rights of an individual are. Thankfully.

Plus two gay people in love getting married is drastically less effect on the idea and concept of a modern marriage than Britany Spears' 55-hour marriage does.
razorboi
14th Jan, 2006 00:15 (UTC)
Marriage is, traditionally, the exchange of property - in this case, the tying of a woman to a man's lineage. That's it. That's the traditional view of it. Property.

That's certainly been a part of the traditional view of marriage, but I don't know of anyone (apart from you) who would reduce it to that. The chief social function attached to marriage, for over a millenia and throughout hundreds of cultures, has been the conception and rearing of children by a man and woman to foster the continuation of society. That's it. That's the traditional view of it. Procreation and child rearing.

Even in the last 50 years the "traditional" views on marriage have changed incredibly.

You do admit, though, that homosexual "marriage" represents one of those incredible changes?

If that is to define what marriage is then we need to only allow barren couples to have "civil unions" and stop them from getting married.

I don't think you read my comment carefully. I said that the purpose of marriage is to create and rear children. Barren couples cannot conceive children, but they can still rear an orphaned child by providing a mother and father for him. There is no substitute for a child's being raised by anything but a mother and father. At best, a homosexual couple can only give a child two mothers or two fathers.

BUT that isn't what the issue is, it is the government view on marriage and the associated laws, rights, and protections that come with it that are being discussed.

The federal government has always defined a marriage as a union between a man and a woman and has conferred medical, tax and other benefits on married couples on the assumption that they will have children. The US government has done this because it values posterity, NOT because it's run by theocrats. The idea that the legal definition of "marriage" should be expanded to include homosexuals never entered anyone's mind until the last ten years or so, mainly through the efforts of the small, well-organized, vocal homosexual minority.

Taking your above points as what you believe for a second, do you only intend to get married to have children?

What if you and/or your partner can't conceive? does that mean you wouldn't?

Is that the only concideration you would concider in a wife? "Will she make a good incubator for my seed and care for my progeny well?"


Again, even if my "partner" and I couldn't procreate, we could still give a child a mother and a father. So yes, I would marry her even if I discovered she was incapable of conceiving a child because I think she would make a wonderful mother.
darkcryst
14th Jan, 2006 14:48 (UTC)
"That's the traditional view of it. Procreation and child rearing."
Not really, in fact I can return the favour and say: I don't know anyone who would reduce it to that. Most people I know would say it is when two people love each other and want to make a commitment to be with each other forever.

Of course now we are talking the percieved traditional values. Which is a totally different matter. That changes with cultural, regional, and religeous surroundings. Which is why governement traditional marriage is different.

The federal government has always defined a marriage as a union between a man and a woman and has conferred medical, tax and other benefits on married couples on the assumption that they will have children.
Again, so? Saying "well it's always been that way" isn't reasoning, its a lack of reasoning.

Also the amusing part of that argument is that it's not even true! Tt doesn't specify. That's why there was that controversy with Bush wanting to ammend the constitution for it to say that. Your argument there is false.

"You do admit, though, that homosexual "marriage" represents one of those incredible changes?"
No, because we haven't got there yet. That is sort of the point of this discussion isn't it?

"Barren couples cannot conceive children, but they can still rear an orphaned child"
And so can gay couples, but of course you go on to say: "There is no substitute for a child's being raised by anything but a mother and father." You'll need to provide evidence for that, and you'll be hard pressed to, because there is wide evidence to the contrary. However this is also really a seperate issue, as single mothers and fathers (including widows and widowers) seem to do a fine job in raising many children. Your prejudice is showing...

"The idea that the legal definition of "marriage" should be expanded to include homosexuals never entered anyone's mind until the last ten years or so"
If you mean "all over the mainstream media" then you might have a point, but the campaign has been around for nearly 30 years. It's got attention from the begining, it's just starting to work thats all.

The womens vote was instigated by a small vocal minority, it took a long time, but it spread. So did the black civil rights movement. It's the same pattern across history when minority groups want the same rights as the controlling groups.

"I would marry her even if I discovered she was incapable of conceiving a child because I think she would make a wonderful mother."
Tt still seems as if you are saying "my main concideration is producing a child from this relationship." What about love? Long term commitment? Wanting to be with someone for the rest of your life (and, depending on what you believe, beyond)?

It just seems like "producing kids, by whatever means" is such a... lacking... definition of marriage.
razorboi
16th Jan, 2006 00:24 (UTC)
Not really, in fact I can return the favour and say: I don't know anyone who would reduce it to that. Most people I know would say it is when two people love each other and want to make a commitment to be with each other forever.

Anecdotes are worthless as evidence. I could say that most of the people I know embrace the definition of marriage I have given. The simple fact of the matter is that you, I and most people are here because we had mothers and fathers who bore and reared us. The family unit has served as the basis of society for well over a millenia. Marriage is the central institution of society because it perpetuates society through families, which are themselves microcosmic societies in which children are prepared to enter the larger society. Claiming that marriage is just an "exchange of property" between two committed people is complete hogwash. It's a convenient definition for homosexuals who want to marry, and one the Supreme Court in Canada used to justify homosexual marriage, but it is not what marriage has traditionally been. However, since this is what you think marriage is, I'm curious to hear you explain why you consider it a "right" for someone committed to another person for life to be recognized by the state and receive benefits from it. I don't see why it's the business of the state to recognize two people's commitment to each other.

Also, if marriage isn't inherently normative, if it's whatever state and federal law decide it is at the present moment, then what is to prevent the door from opening to state-sanctioned polygamous, and even bestial and pedophilic relationships? And don't say this won't happen. Society may abhor and criminalize pedophilia and bestiality now, but they equally abhorred and criminalized homosexuality 40-50 years ago. NAMBLA already accepts pedophilia and Canada has lowered the age of consent to 14. Once you lose the inherently normative definition of marriage, I don't see how you can principally say no to whatever group is clamouring for the definition of marriage to be expanded to cover their "mutually satisfying and committed relationships."

No, because we haven't got there yet. That is sort of the point of this discussion isn't it?

You remarked that traditional views on marriage have changed incredibly in the last 50 years, and my question was whether you admit homosexual "marriage" represents one of those incredible changes of views. Wouldn't you say that it does?

Again, so? Saying "well it's always been that way" isn't reasoning, its a lack of reasoning.

My argument wasn't based solely on tradition, as the following statement - "The US government has done this because it values posterity" - should have made clear. It's been that way because federal and state laws have recognized and upheld the importance of heterosexual marriage to society. As society owes its very existence and future existence to familes, federal and state governments have conferred benefits on married couples that promote child-rearing.
darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 13:17 (UTC)
"Anecdotes are worthless as evidence."
Which was exactly my point. Why you then go on to continue using your own after you state this, I don't know.

"The family unit has served as the basis of society for well over a millenia."
If you were to amend this to "the family unit has been a social construct for well over a millenia" then yes, its true, and for longer than that as well. Calling it "the basis for society" is a bit far fetched. It's a form of social relationship yes, but to say it encompasses, or helps encompass all the social relationships we as a people have is just not true.

"but it is not what marriage has traditionally been."
Actually, it has. That was sort of my point. Just because you don't agree with that view doesn't make it not true.

RE: the stupid and, frankly, brain-dead arguments of "bestial and pedophilic relationships": not only does one of those include a party that isn't even human, neither subject could give consent. So marriage isn't even an issue. And those are just two of the obvious reasons.

Another one? Beastiality has never, ever, been an acceptable part of western culture. Homosexuality has been part of it for around 3-4000 years. From the ancient greeks and on. Sometimes it is more acceptable than others over history.

"Canada has lowered the age of consent to 14."
Of course some parts in the states (and, to be fair, other countries) allow marriages of children as young as 12. Why are there no campaigns to stop this? Wierd no? Plus it's not like gay marriage = lowering the age of consent. It is a different issue.

"I don't see why it's the business of the state to recognize two people's commitment to each other."
Well it's not just about that, from the government point of view. It's about how they function as a unit. Combined income, taxes, and all the rest of the fun stuff that governments do. The recognition of the fact that to be fair to them they should be evaluated as a unit, not individuals.

Then you have protections and laws about how one or the other is protected in the event of a split or, worse, death.

That's why the government gets involved.

My argument wasn't based solely on tradition, as the following statement - "The US government has done this because it values posterity" - should have made clear."
So, to show they value future generations... they will discriminate against groups of people? How exactly does that work? "society owes its very existence and future existence to familes"? Again, not really. Future existance does depend on children, which would require a family, and so heterosexual couples. Sure, but gay people marrying won't decrease the number of hetero people. You aren't making sense here.

"whether you admit homosexual "marriage" represents one of those incredible changes of views. Wouldn't you say that it does?"
No, because it's not a full change yet. It hasn't 'changed' - it's still changing. No past tense. Until it has changed (one way or the other) then I can't say it has can I?
(no subject) - razorboi - 19th Jan, 2006 02:51 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - darkcryst - 19th Jan, 2006 19:26 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - razorboi - 22nd Jan, 2006 02:51 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - darkcryst - 19th Jan, 2006 19:26 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - razorboi - 22nd Jan, 2006 04:02 (UTC) - Expand
razorboi
16th Jan, 2006 00:25 (UTC)

That's why there was that controversy with Bush wanting to ammend the constitution for it to say that. Your argument there is false.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my statement well. What I meant is, federal benefits bestowed on married couples recognize, implicitly or explicitly, that marriage is a heterosexual institution involving children. I am aware that the constitution doesn't explicitly define marriage as the union of man and woman. Never in their wildest dreams could the Founders have envisioned a time in which homosexual marriage was a legitimate issue.

You'll need to provide evidence for that, and you'll be hard pressed to, because there is wide evidence to the contrary

All of the studies I'm aware of usually reveal that single-parents (who are mainly women) are more likely to experience physical abuse (from boyfriends) than they are in marriage, and that their children are more likely to be convicted of a crime in adulthood than children raised in two-parent homes. Patricia Morgan in her books "Marriage-Lite" and "Children as Trophies" lays to waste to the argument that single-parents and homosexuals are as equally well disposed to raise children as two-parent heterosexual families.

Your prejudice is showing...

Yeah, my "prejudice" towards a "lifestyle" which reduces people to a state in which they have to swallow a bucket of pills eight times a day just to stay alive, but who none the less insist that said "lifestyle" is healthy, fun, normal, and worthy of full social sanction.

What about love? Long term commitment? Wanting to be with someone for the rest of your life (and, depending on what you believe, beyond)?

Well of course most people get married because they love each other. But as I have tirelessly explained, the chief social function of marriage has been to create families.

It just seems like "producing kids, by whatever means" is such a... lacking... definition of marriage.

If that was my position I'd be advocating polygamy. Producing kids "by whatever means" has not been my position.
darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 13:40 (UTC)
"What I meant is, federal benefits bestowed on married couples recognize, implicitly or explicitly, that marriage is a heterosexual institution involving children. I am aware that the constitution doesn't explicitly define marriage as the union of man and woman"
Somewhat of an imbalance then you'll admit? Now the key here is that I would argue to amend the federal benefits, you want to ammend the constitution. That is they key difference between us.

"Never in their wildest dreams could the Founders have envisioned a time in which homosexual marriage was a legitimate issue."
Probably, but then again it's not like gay people didn't exist back then. Neither of us can know what was in their minds, so lets not speculate.

"All of the studies I'm aware of..."
I haven't read the Patricia Morgan books, so I can't comment on them. However the problem that has been widely acknowleged with many studies that chart this is that most of the sample groups don't compare very well with each other. Social status, financial stability, and habitation area are often not equal between the compared groups - and so are all potential causes (more probably it is a combination of all of them).

Also there is no (well, almost none) reasearch done into gay couples raising children. The little there is tends to point to the same stability as "traditional" family units. So the "mother and father" argument could, reasonably, be written as "two parents" which is, of course, completely different.

"But as I have tirelessly explained, the chief social function of marriage has been to create families."
And I have tirelessly explained - that doesn't mean gay people can't be married.

"Yeah, my "prejudice" towards a "lifestyle" which reduces people to a state in which they have to swallow a bucket of pills eight times a day just to stay alive, but who none the less insist that said "lifestyle" is healthy, fun, normal, and worthy of full social sanction."
Yes, that ill-informed, stupid, prejudice.

You seem to be saying all gay people have HIV/AIDS. Which is demonstratably wrong.

You also imply from that that heterosexual people either don't get HIV/AIDS or are in the minority. Recent studies by the World Health Organisation say you are wrong - more heterosexual people have it that homosexual.

Basically that statement pretty much says "Hi, I'm a uninformed bigot."
(no subject) - razorboi - 19th Jan, 2006 02:52 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - razorboi - 28th Jan, 2006 06:56 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - miriammiriam - 16th Jan, 2006 19:08 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - razorboi - 19th Jan, 2006 03:11 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - miriammiriam - 19th Jan, 2006 04:25 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - darkcryst - 19th Jan, 2006 20:13 (UTC) - Expand
Incoherence Reigns - bodelian - 5th Feb, 2006 01:34 (UTC) - Expand
Indeed it does.... - razorboi - 5th Feb, 2006 03:27 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bodelian - 18th Jan, 2006 01:13 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - darkcryst - 18th Jan, 2006 01:31 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bodelian - 5th Feb, 2006 01:37 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - razorboi - 19th Jan, 2006 03:01 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - miriammiriam - 19th Jan, 2006 04:29 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - darkcryst - 19th Jan, 2006 20:08 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - razorboi - 22nd Jan, 2006 04:23 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bodelian - 5th Feb, 2006 01:39 (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - razorboi - 5th Feb, 2006 05:38 (UTC) - Expand
darkcryst
13th Jan, 2006 01:24 (UTC)
Oh, just a quick addition:

Taking your above points as what you believe for a second, do you only intend to get married to have children?

What if you and/or your partner can't conceive? does that mean you wouldn't?

Is that the only concideration you would concider in a wife? "Will she make a good incubator for my seed and care for my progeny well?"

If the answer to any of those is "no" then what you are suggesting is already complete bunk from your own views... just a thought.
( 37 comments — Leave a comment )