Author
|
Topic: Same-sex marriage comes between old-style partners
|
|
Farmageddon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9572
|
posted 11 July 2005 11:40 AM
Part of the ability to agree, is to agree to disagree. Marriage ( 5-10-25 ) or not, if this diffrence in opinion ends yours, then there are other underlying issues, me-thinks.Really. A healthy union ( Any Union ) consists of two individuals that walk together, support each other, complement each other, and bring joy unto themselves. The key word though is individuals. If you want perfect harmony in all topics, make a clone. F
From: The seventh ring of a watery hell... | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 11 July 2005 12:01 PM
I could always be wrong, but I just do not believe this letter is genuine. Twenty-two years, and she didn't know this? And that's not even what makes me most suspicious. The description of the marriage otherwise is too idealized. There are too many PC terms dropped in at just the right frequency. Somebody is either playing games or wants attention, or both.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 11 July 2005 12:08 PM
[SIDEBAR] This isn't just an issue for opposite-sex couples. There are plenty of gay guys who have been together for years who are now arguing over whether to 'make it legal.' My view is that, I guess, some people will argue about anything.[/SIDEBAR] [ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 11 July 2005 12:09 PM
This is interesting to me. My sweetie, otherwise among the most progressive of people, has a small twitch of homophobia. I call it a twitch, because I doubt he's aware of it consciously and it is small and becoming way less frequent. This is how it manifests: I have a very old and very dear friend who's gay. Sweetie and GayFriend like each other -- no problems. But once in a while, Sweetie will say something like: 'GayFriend will come to his senses and you will leave me for him.' I think he means it as a joke, or maybe as a signal of his approval of and liking for GayFriend or maybe as a compliment to me and my feminine fabulousness. Now of course if anyone could reorient a gay guy, it would be me . Usually I laugh and say yeahsure. But I really wish he'd get over this.As for intolerance of minorities, yup. I had personal experience of dating someone whose remarks I first took to be jokes. When I realized they weren't, he was gone. Because, don't forget, this kind of thinking will manifest itself in other yucky ways as well.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 01:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tape_342: And how exactly is that not rank homophobia itself?
Because homophobia is the hatred and persecution of gays. You don't have to hate gays to want to reserve the term "marriage." Now, I can't speculate why you'd want to reserve that term but I know that many people do.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 11 July 2005 01:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by EFA:
Because homophobia is the hatred and persecution of gays. You don't have to hate gays to want to reserve the term "marriage."
So a system of 'separate but equal' does not translate into persecution?
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 01:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tape_342: So a system of 'separate but equal' does not translate into persecution?
I don't think so. I'm talking about people who fully support gay rights except that they reserve the term "marriage" just like they resent people referring to their hetero significant others as "partners" or "spouses" rather than "husbands" and "wives."
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 11 July 2005 01:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by EFA:
Because homophobia is the hatred and persecution of gays. You don't have to hate gays to want to reserve the term "marriage."
That would be so much more believable if 99% of the people advocating reserving the term marriage didn't have a long, long history of hating gays. I have no reason to doubt that the same is true among members of the general public, but unlike MPs and other public figures, they don't put their hatred on the public record and can now claim retroactively to support things they opposed when they were actually issues.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 01:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by RealityBites: That would be so much more believable if 99% of the people advocating reserving the term marriage didn't have a long, long history of hating gays.I have no reason to doubt that the same is true among members of the general public, but unlike MPs and other public figures, they don't put their hatred on the public record and can now claim retroactively to support things they opposed when they were actually issues.
I doubt the validity of your statistical research. If you want to describe reserving the term "marriage" as persecution, you're not lending a whole lot of credibility to the struggle for gay rights. The very real persecution that gays continue to suffer is what we should be focussing on.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 11 July 2005 01:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by EFA: I totally support gay rights and gay marriage and the term "gay marriage" yet I bristle when I hear someone refer to my husband as my partner or my spouse.
Well first off, you can stop supporting the term "gay marriage." It's marriage. Period. Second of all, get the hell over yourself. People use terms like partner and spouse out of convenience and inclusiveness -- primarily in regards to common law heterosexual couples. They're not referring to your husband, they're referring to an unspecified person they don't know or care about, who may be legally married to you, or not, and may be male or female.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 01:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by Amy: That's fine, for you. At this stage in my life, I'd feel very uncomfortable with calling a man my husband (or a woman my wife). The thing is, it's none of anyone's business what I call my S.O., least of all religious/conservative lobby groups who don't feel comfortable with me using 'their' terminology.And, yes, to "allow" same sex couples all the same rights but the actual title IS denying them marriage, because such couples have been asking for the title as well.
It's a personal preference, right? I call my husband my "husband" and will continue to do so, even after being corrected. Gay couples aren't being "denied" the right to the use of the word. The word was already in use. The question is should the definition of that same word be expanded. Some people feel that it shouldn't be. That's not persecution.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 11 July 2005 01:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by EFA:
I doubt the validity of your statistical research. If you want to describe reserving the term "marriage" as persecution, you're not lending a whole lot of credibility to the struggle for gay rights. The very real persecution that gays continue to suffer is what we should be focussing on.
Fuck right off. It's ALL on the record, as Scott mentioned earlier. You want to call me a liar, find me those people who are opposed to marriage but were fully supportive of gay rights up until then. There should be lots of them, right? I can certainly name hundreds to support my opinion. Starting with 99% of the disgusting pieces of shit who ever sat for the Reform, Canadian Alliance and Conservative Parties. Starting with 99% of the disgusting pieces of shit who ever called himself a member of the clergy in the Roman Catholic or any Evangelical Church. Starting with 99% of the columnists opposed to marriage. I give you Bev Desjarlais and Peter Mackay to support your contention.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 01:57 PM
quote: Originally posted by RealityBites: Well first off, you can stop supporting the term "gay marriage."It's marriage. Period. Second of all, get the hell over yourself. People use terms like partner and spouse out of convenience and inclusiveness -- primarily in regards to common law heterosexual couples. They're not referring to your husband, they're referring to an unspecified person they don't know or care about, who may be legally married to you, or not, and may be male or female.
Actually, I don't generally use the term "gay marriage." For the purposes of this debate, however, it seemed important to differentiate to illustrate the argument. You've advised me to "get the hell over myself." I could say the same to gays who characterize people reserving the word "marriage" as persecuting them. Interesting double standard you've got going there. And, no, you're wrong, people often use "spouse" or "partner" when they are talking about the individual. It's not a matter of inclusiveness. It's about appearing politically correct.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:00 PM
quote: Originally posted by RealityBites: Fuck right off. It's ALL on the record, as Scott mentioned earlier. You want to call me a liar, find me those people who are opposed to marriage but were fully supportive of gay rights up until then. There should be lots of them, right?I can certainly name hundreds to support my opinion. Starting with 99% of the disgusting pieces of shit who ever sat for the Reform, Canadian Alliance and Conservative Parties. Starting with 99% of the disgusting pieces of shit who ever called himself a member of the clergy in the Roman Catholic or any Evangelical Church. Starting with 99% of the columnists opposed to marriage. I give you Bev Desjarlais and Peter Mackay to support your contention.
It is not on the record that 99% of people who reserve the term "marriage" have a long history of hating gays. I'm not calling you a liar. I was poking gentle fun at your 99% statement. In answer to your challenge, I have very mild reservations myself about the use of the word "marriage." I do and always have supported gay rights. So now you go talk to 99 of my friends and we'll see.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: Right. So maybe you should just focus on those issues and accept the fact that Equal Marriage is here, and is going to stay here. Don't presume to lecture on Gay Rights when you can't bring yourself to accept what those who dedicate their lives to Gay Issues have high-lighted as an important step to full equality in Canada.
I'm not sure to whom this is addressed. If it is addressed to me, I'm perplexed. I don't need to "accept" the fact that equal marriage is here. And I didn't "lecture" on gay rights. And I note here that you suggest I should accept what I'm told or else I'm not allowed to speak. Is that what you meant to say? Can we not disagree on the terminology issue? Or is such persecution too threatening?
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by EFA: Gay couples aren't being "denied" the right to the use of the word. The word was already in use. The question is should the definition of that same word be expanded. Some people feel that it shouldn't be. That's not persecution.
It is persecution because it's a construction that seeks to salvage the last possible crumbs of heterosexual priviledge. It is the last bastion for str8 people to tell themselves that, no matter what the law says, gay people's relationships are somehow 'just not quite on a par' with heterosexual ones. That's homophobia.
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:08 PM
quote: The question is should the definition of that same word be expanded. Some people feel that it shouldn't be. That's not persecution.
Ya. Just like I don't think marriage should include mixed race couples. Not that it's any kind of persecution or anything. I guess I'm just adamantly opposed to any kind of change to our ever-evolving language. Or something. But it's not persecution, OK? It's not! I don't want to think of myself as that kind of person, so please don't suggest that I am. Stop it! Stop suggesting that maybe I'm a bigot just because I want to reserve the word "marriage" for pure race marriages. I mean, traditional marriages. Uh, marriages where the man and woman come from the same country. OK? Just because I want to deny mixed couples the right to marry doesn't make me a bad person. Plus, I have some very genuine and heartfelt, though not emotional or irrational, fears about people being allowed to marry houseplants or bicycle parts or canned food. Slippery slope and all that.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tape_342: It is persecution because it's a construction that seeks to salvage the last possible crumbs of heterosexual priviledge. It is the last bastion for str8 people to tell themselves that, no matter what the law says, gay people's relationships are somehow 'just not quite on a par' with heterosexual ones.That's homophobia.
Privilege doesn't have to enter into it. I'm in a straight marriage and I don't ever think in terms of par. Please note that I feel the same way about cohabiting couples. I don't think living together is any less significant than marrying. What you describe is indeed homophobia. However, what I'm describing isn't what you describe.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mr. Magoo: Ya. Just like I don't think marriage should include mixed race couples.
That's a dumb-ass comparison. The term "marriage" always did include mixed race heterosexual couples. quote: Not that it's any kind of persecution or anything. I guess I'm just adamantly opposed to any kind of change to our ever-evolving language. Or something. But it's not persecution, OK? It's not! I don't want to think of myself as that kind of person, so please don't suggest that I am. Stop it! Stop suggesting that maybe I'm a bigot just because I want to reserve the word "marriage" for pure race marriages. I mean, traditional marriages. Uh, marriages where the man and woman come from the same country. OK? Just because I want to deny mixed couples the right to marry doesn't make me a bad person. Plus, I have some very genuine and heartfelt, though not emotional or irrational, fears about people being allowed to marry houseplants or bicycle parts or canned food. Slippery slope and all that.
Okay, Magoo, my babble-crush on you is now officially over. You suck.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:16 PM
Oh well.Meanwhile I'm assuming that you yourself have reservations about "expanding" marriage to include any two adults. Is that correct? And at the same time you insist that you're gay-positive. What, exactly, is the problem with expanding marriage to include men and men? How does it harm a language that's so far survived such challenges as "doctor" possibly meaning a female, or "impact" being used as a verb, along with a million others? It just seems funny to me that nobody seems to contest any of the thousands of changes a year that our wonderful language undergoes (and survives) but somehow so many people are just so committed to this one word — marriage — that the thought of sharing it with 10% of the population creates a palpable state of existential angst in them?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:17 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tape_342:
It is persecution because it's a construction that seeks to salvage the last possible crumbs of heterosexual priviledge. It is the last bastion for str8 people to tell themselves that, no matter what the law says, gay people's relationships are somehow 'just not quite on a par' with heterosexual ones. That's homophobia.
yeah, esactly I remember being asked by a parent leader of a student religious group not to call the Gay-Straight Alliance (short for GLBTQ-Straight Alliance) that, but instead call it the diversity group, and not actually name homophobia as a problem that we were wanting to solve within our school and community. Denying words to groups that have been traditionally opressed is not *just* personal preference, it's continuing the opression in a more subtle way. [ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: Amy ] [ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]
From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:23 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mr. Magoo: Meanwhile I'm assuming that you yourself have reservations about "expanding" marriage to include any two adults. Is that correct? And at the same time you insist that you're gay-positive.
My "reservation," such as it is, is that insisting on the word "marriage" means that gays will lose some support, that is, from those whose only objection is the term "marriage." And I don't have to "insist" that I'm gay-positive. I've been a fag hag of the first order since before the term was invented. And I support human rights for everybody. quote: What, exactly, is the problem with expanding marriage to include men and men? How does it harm a language that's so far survived such challenges as "doctor" possibly meaning a female,
Weak comparison. Doctor was gender-neutral from the beginning. The only difference here is that we now have female doctors. The term itself hasn't been expanded. quote: or "impact" being used as a verb,
Now that's just a travesty and it is most certainly not all right with me. quote: It just seems funny to me that nobody seems to contest any of the thousands of changes a year that our wonderful language undergoes (and survives)
This is completely untrue. Every single day, I question somebody on his or her use of various words. quote: but somehow so many people are just so committed to this one word — marriage — that the thought of sharing it with 10% of the population creates a palpable state of existential angst in them?
Who's talking about existential angst?
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:24 PM
I have a hard time with this too. I think it's wrong to want to "reserve" the word marriage for opposite sex couples. I think that the people that think that way are a step behind, but are a far cry from being lynch mobbers or death camp gas chamber guards."Inspired" by the rhetoric on this board, I decided, when talking to my wife, to jokingly call my dad and her uncle bigots, because they have such reservations. That was not a very fun evening. She did not think that her dear, gentle uncle, in his 80s, should be described as such. "He's just an old Catholic, he's not racist or anything else, has nothing against gays etc. etc." I guess if I'm going to remain ideologically pure I gots to call him out as a hater and be unfriendly to him during family functions, hey? (My dad was fair game though. He should know better, etc. etc. Which I agree with.) Is homophobia, or discrimination generally, a continuum, some forms more foregivable than others? I hate to imagine what I must think about that.
From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:25 PM
quote: That's a dumb-ass comparison. The term "marriage" always did include mixed race heterosexual couples.
Uh, maybe you should Google "anti-miscegenation". Canada is one of many countries that, at one time or another, forbade mixed race couples to marry. Maybe, like yourself, we were only worried about dirtying the language. Ooh. That came out all wrong. I meant, uh, changing a word or its meaning, which we cannot and must not do.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tape_342: You've never had to think of it. That is a priviledge in itself.
Here's what you said about that "privilege": quote: It is the last bastion for str8 people to tell themselves that, no matter what the law says, gay people's relationships are somehow 'just not quite on a par' with heterosexual ones.
I have never told myself or anyone else any such thing. The only "privilege" I've had is the natural tendency that those in the majority enjoy, in this case, the straight majority. I'll tell you something else. I'm a member of a minority group that has suffered one hell of a lot more than homosexuals have and you don't hear many of us running around ranting and raving about "sanism."
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Uh, maybe you should Google "anti-miscegenation". Canada is one of many countries that, at one time or another, forbade mixed race couples to marry. Maybe, like yourself, we were only worried about dirtying the language. Ooh. That came out all wrong. I meant, uh, changing a word or its meaning, which we cannot and must not do.
Yes, Magoo, I know all about our racist history. The issue we're debating here is the use of the word "marriage." When Canada denied mixed race couples their right to marry, it wasn't the terminology that was tripping them up. I didn't say anything about "dirtying" the language. I'm talking about using language precisely. Another option would be to retire the word marriage altogether and come up with a new all-inclusive word for marriage of all types.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by EFA: The only "privilege" I've had is the natural tendency that those in the majority enjoy, in this case, the straight majority.
And that's the very priviledge at issue here. quote: I'll tell you something else. I'm a member of a minority group that has suffered one hell of a lot more than homosexuals have and you don't hear many of us running around ranting and raving about "sanism."
That is almost too offensive to respond to. All I'll say is this: It's not a competition. Please, no wagering. [ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mr. Magoo: I'm really failing to grasp why expanding one word in our language is such a concern for you.
It's not "such a concern." It hardly concerns me at all and I have said as much. I've also said why I have this minor reservation. I think the more interesting question is why I'm getting shit all over for expressing a point of view that isn't the least bit hurtful.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 02:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tape_342: That is almost too offensive to respond to. All I'll say this: It's not a competition. Please, no wagering.
Why is it offensive to point out, by way of example, that the debate over the word "marriage" isn't what the fight's all about? Edited to add: Or is it offensive to suggest that gays aren't the only people who have been persecuted? quote: And that's the very priviledge at issue here.
No. The "privilege" you were referring to was that of straight people wanting to think their unions were more meaningful than those of gays. That's what you were referring to. Edited to add: Basically, you were making a negative generalization. Isn't that what gays often accuse straights of? By making such a statement, you completely wrote off the vast majority of us straight couples who carry no such feelings. [ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jolted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7960
|
posted 11 July 2005 03:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by EFA:
Yes, Magoo, I know all about our racist history. The issue we're debating here is the use of the word "marriage." When Canada denied mixed race couples their right to marry, it wasn't the terminology that was tripping them up.
At that time, it was quite acceptable to be blunt about ones bigotry. Nowadays, one has to find a way to make it seem somewhat reasonable. quote: I didn't say anything about "dirtying" the language. I'm talking about using language precisely. Another option would be to retire the word marriage altogether and come up with a new all-inclusive word for marriage of all types.
For what purpose? To appease those who feel "dirty" sharing the word "marriage" with couples who are similar to them in countless ways but differ only in their distribution of genitals?
From: TO | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 03:33 PM
Jolted posted: quote: At that time, it was quite acceptable to be blunt about ones bigotry. Nowadays, one has to find a way to make it seem somewhat reasonable.
And bigotry is actually more difficult to confront now, thanks to the politically correct inflicting their language on the rest of us. That's why confronting such issues with language first is invariably a disaster. quote: For what purpose?
Asked and answered. quote: To appease those who feel "dirty" sharing the word "marriage" with couples who are similar to them in countless ways but differ only in their distribution of genitals?
Now you're being ridiculous. How would having a new word for marriage mean that it wasn't a shared word? And, last time I checked, gays had the same genital "distribution" as straights.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 11 July 2005 03:35 PM
quote: I've also said why I have this minor reservation.
Well, you say two things: 'My "reservation," such as it is, is that insisting on the word "marriage" means that gays will lose some support, that is, from those whose only objection is the term "marriage."' and "I'm talking about using language precisely." If your concern is the first, then you're doing your gay friends no favours. If you withdraw your support for use of the word marriage because this word might cause gays to lose support then you're right. They just lost yours! Why not stay and fight, if you have no reservations of your own?? And if your concern is the second, then I'd repeat my question, even simpler this time around: So?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 03:39 PM
Just to clarify ... what I meant by "language first" is when the politically correct insist that we use terms such as "people of colour" for Blacks or "developmentally disabled" for the mentally retarded. Now, I'm not opposed to enlightened language if it's accurate unless using the "right" language is declared a victory over the issue when it's clearly not. Discriminating against minorities is just plain wrong, regardless of what terminology you use to describe them. Life didn't get any better for the lunatics once we started calling them the mentally ill. In fact, sanitary language often makes things worse.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 03:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Well, you say two things: 'My "reservation," such as it is, is that insisting on the word "marriage" means that gays will lose some support, that is, from those whose only objection is the term "marriage."' and "I'm talking about using language precisely." If your concern is the first, then you're doing your gay friends no favours. If you withdraw your support for use of the word marriage because this word might cause gays to lose support then you're right. They just lost yours! Why not stay and fight, if you have no reservations of your own?? And if your concern is the second, then I'd repeat my question, even simpler this time around: So?
You've neglected to mention that I clearly stated earlier that I take offence when I refer to my husband as my husband and it gets corrected to "spouse" on the basis that using the words "wife" and "husband" is somehow offensive to gays. On your second point, I just don't follow you. Me not supporting expansion of the word "marriage" says nothing one way or the other about my support for gays.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Farmageddon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9572
|
posted 11 July 2005 03:50 PM
What a waste of time. I'm sure this has come to fruition: Q: I too think the letter must be from a fake progressive. And s/he is laffing his/her ass off at wot s/he has wrot here.Lets drop a nugget off to the lefties and watch 'em pick at each others assholes over terminology, percieved narrow mindedness and obvious oversensitivity. Gays have more equality and acceptance every day, and thank God its a growing trend. You can call your partnership/union/marriage anything you like for all I care. I was married for 10 years....you can keep the term. I'm done. What truly surprises me is that another unique term has not been adopted. Somthing modern. Like Womyn but not as stupid. Marriage today with it's revolving door divorce rate, has too many negative conintations. Not a term one may wish to choose to pin on their "everlasting" long term relationship. F
From: The seventh ring of a watery hell... | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659
|
posted 11 July 2005 04:03 PM
EFA, i'll venture a guess that part of the problem here is you're using some of the same sort of language as the genteel gay-bashers. Of course you're not saying the same ting as them, but the language can get awfully familiar. Personally, i can accept that there are people who are mildly uncomfortable with the fact that i as a gay man now have a legal marriage exactly the same as theirs in law. Paul Martin was clearly uncomfortable with the idea, and yet he stood up and did the right thing anyway: good for him. I do think there are differences of degree in homophobia: being denied full legal equality (and that, not a word, is what we're talkign about) is not the same thing as being beheaded. I think the word bigot gets thrown around too freely. But that is because the people who use these arguments in parliament and so forth, almost all the time -- almost 99% of the time, in fact, RB's right about that -- are in fact bigots whose real agenda is to take away all of our rights. I think those who are lucky enough to have the privilege of living in relationships accepted without question need to accept their discomfort, sure, but also think through it and accept that equal marriage rights are the logical consequence of trying to build an equal society. It's a move from tolerance to acceptance. It's not an easy one. I don't call my father, for instance, who is struggling with this, a hateful bigot because he's obviously uncomfortable at the idea that i'm married to another man. But i do think it's a necessary move for a good ally to make. Moving on: next time anyone laughs at Magoo's jokes, remember: the next victim could be you! Stand back from the sarcasm, it can splatter! DO NOT GET TOO CLOSE!
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jolted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7960
|
posted 11 July 2005 04:15 PM
quote: And bigotry is actually more difficult to confront now, thanks to the politically correct inflicting their language on the rest of us. That's why confronting such issues with language first is invariably a disaster.
How so? If you mean something like this: quote: You've neglected to mention that I clearly stated earlier that I take offence when I refer to my husband as my husband and it gets corrected to "spouse" on the basis that using the words "wife" and "husband" is somehow offensive to gays.
Then that is BS. Almost all of the gay couples I know refer to their spouses, at least some of the time, as "husband" or "wife". If someone is trying to censor your use of "husband" to describe your spouse then they are not worrying about being "offensive to gays". quote: Now you're being ridiculous. How would having a new word for marriage mean that it wasn't a shared word? And, last time I checked, gays had the same genital "distribution" as straights.
My point was why try to come up with a new word when the old word works excellently. About the "genital distribution", it was within couples, not individually (i.e a penis and a vagina = two vaginas = two penises) - this is the only consistent difference between same and opposite sex couples.
From: TO | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 04:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by swallow: EFA, i'll venture a guess that part of the problem here is you're using some of the same sort of language as the genteel gay-bashers. Of course you're not saying the same ting as them, but the language can get awfully familiar. Personally, i can accept that there are people who are mildly uncomfortable with the fact that i as a gay man now have a legal marriage exactly the same as theirs in law.
I wasn't aware I was using any particular "sort of language." By saying "people who are mildly uncomfortable," I sure hope you're not referring to me. I'm not the least bit uncomfortable with gays marrying.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 04:31 PM
Jolted wrote: quote: Then that is BS. Almost all of the gay couples I know refer to their spouses, at least some of the time, as "husband" or "wife".
Oh, well, in that case I must have been spouting bullshit. What does it matter to me what all of the gay couples you know call their partners? My complaint is about the gay people that I know telling me what I should call my partner. And, as for the issue of attacking problems by altering language first, there are zillions of examples of this. I know absolutely sexist pigs who call me a "woman" and I know enlightened men who call me a "girl." I also know who I choose to attack in conversation because I don't waste my time on issues that don't matter. quote: If someone is trying to censor your use of "husband" to describe your spouse then they are not worrying about being "offensive to gays".
So, despite the fact that gay people use that exact terminology in describing this "problem" to me, you still know better. Wow! You must be really, really smart. In response to "Now you're being ridiculous. How would having a new word for marriage mean that it wasn't a shared word? And, last time I checked, gays had the same genital "distribution" as straights," you wrote: quote: My point was why try to come up with a new word when the old word works excellently.
Because it doesn't work excellently. quote: About the "genital distribution", it was within couples, not individually (i.e a penis and a vagina = two vaginas = two penises) - this is the only consistent difference between same and opposite sex couples.
I'll concede this point but I still think it's a silly description. [ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 04:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by kurichina: I find it interesting that many of the same sort of people* who took feminists to task for overanalyzing language and its social implications in the '80's and '90's are now demanding a very high level of attention to language and its social implications when it comes to same sex marriage. That's just so... interesting.*conservatives, specifically
The "same sort of people"? What "sort" would that be? "Conservatives" aren't a "sort" of people. You realize, don't you, that had that expression been used earlier in this discussion, that would have been deemed evidence of homophobia. That's just so ... interesting.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:01 PM
quote: Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Unlike your continuing flogging of this particular dead horse.
Excuse me, whose flogging? And the issue is hardly "dead."
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jolted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7960
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:02 PM
quote: Oh, well, in that case I must have been spouting bullshit.
Yes, you were. Read your previous posts. quote: What does it matter to me what all of the gay couples you know call their partners? My complaint is about the gay people that I know telling me what I should call my partner.
Why don't you tell them that it is YOUR choice which term you use to refer to your husband? They can use whatever terms are acceptable to them. If you are associating with an uber-PC gay crowd then that is clouding your judgment - there is no widespread movement amongst gay people to devalue or denigrate the terms "husband" and "wife". quote: Because it doesn't work excellently.
Yes it does. Why do you think it doesn't? quote: I'll concede this point but I still think it's a silly description.
Why do you say this? What else could you say actually differentiates same-sex from opposite-sex couples other than their combination of genitals?
From: TO | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:02 PM
quote: Originally posted by EFA: And the issue is hardly "dead."
Eight court decisions, the Government of PEI and a majority of members of the House of Commons say it is. [Edited to make it clearer what I was replying to. See EFA's question below.] [ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:11 PM
quote: Yes, you were. Read your previous posts.
What, specifically, therein are you terming bullshit? quote: Why don't you tell them that it is YOUR choice which term you use to refer to your husband? They can use whatever terms are acceptable to them.
Gee, thanks for the tip. Now why didn't I think of that? Jolted, the point is I DON'T WANT TO BE CORRECTED. I would never "correct" a gay couple's language. quote: If you are associating with an uber-PC gay crowd then that is clouding your judgment - there is no widespread movement amongst gay people to devalue or denigrate the terms "husband" and "wife".
I'd hardly call them an uber-PC gay crowd. But perhaps it's a weird local thing. Are you denying that gay people dislike the words "husband" and "wife"? I hope so because I'd love to be wrong on this. quote: Yes it does. Why do you think it doesn't?
Because it leads to the husband/wife problem. It's also not within the definition of marriage. A new word would be preferable because it would be all-inclusive and, if anybody wanted to specify a heterosexual legally-sanctioned partnership, they could use the old word. quote: Why do you say this? What else could you say actually differentiates same-sex from opposite-sex couples other than their combination of genitals?
Well, first of all, I wasn't aware that gays needed (or wanted) to be differentiated. I thought that was the whole issue. Secondly, I think people's gender falls way down the list of important defining characteristics.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski: Eight court decisions, the Government of PEI and a majority of members of the House of Commons say it is.
They say what is what?
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by EFA:
They say what is what?
They say that marriage discrimination, in name and in fact, is dead.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:16 PM
quote: On your second point, I just don't follow you. Me not supporting expansion of the word "marriage" says nothing one way or the other about my support for gays.
Agreed. But neither is it explicable. Seriously. "I just like the word marriage as it is" doesn't really have a ring of authenticity to it. quote: You've neglected to mention that I clearly stated earlier that I take offence when I refer to my husband as my husband and it gets corrected to "spouse" on the basis that using the words "wife" and "husband" is somehow offensive to gays.
I'm not sure I follow this. I don't know of anyone, gay or straight, who finds "husband" or "wife" to be offensive terms.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by James: They say that marriage discrimination, in name and in fact, is dead.
Yeah, but we're talking about agreed terminology, not marriage discrimination. Has anyone posted anything remotely negative about gay marriage? [ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:27 PM
Magoo wrote: quote: Agreed. But neither is it explicable.
I have tried to explain it. I'm done with that now. quote: Seriously. "I just like the word marriage as it is" doesn't really have a ring of authenticity to it.
Magoo, I'm not after the ring of authenticity, not with this crowd. Clearly, anyone who objects to sloppy language is just a bigot. Case closed. quote: I'm not sure I follow this. I don't know of anyone, gay or straight, who finds "husband" or "wife" to be offensive terms.
So what you're telling me is that if you've never heard of it then it didn't happen. Well, it did happen and does happen and I don't like it.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:37 PM
quote: Yeah, but we're talking about agreed terminology ....
Precisely. And the term "marriage" and it's translations is the agreed terminology, around the world, in legal recognition of a state recognized form of domestic partnership and union. That is why proposing to call it "anything else" is not just constitutionally impossible, but discriminatory.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:44 PM
quote: Originally posted by shaolin: So what you're saying is we can have an all inclusive new word, but if the heterosexuals don't think it's enough they can still have their own, special old word to fall back on?
Yes!!! Unless this offends somebody, in which case, NO!!!
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 05:46 PM
quote: Originally posted by James: Precisely. And the term "marriage" and it's translations is the agreed terminology, around the world, in legal recognition of a state recognized form of domestic partnership and union. That is why proposing to call it "anything else" is not just constitutionally impossible, but discriminatory.
As I'm sure you know, legal recognition is not the same thing as public acceptance. And what we're arguing about on this thread at the moment is what terminology we can all agree on. And I don't believe such a proposition qualifies as discrimination.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jolted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7960
|
posted 11 July 2005 06:02 PM
I'm sorry but my last reply today. quote: What, specifically, therein are you terming bullshit?
Here is one example - the discussion was about "politically correct" terms: quote: Just to clarify ... what I meant by "language first" is when the politically correct insist that we use terms such as "people of colour" for Blacks or "developmentally disabled" for the mentally retarded.
I just don't see those terms used in everyday life, but "marriage" certainly is, and so are "husband" and "wife". quote: Gee, thanks for the tip. Now why didn't I think of that? Jolted, the point is I DON'T WANT TO BE CORRECTED. I would never "correct" a gay couple's language.
Well, this is between you and your friends. Have you ever told them this? Or are you afraid to offend them? Believe me, gay people have been offended against so much in the past that I doubt that this simple request would wreck your friendship. It might strengthen it. quote: I'd hardly call them an uber-PC gay crowd. But perhaps it's a weird local thing. Are you denying that gay people dislike the words "husband" and "wife"? I hope so because I'd love to be wrong on this.
I certainly can't speak for anyone but myself but I have never found any gay people who object to straight people using those terms. There are some gay people who object to same-sex marriage because it doesn't naturally include all same-sex relationships. quote: Because it leads to the husband/wife problem. It's also not within the definition of marriage. A new word would be preferable because it would be all-inclusive and, if anybody wanted to specify a heterosexual legally-sanctioned partnership, they could use the old word.
Hey, EFA, news flash - the definition of civil marriage in Canada has changed. Anyway, how could a new word be "all-inclusive" if some would reject the new word and use the old word? quote: Well, first of all, I wasn't aware that gays needed (or wanted) to be differentiated. I thought that was the whole issue. Secondly, I think people's gender falls way down the list of important defining characteristics.
Again you miss the point, so I will present it to you loudly - THERE ARE VERY FEW DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES AND SAME-SEX COUPLES BEYOND THE FACT THAT OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES HAVE DIFFERENT GENITALIA AND SAME-SEX COUPLES HAVE THE SAME GENITALIA.
From: TO | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 11 July 2005 06:12 PM
quote: I just don't see those terms used in everyday life, but "marriage" certainly is, and so are "husband" and "wife".
Which terms don't you see used in everyday life? Blacks? Disabled? And how does this translate into bullshit? quote: Well, this is between you and your friends. Have you ever told them this?
Yes. quote: Or are you afraid to offend them?
No. quote: Believe me, gay people have been offended against so much in the past
Well if much of what has offended them has been at the level of discussion of the word "marriage," then I'm not surprised. quote: that I doubt that this simple request would wreck your friendship. It might strengthen it.
This is not a concern. quote: I certainly can't speak for anyone but myself but I have never found any gay people who object to straight people using those terms.
So you're falling in line with the Magoo School of Thought, then, i.e. if it didn't happen to you two, then it certainly couldn't be a problem for me. quote: There are some gay people who object to same-sex marriage because it doesn't naturally include all same-sex relationships.
There are some straight people that feel the same way. quote: Hey, EFA, news flash - the definition of civil marriage in Canada has changed.
Hey, Jolted, news flash - I already posted my thoughts on the difference between legal recognition and public acceptance. quote: Anyway, how could a new word be "all-inclusive" if some would reject the new word and use the old word?
Not mutually exclusive. The new word would include everybody if they wanted to be so included. quote: Again you miss the point, so I will present it to you loudly - THERE ARE VERY FEW DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES AND SAME-SEX COUPLES BEYOND THE FACT THAT OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES HAVE DIFFERENT GENITALIA AND SAME-SEX COUPLES HAVE THE SAME GENITALIA.
NO, I THINK YOU MISSED THE POINT. I WASN'T CALLING FOR DIFFERENTIATION. I DIDN'T EVEN BRING IT UP. [ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 11 July 2005 09:42 PM
How incredibly crazy it is to break up with someone after two decades of marriage over a philosophical difference that doesn't have a day to day impact on your life. You would think that you would talk about it and discuss it over time. People can and do have the ability to change their minds.It will be unfortunate if that gets twisted into a consequence of same sex marriage. It's a consequence of people not taking their vows all that seriously. And I agree with the person here who bristles at the use of the word "partner". I correct absolutely anyone who uses that word. It's deeply and profoundly insulting if the person knows that it's not a word you use. I am not saying I've never used it but mostly with much caution and with much uncertainty. I prefer to use the word that I know the person uses. If I'm corrected I try fervently to make a mental note. People that go out of their way to insult people are sad dismal human beings. I don't agree with people who are against the whole term "marriage" for gay couples are bigots. They might be but they aren't necessarily. There are many many many people that just really have never had this issue as part of their day to day life and haven't contemplated the whole issue. They just see it as a compromise and an easy solution - they've not really studied it or examined it to draw the conclusion it's a human rights issue. I know lots of people who, until you really flesh it out, have just never thought of it that way. If someone has that attitude for a sustained period in the face of hearing compelling information that calls them to re-think it then I think the word bigot might be appropriate. I am curious,RB if you could answer something. I am not trying to be uncooperative or difficult but I'm curious. I have met people who are gay who disagree with marriage. They see it as part of conforming to heterosexual culture and they find it deeply offensive. They are pretty anti-marriage in terms of gay and lesbian people making that decision. Certainly not trying to suggest that these people are plentiful they are probably a very very very distinct minority but are THEY bigots?
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 11 July 2005 10:00 PM
If they believe their opinion of marriage should be forced on others against their will then yes, they certainly are bigots -- although not homophobes. There are also straight people who believe marriage should be done away with. Few people take them seriously, because they know how ridiculous an idea it is.If, on the other hand, they're content to merely rain on other people's parade, rather than cancel it for them (IOW loudly proclaiming why they think people shouldn't marry), then they're just cranks. People who don't believe in marriage for themselves are fine.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 11 July 2005 10:00 PM
quote: Originally posted by Hailey: How incredibly crazy it is to break up with someone after two decades of marriage over a philosophical difference that doesn't have a day to day impact on your life.
I wouldn't worry about that part of it, Hailey, for that "letter" is as patently bogus as a $3 bill; might explain why most here have declined to even comment on it's "substance". The dynamic it describes runs entirely counter to the "real-life" experience that eventually comes to guide most of us.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819
|
posted 11 July 2005 10:29 PM
Hello friends. Can I get back to the letter in question? I'm surprised that some of you are so quick to say they would dump their partner/husband/whatever of 20+ years if they had reservations about SSM. For god's sake - the writer doesn't even know why her partner can't accept SSM. Maybe he's just old-fashioned in that regard. Is that a hanging offence?? A divorceable issue? It's not as though he is voting against the legislation. It's not as though he is going to march against SSM. I could guess that he's probably unwilling to discuss it because he's conflicted by his progressive principles and his instinctive, heretofore unquestioned assumption about what marriage is. And maybe he doesn't want to discuss it because he's worried about the response - if he's a Babbler, those fears will be well and truly confirmed.And seriously, how exactly does being uncomfortable about SSM equate to homophobia? Others have noted that many same sex couples themselves are not interested in getting married and aren't jumping up and down about it for others either. Are they homophobic? Bloody hell! I'm so glad my partner hasn't booted me yet for not believing in God! I would have thought that would be at least as important as having a negative attitude towards SSM. Are those of you with partners seriously saying that you explicitly agree with each other on EVERY social issue? And that you will always agree on future issues? Yeah right. I guess for all you hardliners the 'personal' really is 'political' isn't it.
From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 11 July 2005 11:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by solarpower: I hate to bring the original subject up again but my neighbours have been married 51 years and she only just found out he was against SSM when the subject of SSM came up.
I can certainly believe that. It's the part about breaking up over it that doesn't ring true.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 12 July 2005 01:08 AM
quote: Originally posted by Hailey: EFA in Alberta unless a couple has lived together for, I believe, a year before the birth of the child the father is not considered a legal guardian. In a married situation you are automatically a legal guardian to your child. In my opinion that is the single most compelling PRACTICAL reason for choosing marriage over common law. I can't imagine choosing non-guardianship status over my offspring.
That's pretty harsh. Do you mean that an unmarried biological father is not automatically a legal guardian? I can't wrap my mind around that.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 12 July 2005 02:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by Aristotleded24: Sometimes it's not in the child's best interest to be under the guardianship of one or both biological parents, but that's getting way off topic.
I would agree but I also think the biological parents are the logical place to start (in the absence of any negative factors, that is).
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 12 July 2005 10:52 AM
quote: Originally posted by Hailey: No, he's financially responsible. There are deficits in terms of always making someone responsible for that - married or not married - but he is responsible.
That seems odd to me -- giving off-site fathers responsibilities but not rights. In BC, I think the biological father has a pretty good shot at the court granting joint custody and guardianship. The Alberta situation seems discriminatory to me, but then there's lots and lots about family law (throughout Canada) that I really disagree with. [ 12 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327
|
posted 13 July 2005 03:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by Amy: That's fine, for you. At this stage in my life, I'd feel very uncomfortable with calling a man my husband (or a woman my wife). The thing is, it's none of anyone's business what I call my S.O., least of all religious/conservative lobby groups who don't feel comfortable with me using 'their' terminology.
I've noticed that gay people tend to call their significant others by various names, including spouse, boyfriend, partner, lover, lesbian partner, etc. These couples have been using their own terms (heck, even some straight couples will refer to their "best friend" as opposed to "boyfriend/girlfriend"), and will continue to do so regardless of how legal definitions change. I agree that what people choose to call their significant others is their own perrogative.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 13 July 2005 05:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Aristotleded24: I agree that what people choose to call their significant others is their own perrogative.
I agree though I must say the wince factor might come into play with "Honey-Buggle-Burger-Fish-Lumps" or some such.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Lukewarm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8690
|
posted 14 July 2005 05:27 PM
quote: ho·mo·pho·bi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-) n. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling.
Just on a side note, I find too many people misusing the term "homophobic". In the letter Auntie suggests to make sure he's not "homophobic" because someone with a"phobia" has.. quote: A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
And they likely can get over. If someone doesn't like gay people, it is possible they are homophobic but more than likely most people who don't like gay people, don't like them because they're just plain imature jerks Homophobia- Fear Jerk- A foolish, rude, or contemptible personAnd that's Grammar 101 with Lukewarm for Thursday, July 14th, 2005 [ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]
From: hinterland's dark cubby hole | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Lukewarm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8690
|
posted 14 July 2005 05:55 PM
I just re-read it ..... OR contempt!, I appologize. I just tend to think of a Phobia as something you're scared of.I tend to look at it as a neighbor wanting to use the sidewalk, but I don't want them to. I'm not scared of them, I'm just an asshole. [ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]
From: hinterland's dark cubby hole | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
|
posted 15 July 2005 10:04 AM
quote: Originally posted by Lukewarm: If someone doesn't like gay people, it is possible they are homophobic but more than likely most people who don't like gay people, don't like them because they're just plain imature jerks
And if someone doesn't like Lukewarm, it's more than likely because he's a scumbag. Ahhhhh... I see how that "contempt" thing works, now!
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 15 July 2005 11:08 AM
Getting back to terminology, I'm gonna take a step out of line and say that I'm generally against civil marriage of all kinds.Now, *legal* marriage for SS couples is a whole other thing, bringing issues like care for children, adoption, legal parenthood, medical care and medical decisions, pensions, etc. I support it for those reasons. But it was never in my top queer priorites. There's an article in last week's Xtra about this (sorry, I can't do the link thing). Basically it says that since Stonewall the marginalized of the queer community (trans people, drag queens, poor queers, radical queers, genderfuck queers) were ignored, and still are, all so that the mainstream middle class, aka "acceptable" queers (mostly white gay boys) can push assimilationist items to the mainstream, like marriage. This is where letters to Xtra from gay men wanting to "clean up" the homeless at Church and Wellesley come from. Call it the "We're Just Like You" vs the "Fuck you, We're Queer!" debate. Not supporting civil marriage doesn't make me homophobic, it makes me against civil marriage. Oh, and I also hate the phrases "husband" and "wife" and I never use them. Not liking those terms stems from my being a feminist. Not that I'm saying all feminists don't like those terms. But for me the history of those terms (ownership of women is one example) cannot be overcome. I know many married gay men and lesbians who love those terms and use them. And for them I say : Great, go for it! But I will not use those terms. I feel that marriage is a patriarchal, outdated, consumer-driven institution, and I don't support it. I would sincerely hope that there is room for those of us who challenge societal systems to have a voice in this debate.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 15 July 2005 11:26 AM
Yes, but this wasn't really about marriage; it was about equal treatment before a law that says this constitutes a legal relationship and this does not. All the other considerations, the maintreaming queer identity, the marginalisation of non-mainstream queers, as well attitudes and actions towards poverty and how dangerous marriage is to society in general, are separate issues.And personally, I don't consider my sexuality to be that defining a trait of my identitiy. In fact, I think it's absurd to think so. The struggle against alienation and for acceptance and respect have contributed far more my identity and, even better, it's permitted me to feel solidarity with every other person in the world who faces analogous obstacles. My love of cock doesn't do that at all.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Lukewarm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8690
|
posted 15 July 2005 07:08 PM
quote: And if someone doesn't like Lukewarm, it's more than likely because he's a scumbag.Ahhhhh... I see how that "contempt" thing works, now!
*Sigh*. Reality check: don't forget, this is the internet. Unfortunately you can call me what you wish but what someone thinks about what I write on the internet doesn't affect me in real life. But do go back to your high stool if it's one of the few outlets of joy or security you have [ 15 July 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]
From: hinterland's dark cubby hole | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621
|
posted 16 July 2005 01:17 AM
quote: n a side note, I find too many people misusing the term "homophobic". In the letter Auntie suggests to make sure he's not "homophobic" because someone with a"phobia" has.. quote:A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. And they likely can get over. If someone doesn't like gay people, it is possible they are homophobic but more than likely most people who don't like gay people, don't like them because they're just plain imature jerks Homophobia- Fear Jerk- A foolish, rude, or contemptible personAnd that's Grammar 101 with Lukewarm for Thursday, July 14th, 2005
What you've actually proved is not the "correct" meaning of "homophobic", but rather that the method you used to decide on that meaning is naive, pendantic, and flawed. In natural language, meaning depends on usage, and nobody uses "homophobic" to mean what you think it should mean. Linguistics 101 with uncle rasmus.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673
|
posted 16 July 2005 05:10 AM
quote: Originally posted by bigcitygal: Um, Rufus, to clarify: as an extremely non-religious person I have no opinion on religious marriages. And I don't believe they have any legal standing, since everyone has to go through city hall to be considered legally married.
Are you sure about that? We were married by a religious type and I don't think we ever attended at City Hall.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 16 July 2005 07:23 AM
In Ontario, and I think all provinces, designated churches can issue "banns", which stand legally in lieu of a municipally issued marriage license.That is the procedure where for three weeks in a row, the priest/minister publicly does the "If anyone knows a reason why ____ and ______ cannot be lawfully joined ......". Restrictions apply. For one thing, it must be a first marriage for both. But that is how some of the same sex marriages were performed before the provincial law was changed.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 16 July 2005 08:16 AM
Not all provinces, James, and in fact those marriages were not legally valid (but were later registered anyway because the common law was discriminatory.) Quebec has a dual system. After obtaining the license, banns must be posted. This applies to civil marriages as well, and a church may not marry people by posting banns without a valid license being obtained first.Churches have no right to marry those who are not legally entitled to marry. In the Ontario marriage case Metropolitan Community Church lost. It was the couples seeking licenses from city hall who won. The courts were painstakingly clear that a restriction in the definition of marriage to opposite sex was a violation of the rights of gay people, but was in no way a violation of the religious freedom of churches wishing to marry them. (I believe this was done in order to set a strong precedent that can eventually be used to argue it doesn't matter a tinker's dam if your religion believes in polygamy) The analogy I like to use is postage stamps. Lots of businesses are licensed to sell them, and lots of businesses offer other postal services. But the mail is still a government responsibility. In Canada, the United States and some other countries clergy are allowed to perform marriages. In France they are not. In all countries the legal definition of marriage is purely civil though, regardless of who performs the ceremony. You can be married by banns instead of a license, but it still needs to be registered with the government to be recognized and it won't be registered if it doesn't meet the legal requirements for marriage (i.e. underage, too closely related, not legally free to marry) Similarly, in some provinces marriage licenses are obtained, not through government offices, but at jewelry stores, florists and drug stores. This does not give these businesses any say over the definition of marriage. They're just acting as government agents, and that's essentially what a minister is doing, "by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Marriage Act" In the United States, with the separation of church and state, the government usually makes no judgement on what a church and/or member of the clergy is, so in most states virtually anyone has the power to legally marry others.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|