The gay marriage debate in the US these days
Posted by: ErikL on 15 February 2004
Isn't it just a civil rights issue, or am I missing something?
I don't understand all the fuss.
I don't understand all the fuss.
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by BrianD
quote:
In a democracy we have to tolerate that which is not illegal.
People tolerate many things that aren't illegal. Like the positioning of speed cameras, that we know are a form of taxation rather than put there to make our roads safer. Positioning them where they are isn't illegal but that doesn't mean we have to agree with it, or like it or believe it's the right thing to do.
Just like men marrying men and women marrying women.
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by JeremyD
quote:I very much doubt it, although I must admit I have no idea what a mackem is. My excuse is that mackem isn't in my dictionary. What's yours?
Originally posted by BrianD:
What's a hermaphrodite? Is it a mackem?
Matthew, "tolerate" does mean "endure", and I wish people who don't mean endure would use a more appropriate word.
I am certainly not alone in being particularly offended by the term "racial tolerance" - I will not tolerate being "tolerated"!
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
A 'mackem' is a Sunderland supporter. Or rather, just somebody from Sunderland.
quote:
I very much doubt it, although I must admit I have no idea what a mackem is.
A 'mackem' is a Sunderland supporter. Or rather, just somebody from Sunderland.
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
BrianD said "Tolerating something doesn't make it acceptable"
Er, yes it does. Otherwise you are not tolerating it but sort of grudgingly allowing it and implying that ideally you wouldn't have to tolerate it and instead it will be banned.
Matthew
Err... I think tolerate means to accept something that you don't really believe in yourself, which implies grudging acceptance.
I think when some talk of tolerance positively, they really mean "to embrace", with no implication of grudging acceptance.
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by matthewr
BrainD said "Since marriage between men and women has been established for many years I believe you have this the wrong way around. It is for those who believe same-sex marriage should be allowed to state the case why, rather than me to state the case why not"
Well ignoring the obvious sophistry, same-sex couples wish to get married in order to enjoy the same legal basis and status for their relationship as other couples are entitled to. Since it seems manifestly unjust to deny such couples the same rights as others enjoy then you need to have a good reason to do so. "It's always been like that" is not a very good reason and is indeed the same reason used to argue that women couldn't vote, blacks couldn't get on the bus, etc. etc.
So the question remains: Why do you wish to prevent same-sex marriages? You must have a reason surely?
Jeremey said "Matthew, "tolerate" does mean "endure", and I wish people who don't mean endure would use a more appropriate word"
Tolerate can mean endure as in ability to endure pain or hardship but in this context it means "capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others". Given that your "racial tolerance" example is an excellent example of where the meaning we are talking about here is appropriate and your meaning isn't I am slightly surprised you would make this point.
Rasher -- Tolerance in this context no more implies "to embrace" than it does "to endure". It's essentially ambivalent.
We can of course neatly avoid all the semantics ot the word tolerance by just saying that BrianD is intolerant with respect to same-sex marriages. Which seems fairly plain.
Matthew
Well ignoring the obvious sophistry, same-sex couples wish to get married in order to enjoy the same legal basis and status for their relationship as other couples are entitled to. Since it seems manifestly unjust to deny such couples the same rights as others enjoy then you need to have a good reason to do so. "It's always been like that" is not a very good reason and is indeed the same reason used to argue that women couldn't vote, blacks couldn't get on the bus, etc. etc.
So the question remains: Why do you wish to prevent same-sex marriages? You must have a reason surely?
Jeremey said "Matthew, "tolerate" does mean "endure", and I wish people who don't mean endure would use a more appropriate word"
Tolerate can mean endure as in ability to endure pain or hardship but in this context it means "capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others". Given that your "racial tolerance" example is an excellent example of where the meaning we are talking about here is appropriate and your meaning isn't I am slightly surprised you would make this point.
Rasher -- Tolerance in this context no more implies "to embrace" than it does "to endure". It's essentially ambivalent.
We can of course neatly avoid all the semantics ot the word tolerance by just saying that BrianD is intolerant with respect to same-sex marriages. Which seems fairly plain.
Matthew
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by ejl
quote:
Since marriage between men and women has been established for many years I believe you have this the wrong way around. It is for those who believe same-sex marriage should be allowed to state the case why, rather than me to state the case why not.
BrianD,
Easy. Not having same-sex marriage impedes the liberties and the pursuit of happiness of those that want it.
If this is granted (as it must be), then the burden is on those who deny the privelege to show why they should do so. As Judd made rather clear in an earlier post, this is the developing legal opinion as well, so it's odd you're still trying to make this point.
In this respect the situation parallels that of black slaves in the USA prior to 1864. There was a long-established (300+ year) precedent for enslaving them. If someone said "It is for those who believe the emancipation of blacks should be allowed to state the case why, rather than me to state the case why not.", the answer would have been the same -- assuming this kind of ridiculous question deserved an answer.
Incidentally, one of the saddest little arguments right now is the one where it's claimed that because some people find same-sex marriages disgusting or offensive, it therefore shouldn't be allowed. This is of course irrelevant. It also parallels another sad chapter in US race relations. Many white southerners in the 50's-60's were disgusted by the prospect that they might have to use eating utensils, drinking fountains, and other public items that had once been used by blacks. The proper response to these people was that their disgust was irrelevant, and that they should either stay out of public places or get over it (they got over it). I see no reason not to give the same response to the current complainers.
I have yet to see a single good reason to exclude same-sex marriages that isn't irrelevant or false. The usual candidates seem to be:
i. same sex intercourse is unnatural (false in fact, it's widely found in nature)
ii. same sex marriage violates "natural moral law" (quaintly antiquated and also false since there is no such thing as natural moral law)
iii. same sex marriage violates the codes of my religion (irrelevant)
iv. same sex marriage disgusts me (irrelevant).
My current favorite "argument" appeared in a letter to the editor in a Biloxi Mississippi newspaper. The writer argued that, although he did indeed admit that same sex intercourse was indeed found in nature, same sex marriages were not, and so shouldn't be allowed.
I consider it a credit to the paper that they had humor enough to publish this.
Eric
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by ejl
Well Matthew I guess you said it a day ahead of me.
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by throbnorth
Words
Sorry to go back a bit, but it's just too easy....
So which original meaning would that be, BrianD? - You've got plenty of choice - 'disposed to joy and mirth' [16th century], 'self indulgent' [17th century], 'immoral woman' [19th century], or maybe 'over familiar or impertinent' [19th century U.S.]. I reckon you're a 16th century guy somehow.... [maybe it's that witch burning thing?]
That's the trouble with words, isn't it? The little buggers just won't stay put and have such power to offend, no matter how hard we try. This elderly chestnut has exercised Telegraph readers, amongst others, for quite some time, so I'm sure you must be familiar with this argument; Roget lists quite half a page of synonyms for 'gay', but for 'homosexual', there are only two entries [and these are under the subheading 'weakling']. They are 'homo' and 'queer'. Being a family-orientated publication perhaps, Roget omits many others, these being derogatory or obscene. I do think the alteration in meaning of one little three letter word when there are so many others that will suit is not especially hard to bear.
If perhaps you're looking for something to bandy about the office when feeling blithe and cheerful, then 'Anacreontic' caught my eye, and is such a splendid word that I think it might make more than a fair exchange. If that doesn't rock you boat, then perhaps you should take a leaf from blacks and homosexuals, and attempt to reclaim the word 'gay' for exclusively heterosexual use. We've done it for 'nigger' and 'queer', so I really think it's a definite possibility. The key idea here is that afflicted groups can only use these words in reference to themselves, as a form of solidarity which strengthens their position. Given that you heterosexuals outnumber us so comprehensively, I really don't think that there should be any problem, and in fact I see badges and bumper stickers . Granted, phrasing your demands might be taxing, with the first few months being a little sticky, but who knows, you might meet a few new friends! However, sheer logistics should ensure you win out in the end.
Personally, I feel that the continually evolving shifts in meaning of words is one of the many glories of the English language, and prefer to vent my philological ire on slack punctuation, .... the misplaced apostrophe, perhaps?
But leaving barrels and fish aside for a moment, I think we can agree that words do have tremendous significance, and largely this is what this debate seems to be about. 'Tolerance' for instance. To me this suggests a kind of condescension, rather in the way that one might allow a neighbour's outlandish collection of garden gnomes. 'Preference' is another, as in 'sexual preference'. When it comes to woofterdom, believe me, you really don't have a choice; we're not talking sweaters. Having said that, if I was indeed able to have a choice I would choose my own homosexuality without question. It's something that permeates every fibre of my being, and is an intrinsic part of what makes me wonderful, lovely me, and as I'm happy to say I would rather be me than anyone else, 'preference' is both irrelevant and inaccurate.
I would prefer 'acceptance' to tolerance [but if pressed, would like complete indifference best of all - a bit like the way one would regard a person's hair colour - there really is no issue to even give a name to] and 'orientation' to preference. 'Marriage' is the other emotive word, which has so exercised the Massachusetts legislature, granting anything other than which has been seen as second class.
I confess I don't quite understand this. I've got no issues with the idea of marriage being only the union of a man and a woman.... 'in the sight of God', or whatever it is. Marriage for me is a distinctly religious affair, and quite specific - no problem. Frankly, I don't see a civil union as being in any way second class. As long as the same legal rights and responsibilities are granted, that's the important thing. All those tots in tartan, hypocritical agnostics looking for picturesque churches, co-ordinated bonbonieres, register signing reinactments for video and vintage cars is something that you lot are welcome to, although maybe I do have a bit of a hankering for the presents [Partner & I spent many a year attending endless weddings and gave freely of duvet covers, but never saw even a potato peeler for our own ten year effort]. Me, I'd just like the rights.
The right to be next of kin, with the hospital privileges that allows, the right to automatic mutual inheritance of your partner's estate without tax, the right to be present at and arrange your partner's funeral, the right to the same tax breaks, the right to leave your hard earned pension to someone you love rather than it stay unpaid and lastly, and perhaps oddly, the right to a bit of a legal impediment which makes separating that much more of an issue for both parties. Not an exhaustive list, and I'm sure I could think of a few more if I was pushed. What is it about these fairly simple and reasonable things that makes people froth at the mouth? What possible threat can a few sensible arrangements be to anyone? How indeed do they affect anyone except the parties concerned [and maybe a few pension funds, who might have some reason to feel a bit crabby]? I cross my heart that I will not demand the right to re-arrange anyone's furniture. Will that do?
I have to admit that I do think the government here has handled it quite well. They've avoided the 'm' word, and have been scrupulous in stating that the civil registration will not be a ceremony in the same way that a registry office wedding is, cutting a lot of opposition off at the pass. Who cares about that? The prospect of mutual lifetime commitment is rather more than a stranger at the town hall spouting a bit of something or other for five minutes in front of a spray of chrysanths. In a perfect world, I'd like to see church weddings for the marriage of men and women carry on as now [although something in the way of a blessing before a civil ceremony for shirt-lifting [and blouse-lifting] believers wouldn't go amiss - as celebration of love is what religion is about, unless I've missed something]. For unbelievers, the same civil ceremony should be enough, whatever the combination of gender. Obviously, for far too many people this is a bit much at the moment, but it can wait - what's coming will do quite nicely for now. Couples will know exactly what they are doing, whatever it's called, and I expect they'll get some duvet covers out of it as well.
And this is where I see things going to the bad in the States. It's all very entertaing to watch the knicker-twisting going on, but that word 'marriage' looks as if it might set gay activists back a few years and deprive people even of the prospect of civil unions, which otherwise would gradually sneak in through common sense and decency. Bush will be a bigger idiot than we already think him if he starts tinkering with the constitution. This article in the Slate [which I find a reasonable and balanced source of U.S. news ] says why, and in the process gives a very interesting argument for the merits of federalism, which had not occurred to me:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095259/
Thanks Justin for your insight - I'll be very pleased if activists win the day, even if I don't exactly want what they may achieve. It seems a shame that in failing, they are more likely to put that prospect further out of reach.
Anacreontically,
throb
[This message was edited by throbnorth on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 00:36.]
Sorry to go back a bit, but it's just too easy....
quote:
I also wouldn't mind if the word 'gay' saw a return to it's real meaning.
So which original meaning would that be, BrianD? - You've got plenty of choice - 'disposed to joy and mirth' [16th century], 'self indulgent' [17th century], 'immoral woman' [19th century], or maybe 'over familiar or impertinent' [19th century U.S.]. I reckon you're a 16th century guy somehow.... [maybe it's that witch burning thing?]
That's the trouble with words, isn't it? The little buggers just won't stay put and have such power to offend, no matter how hard we try. This elderly chestnut has exercised Telegraph readers, amongst others, for quite some time, so I'm sure you must be familiar with this argument; Roget lists quite half a page of synonyms for 'gay', but for 'homosexual', there are only two entries [and these are under the subheading 'weakling']. They are 'homo' and 'queer'. Being a family-orientated publication perhaps, Roget omits many others, these being derogatory or obscene. I do think the alteration in meaning of one little three letter word when there are so many others that will suit is not especially hard to bear.
If perhaps you're looking for something to bandy about the office when feeling blithe and cheerful, then 'Anacreontic' caught my eye, and is such a splendid word that I think it might make more than a fair exchange. If that doesn't rock you boat, then perhaps you should take a leaf from blacks and homosexuals, and attempt to reclaim the word 'gay' for exclusively heterosexual use. We've done it for 'nigger' and 'queer', so I really think it's a definite possibility. The key idea here is that afflicted groups can only use these words in reference to themselves, as a form of solidarity which strengthens their position. Given that you heterosexuals outnumber us so comprehensively, I really don't think that there should be any problem, and in fact I see badges and bumper stickers . Granted, phrasing your demands might be taxing, with the first few months being a little sticky, but who knows, you might meet a few new friends! However, sheer logistics should ensure you win out in the end.
Personally, I feel that the continually evolving shifts in meaning of words is one of the many glories of the English language, and prefer to vent my philological ire on slack punctuation, .... the misplaced apostrophe, perhaps?
But leaving barrels and fish aside for a moment, I think we can agree that words do have tremendous significance, and largely this is what this debate seems to be about. 'Tolerance' for instance. To me this suggests a kind of condescension, rather in the way that one might allow a neighbour's outlandish collection of garden gnomes. 'Preference' is another, as in 'sexual preference'. When it comes to woofterdom, believe me, you really don't have a choice; we're not talking sweaters. Having said that, if I was indeed able to have a choice I would choose my own homosexuality without question. It's something that permeates every fibre of my being, and is an intrinsic part of what makes me wonderful, lovely me, and as I'm happy to say I would rather be me than anyone else, 'preference' is both irrelevant and inaccurate.
I would prefer 'acceptance' to tolerance [but if pressed, would like complete indifference best of all - a bit like the way one would regard a person's hair colour - there really is no issue to even give a name to] and 'orientation' to preference. 'Marriage' is the other emotive word, which has so exercised the Massachusetts legislature, granting anything other than which has been seen as second class.
I confess I don't quite understand this. I've got no issues with the idea of marriage being only the union of a man and a woman.... 'in the sight of God', or whatever it is. Marriage for me is a distinctly religious affair, and quite specific - no problem. Frankly, I don't see a civil union as being in any way second class. As long as the same legal rights and responsibilities are granted, that's the important thing. All those tots in tartan, hypocritical agnostics looking for picturesque churches, co-ordinated bonbonieres, register signing reinactments for video and vintage cars is something that you lot are welcome to, although maybe I do have a bit of a hankering for the presents [Partner & I spent many a year attending endless weddings and gave freely of duvet covers, but never saw even a potato peeler for our own ten year effort]. Me, I'd just like the rights.
The right to be next of kin, with the hospital privileges that allows, the right to automatic mutual inheritance of your partner's estate without tax, the right to be present at and arrange your partner's funeral, the right to the same tax breaks, the right to leave your hard earned pension to someone you love rather than it stay unpaid and lastly, and perhaps oddly, the right to a bit of a legal impediment which makes separating that much more of an issue for both parties. Not an exhaustive list, and I'm sure I could think of a few more if I was pushed. What is it about these fairly simple and reasonable things that makes people froth at the mouth? What possible threat can a few sensible arrangements be to anyone? How indeed do they affect anyone except the parties concerned [and maybe a few pension funds, who might have some reason to feel a bit crabby]? I cross my heart that I will not demand the right to re-arrange anyone's furniture. Will that do?
I have to admit that I do think the government here has handled it quite well. They've avoided the 'm' word, and have been scrupulous in stating that the civil registration will not be a ceremony in the same way that a registry office wedding is, cutting a lot of opposition off at the pass. Who cares about that? The prospect of mutual lifetime commitment is rather more than a stranger at the town hall spouting a bit of something or other for five minutes in front of a spray of chrysanths. In a perfect world, I'd like to see church weddings for the marriage of men and women carry on as now [although something in the way of a blessing before a civil ceremony for shirt-lifting [and blouse-lifting] believers wouldn't go amiss - as celebration of love is what religion is about, unless I've missed something]. For unbelievers, the same civil ceremony should be enough, whatever the combination of gender. Obviously, for far too many people this is a bit much at the moment, but it can wait - what's coming will do quite nicely for now. Couples will know exactly what they are doing, whatever it's called, and I expect they'll get some duvet covers out of it as well.
And this is where I see things going to the bad in the States. It's all very entertaing to watch the knicker-twisting going on, but that word 'marriage' looks as if it might set gay activists back a few years and deprive people even of the prospect of civil unions, which otherwise would gradually sneak in through common sense and decency. Bush will be a bigger idiot than we already think him if he starts tinkering with the constitution. This article in the Slate [which I find a reasonable and balanced source of U.S. news ] says why, and in the process gives a very interesting argument for the merits of federalism, which had not occurred to me:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095259/
Thanks Justin for your insight - I'll be very pleased if activists win the day, even if I don't exactly want what they may achieve. It seems a shame that in failing, they are more likely to put that prospect further out of reach.
Anacreontically,
throb
[This message was edited by throbnorth on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 00:36.]
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by throbnorth:
'Tolerance' for instance. To me this suggests a kind of condescension, .......I would prefer 'acceptance' to tolerance [but if pressed, would like complete indifference best of all
Thanks Throb.. This is what I was pathetically trying to say.
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by Ron Toolsie
The word 'marriage' here in this country that has complete separation between Church and State is simply a contract between two individuals and the state. The two individuals stipulate mutual rights and protections (and some minor benefits accorded by the State) and the state records and enforces. The element of morality really doesn't even apply. Would you argue that it is immoral for two people who are not legally wed to co-sign on the mortgage of a house, regardless of their sexes?
Back in my parents times a church wedding was not recognized by the state and a state wedding was not recognized by the church-not where they got married (not in the US), so they had to get 'married' twice. Now is not that a farce?
I'm neither pro gay marriages or anti them. But do believe that people should not be denied of defining contractual obligations based on their sexuality.
Was Britney Spears less than 24 hour marriage any more sacrosanct than a lifetime legal commitment between a same-sex couple?
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Back in my parents times a church wedding was not recognized by the state and a state wedding was not recognized by the church-not where they got married (not in the US), so they had to get 'married' twice. Now is not that a farce?
I'm neither pro gay marriages or anti them. But do believe that people should not be denied of defining contractual obligations based on their sexuality.
Was Britney Spears less than 24 hour marriage any more sacrosanct than a lifetime legal commitment between a same-sex couple?
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by BrianD
Looks like you lot are all in one corner and I'm in the opposite.
So, getting back to tolerance and rights. Since I have the right to an opinion I suggest you people learn to tolerate it even though it is different from your own. I happen to believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. You don't.
Matthew
Yes, I do ignore it because while they can have a relationship, I don't care about that, I said what I think marriage is. That means imo same-sex marriages should not be allowed.
Elj
No it doesn't. How on earth do you work that out? There are less men and women being married today than there were years ago, many people are just as happy without being married, the only reason people want same-sex marriages is because they see it as a kind of recognition, or acceptance.
I have yet to see a good reason why they should be allowed, other than a section of society attemting to appear to 'do the right thing'.
I am in the camp of believing that man/man and woman/woman is wrong. That's it. That they should go one step further and be married is ridiculous to me. You can all jump up and down over that statement all you like, as I'm sure many of you will.
throb
Strange that you can't work it out. I was born in the 20th century, I doubt there are many people around who would want the word 'gay' return to what they'd see as it's real meaning and who would be going further back than that, do you? As for the rest of your post about words. 'Tolerate', that means 'put up' with something, although not in agreement. You come up with condescension due to some kind of paranoia on your part.
I do have an issue. And despite what everybody else on here appears to be suggesting, I am entitled to have an issue with this. I assume many of you on here won't agree that I'm entitled to this view merely because you don't agree with it. Hypocritical springs to mind.
So, getting back to tolerance and rights. Since I have the right to an opinion I suggest you people learn to tolerate it even though it is different from your own. I happen to believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. You don't.
Matthew
quote:
Well ignoring the obvious sophistry, same-sex couples wish to get married in order to enjoy the same legal basis and status for their relationship as other couples are entitled to. Since it seems manifestly unjust to deny such couples the same rights as others enjoy .....
Yes, I do ignore it because while they can have a relationship, I don't care about that, I said what I think marriage is. That means imo same-sex marriages should not be allowed.
quote:I do. I think marriage is a union of a man and a woman. You don't agree.
So the question remains: Why do you wish to prevent same-sex marriages? You must have a reason surely?
Elj
quote:
Easy. Not having same-sex marriage impedes the liberties and the pursuit of happiness of those that want it.
No it doesn't. How on earth do you work that out? There are less men and women being married today than there were years ago, many people are just as happy without being married, the only reason people want same-sex marriages is because they see it as a kind of recognition, or acceptance.
quote:
I have yet to see a single good reason to exclude same-sex marriages that isn't irrelevant or false.
I have yet to see a good reason why they should be allowed, other than a section of society attemting to appear to 'do the right thing'.
I am in the camp of believing that man/man and woman/woman is wrong. That's it. That they should go one step further and be married is ridiculous to me. You can all jump up and down over that statement all you like, as I'm sure many of you will.
throb
quote:
So which original meaning would that be,
Strange that you can't work it out. I was born in the 20th century, I doubt there are many people around who would want the word 'gay' return to what they'd see as it's real meaning and who would be going further back than that, do you? As for the rest of your post about words. 'Tolerate', that means 'put up' with something, although not in agreement. You come up with condescension due to some kind of paranoia on your part.
quote:
I confess I don't quite understand this. I've got no issues with the idea of marriage being only the union of a man and a woman.... 'in the sight of God', or whatever it is.
I do have an issue. And despite what everybody else on here appears to be suggesting, I am entitled to have an issue with this. I assume many of you on here won't agree that I'm entitled to this view merely because you don't agree with it. Hypocritical springs to mind.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by matthewr
throb said " 'Tolerance' for instance. To me this suggests a kind of condescension [...] I would prefer 'acceptance' to tolerance"
IMHO tolerance (at least the idealistic notion we collectively strive for) is essentially ambivalent and indifferent with respect to the thing you are showing tolerance of. You can be tolerant of things you are indifferent about, things you approve of but do not practice, and things you find disagreeable, etc.
"Frankly, I don't see a civil union as being in any way second class. As long as the same legal rights and responsibilities are granted, that's the important thing"
In the US the issue is that there was a separate civil union for same-sex couples and for, erm, different-sex couples and that the later still enjoyed more rights and a different legal status. IIRC the recent court case was when Vermont (Kerry's state IIRC) tried to legislate for a separate type of civil union for same-sex couples and the court ruled this unconstitutional (within the State) and said you should use the same rules for everyone. The set of rules happens to be called "marriage" and I agree that the word and religous aspect of it is pretty much a red herring.
BrianD,
(<penny drops> Oh you're *that* BrianD. It all makes more sense now)
Of course you have every right to say that you think same-sex marriages are wrong -- even though you haven't actually expressed a single cogent reason for this view beyond "Becuase it is".
What you don't have the right to do is to use that disapproval to impose legal inequalities on certain groups of society.
Matthew
IMHO tolerance (at least the idealistic notion we collectively strive for) is essentially ambivalent and indifferent with respect to the thing you are showing tolerance of. You can be tolerant of things you are indifferent about, things you approve of but do not practice, and things you find disagreeable, etc.
"Frankly, I don't see a civil union as being in any way second class. As long as the same legal rights and responsibilities are granted, that's the important thing"
In the US the issue is that there was a separate civil union for same-sex couples and for, erm, different-sex couples and that the later still enjoyed more rights and a different legal status. IIRC the recent court case was when Vermont (Kerry's state IIRC) tried to legislate for a separate type of civil union for same-sex couples and the court ruled this unconstitutional (within the State) and said you should use the same rules for everyone. The set of rules happens to be called "marriage" and I agree that the word and religous aspect of it is pretty much a red herring.
BrianD,
(<penny drops> Oh you're *that* BrianD. It all makes more sense now)
Of course you have every right to say that you think same-sex marriages are wrong -- even though you haven't actually expressed a single cogent reason for this view beyond "Becuase it is".
What you don't have the right to do is to use that disapproval to impose legal inequalities on certain groups of society.
Matthew
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by JeremyD
Matthew,
Re tolerance, this is an obvious point but one that seems worth making explicitly here: words don't simply mean what we intend them to mean - they also mean what the listener/reader understands them to mean, and ignoring this can lead to unnecessary difficulties.
For example, however much BrianD would like to reclaim the word "gay" I'm sure he wouldn't dream of walking into his local pub and declaring, "Hey everyone, I'm feeling really gay today!" He is well aware of how this would be interpreted.
Conversely, someone who bloody mindedly persists in using terms such as "chairman" for jobs that were once exclusively male may not be sexist but they have only themselves to blame if they are taken to be.
I appreciate that far fewer people are aware of the offence caused by "tolerance" - after all, prominent non-white members of the CRE use the term profusely - but it does cause offence to many because the sentiment it captures, for us, is that of the schoolyard hooligan/philosopher who says, "OK, nobody likes <insert suitably offensive collective noun> but they are people, after all, so let's leave 'em alone."
Re tolerance, this is an obvious point but one that seems worth making explicitly here: words don't simply mean what we intend them to mean - they also mean what the listener/reader understands them to mean, and ignoring this can lead to unnecessary difficulties.
For example, however much BrianD would like to reclaim the word "gay" I'm sure he wouldn't dream of walking into his local pub and declaring, "Hey everyone, I'm feeling really gay today!" He is well aware of how this would be interpreted.
Conversely, someone who bloody mindedly persists in using terms such as "chairman" for jobs that were once exclusively male may not be sexist but they have only themselves to blame if they are taken to be.
I appreciate that far fewer people are aware of the offence caused by "tolerance" - after all, prominent non-white members of the CRE use the term profusely - but it does cause offence to many because the sentiment it captures, for us, is that of the schoolyard hooligan/philosopher who says, "OK, nobody likes <insert suitably offensive collective noun> but they are people, after all, so let's leave 'em alone."
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Basil
Brian, what difference does it make if same sex relationships are given equal recognition in law?
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by matthewr
Jeremy said "words don't simply mean what we intend them to mean - they also mean what the listener/reader understands them to mean, and ignoring this can lead to unnecessary difficulties"
Well yes but insisting on taking a prejorative interpretation of a word when the non-prejorative meaning is very clear from context and the nature of source then I have little sympathy for the offense it might cause. Although there are few people more deserving of contempt and ridicule than the "It's PC Gone Mad!" brigade there are limits to this sort of thing.
So if, for example, you get upset because a non-white CRE figure uses the phrase "racial tolerance" because you insist on prescribing him/her some obviously unfounded intent then I'd be inclined to roll my eyes and say "For Goodness sake Jeremy!". There are enough difficult battles to be won in the areas of language and prejudice without jumping through hoops to find extra ones.
Matthew
Well yes but insisting on taking a prejorative interpretation of a word when the non-prejorative meaning is very clear from context and the nature of source then I have little sympathy for the offense it might cause. Although there are few people more deserving of contempt and ridicule than the "It's PC Gone Mad!" brigade there are limits to this sort of thing.
So if, for example, you get upset because a non-white CRE figure uses the phrase "racial tolerance" because you insist on prescribing him/her some obviously unfounded intent then I'd be inclined to roll my eyes and say "For Goodness sake Jeremy!". There are enough difficult battles to be won in the areas of language and prejudice without jumping through hoops to find extra ones.
Matthew
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by JeremyD
<Rolls eyes>
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by ejl
quote:
the only reason people want same-sex marriages is because they see it as a kind of recognition, or acceptance.
Nonsense Jeremy. In the US married couples enjoy numerous legally defined privileges not available to unmarried couples, and these go well beyond recognition. Examples:
-reduced tax rates
-parentage rights, including control over all the medical, educational, and financial decisions concerning the child.
-inheritance rights
-ability to be joint beneficiaries of things like pensions and health care plans
-ability to make health-care decisions about a sick spouse.
These are significant privileges, that you want to deny them (only because you just don't like it, apparently). I'm sure the situation with respect to marriage is similar in the UK.
Eric
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by JeremyD
"Nonsense, Jeremy"
Eric, you seem, bizarrely, to have confused me with BrianD.
Eric, you seem, bizarrely, to have confused me with BrianD.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
What does this mean? Is this an attempt to discredit me in some way to people fairly new to the forum?
Here's where I get to say "you're *that* matthew robinson, given the condescending tone of this paragraph.
I will number my points, to help you through the difficulty you have understanding what I'm saying.
1. Please extract the quote when I said "because it is". You will find you can't, which means that you made this bit up to suit whatever perception you have of me
2. I have given a reason why, the problem is, because you don't agree with it so you disregard it. I will repeat, I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman and you don't agree. I am not bothered that you don't agree because you are entitled to your view. You are claiming that I haven't given a reason why I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. My answer is I don't need to. It is for you to tell me why you believe marriage is not a union just between a man and a woman. So far, you have been unable to do this.
Err, I'm not in a position to impose anything. I'm expressing an opinion. It appears to me that you have no respect for anyone who has a differing opinion to your own. Just my opinion.
[Edited by BrianD on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 15:25 because I foolishly allowed myself to become annoyed by robinson]
[This message was edited by BrianD on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 15:26.]
quote:
(<penny drops> Oh you're *that* BrianD. It all makes more sense now)
What does this mean? Is this an attempt to discredit me in some way to people fairly new to the forum?
quote:
Of course you have every right to say that you think same-sex marriages are wrong -- even though you haven't actually expressed a single cogent reason for this view beyond "Becuase it is".
Here's where I get to say "you're *that* matthew robinson, given the condescending tone of this paragraph.
I will number my points, to help you through the difficulty you have understanding what I'm saying.
1. Please extract the quote when I said "because it is". You will find you can't, which means that you made this bit up to suit whatever perception you have of me
2. I have given a reason why, the problem is, because you don't agree with it so you disregard it. I will repeat, I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman and you don't agree. I am not bothered that you don't agree because you are entitled to your view. You are claiming that I haven't given a reason why I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. My answer is I don't need to. It is for you to tell me why you believe marriage is not a union just between a man and a woman. So far, you have been unable to do this.
quote:
What you don't have the right to do is to use that disapproval to impose legal inequalities on certain groups of society.
Err, I'm not in a position to impose anything. I'm expressing an opinion. It appears to me that you have no respect for anyone who has a differing opinion to your own. Just my opinion.
[Edited by BrianD on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 15:25 because I foolishly allowed myself to become annoyed by robinson]
[This message was edited by BrianD on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 15:26.]
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Basil
None.
quote:
Brian, what difference does it make if same sex relationships are given equal recognition in law?
None.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by ejl
quote:
"Nonsense, Jeremy"
Eric, you seem, bizarrely, to have confused me with BrianD
Sorry Jeremy.
Now, ahem. Nonsense BrianD <blah blah blah, as above>.
And it does make a BIG difference, as my post above makes clear.
Eric
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
I think I may as well go away again. Some things NEVER change on this forum. The same people portray the same attitudes towards others to the point it is impossible to express an alternatve view to people on this forum.
Jeremy, it would have been easy to have just said to Eric,
What are you trying to portray by using the word 'bizarrely?' People are entitled to hold differing views without them being thought of as bizarre.
I think I may as well go away again. Some things NEVER change on this forum. The same people portray the same attitudes towards others to the point it is impossible to express an alternatve view to people on this forum.
Jeremy, it would have been easy to have just said to Eric,
quote:rather than....
Eric, you seem to have confused me with BrianD.
quote:
Eric, you seem, bizarrely, to have confused me with BrianD.
What are you trying to portray by using the word 'bizarrely?' People are entitled to hold differing views without them being thought of as bizarre.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Eric
You expect people to understand and listen to your points, but you have no respect for anyone who has a view you don't agree with. What is the matter with people on this forum? Why is it not possible for someone to hold a differing view without sarcastic digs in every post? There is no need for the comment you included in the brackets. It is nothing to do with me "not liking it", if you don't understand that I will be amazed, so your comment was simply a childish dig at me.
I have a firm belief in marriage, I have been with one woman in my entire life and I am married to her. I believe that marriage is something between a man and a woman and even though you have may have many reasons for not agreeing with me, just respect the view as I respect yours.
Having read your list of things you feel deprived of I could just as easily say that you want same-sex marriages because you are selfish and greedy. But I haven't said that, have I. I mention it here but I don't believe it myself.
So, the bottom line if we're going to show no respect is that where you claim I'm against same-sex marriage "because I don't like it", I can claim that you are in favour because you're selfish and greedy. How do you like that kind of comment, or is it possible to carry on a discussion?
quote:
These are significant privileges, that you want to deny them (only because you just don't like it, apparently).
You expect people to understand and listen to your points, but you have no respect for anyone who has a view you don't agree with. What is the matter with people on this forum? Why is it not possible for someone to hold a differing view without sarcastic digs in every post? There is no need for the comment you included in the brackets. It is nothing to do with me "not liking it", if you don't understand that I will be amazed, so your comment was simply a childish dig at me.
I have a firm belief in marriage, I have been with one woman in my entire life and I am married to her. I believe that marriage is something between a man and a woman and even though you have may have many reasons for not agreeing with me, just respect the view as I respect yours.
Having read your list of things you feel deprived of I could just as easily say that you want same-sex marriages because you are selfish and greedy. But I haven't said that, have I. I mention it here but I don't believe it myself.
So, the bottom line if we're going to show no respect is that where you claim I'm against same-sex marriage "because I don't like it", I can claim that you are in favour because you're selfish and greedy. How do you like that kind of comment, or is it possible to carry on a discussion?
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
If you say so.
quote:
Although there are few people more deserving of contempt and ridicule than the "It's PC Gone Mad!" brigade....
If you say so.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Fuck, and I thought I was a boring old tart of a deaf wind up merchant ?
Fritz Von Wellifeelmuchbetteraboutmyselfnow
Piss² Don't forget the great New Original music on MP3 link at good old http://graham.ricketts.bei.t-online.de innit:
Fritz Von Wellifeelmuchbetteraboutmyselfnow
Piss² Don't forget the great New Original music on MP3 link at good old http://graham.ricketts.bei.t-online.de innit: