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: 18 February 2004 by Markus S
FWIW, in Germany we have had much the same debate recently. The solution our government came up with:
Same-sex couples can enter a "registered partnership" which gives the same legal status as being married. The term "marriage" is reserved for different-sex couples, in deference to the traditional meaning of the word.
Same-sex couples can enter a "registered partnership" which gives the same legal status as being married. The term "marriage" is reserved for different-sex couples, in deference to the traditional meaning of the word.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
quote:
That's just absurd only with more words and a dash of Daily Mail rhetoric/QUOTE]
Off you go again. Can you ever post a reply without some kind of ridiculous snipe? As for the Daily Mail snipe directly, I must be a natural then, since I've never bought a Daily Mail in my 45 years of life. I'm a Sunday Sport man, myself.
[quote]Seriously your arguments leave my head-spinning with all those tortuous, contradictory and surreal logical leaps.
Seems to me that if I post something that doesn't support a minority, you are immediately jumping up and down in disgust. Maybe that's your problem. I see nothing contradictory in what I'm posting.
quote:
1. It marks same-sex couples as somehow different and less legitimate than different-sex couples.
But they are different. I'm going off topic here, but when people talk about racism for example, they think they are solving it by telling everybody they are the same when in fact we are all different.
The fact is, not only is a gay couple different to a man and woman, 2 women together is different to 2 men together. What makes you think these various 'couples' are not different? As for being less legitimate, well all I can say is, the thought doesn't enter my head that people of the same sex who are living together are 'less legitimate' than a man and woman living together. I just don't want people of the same sex to marry, that's all. As a couple, I have no problem with them living together and don't see them as 'second class' as you like to imagine.
quote:
2. Either the idea of being married is either just a trivial bit of ceremony (in which case why deny it to some couples?)
If it is considered trivial, then why do gay couples want to marry? Is this simply because other people can so they want to as well?
quote:
or else it does contain some "benefit" (for want of a better word) that should in all fairness also be available to same-sex couples.
Yes, it obviously does contain some benefit, they have been described by others and I've acknowledged it by my change in position.
I think it's been established by those in favour of this, that the major complaints levied toward gays not being allowed to marry, is concerned with lack of benefits that are currently afforded to 'traditional' marriages. If those benefits are afforded to gay couples then I see this as meeting them halfway in their requests. If this was offered they should accept the benefits and changes and forget for now about being married. Perhaps they should consider taking the view that this is a battle won but that they haven't yet won the war. View it as a stepping stone instead of wanting everything all at once. Maybe in 'x' years time they may move on to the next step and be allowed to marry. Who knows.
Matthew, why don't we call it a day on this now? We will be going around in circles because you will call every post I make absurd, and I will imagine your agenda is simply one of backing up the minority no matter what the topic.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
LOL.
How very fortunate for Matthew, then.
BTW I don't need to read back through the thread. I know that I have a problem with Matthew, from the moment I saw his post about me being "that BrianD", I knew he would be sniping at every post I make. I am also acutely aware of the number of people who have either commented that my views are absurd or bollix, what do you expect from me in return? I am replying mainly to posts where someone has already made pretty disparaging remarks about my views, I am bound to end up adding bits of cynicism to my comment. You, of all people, should understand that. You have had your own problems on this forum in the past. Instead of advising me to re-read the posts, you should re-read the posts I have replied to, perhaps then you might understand. After saying that, I do realise that I should not include this kind of stuff in my posts.
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 18:46.]
quote:
I imagine Matthew doesn't associate with the sort of people who would give someone a kicking because they didn't like the way he spoke to them.
LOL.
How very fortunate for Matthew, then.
quote:
By assuming the worst about others as much as you do
BTW I don't need to read back through the thread. I know that I have a problem with Matthew, from the moment I saw his post about me being "that BrianD", I knew he would be sniping at every post I make. I am also acutely aware of the number of people who have either commented that my views are absurd or bollix, what do you expect from me in return? I am replying mainly to posts where someone has already made pretty disparaging remarks about my views, I am bound to end up adding bits of cynicism to my comment. You, of all people, should understand that. You have had your own problems on this forum in the past. Instead of advising me to re-read the posts, you should re-read the posts I have replied to, perhaps then you might understand. After saying that, I do realise that I should not include this kind of stuff in my posts.
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 18:46.]
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Markus
Thank you. I wish I'd known this. You have said in one paragraph what I've been on about for 7 pages.
I wonder if some will now start questioning this? I also wonder why nobody else posting on here who has this knowledge of what has happened in Germany bothered to post the information.
quote:
Same-sex couples can enter a "registered partnership" which gives the same legal status as being married. The term "marriage" is reserved for different-sex couples, in deference to the traditional meaning of the word.
Thank you. I wish I'd known this. You have said in one paragraph what I've been on about for 7 pages.
I wonder if some will now start questioning this? I also wonder why nobody else posting on here who has this knowledge of what has happened in Germany bothered to post the information.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
Are you talking to me when you say 'his'? If you are, please be polite enough to direct the comment toward me by name, rather than 'his'.
quote:
Does this also mean his reasoning behind his initial belief, i.e. that only a man and a woman can found a decent/"normal"/solid/etc family, is also gone now?
Are you talking to me when you say 'his'? If you are, please be polite enough to direct the comment toward me by name, rather than 'his'.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
My attitude toward Matthew comes from past experience going back to the old forum. It was brought back to me when he said on page 3.......
quote:
Your accusation against Matthew that the only thing he believes in is "supporting the minority no matter what" does not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
My attitude toward Matthew comes from past experience going back to the old forum. It was brought back to me when he said on page 3.......
quote:
Although there are few people more deserving of contempt and ridicule than the "It's PC Gone Mad!" brigade.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
"If it is considered trivial, then why do gay couples want to marry? Is this simply because other people can so they want to as well?"
Well of course it's not considered trivial by those who want to marry.
"Yes, it obviously does contain some benefit, they have been described by others and I've acknowledged it by my change in position"
Disregard the now accepted right to legal equivalence (which is obviously the most significant part) and consider the point again:
Either the idea of being married is either just a trivial bit of ceremony (in which case why deny it to some couples?) or else it does contain some "benefit" (for want of a better word) that should in all fairness also be available to same-sex couples
"I know that I have a problem with Matthew, from the moment I saw his post about me being "that BrianD" I knew he would be sniping at every post I make"
You persist in fighting these imaginary ghosts -- I recognised who you were and recalling your previous contributions to debates the way this one was going made more sense. That was all it meant.
And I am not sniping at your posts. I think your arguments are weak, poorly argued and almost certainly without foundation. I am simply pointing this out in the manner think best exposes these shortcomings.
Matthew
Well of course it's not considered trivial by those who want to marry.
"Yes, it obviously does contain some benefit, they have been described by others and I've acknowledged it by my change in position"
Disregard the now accepted right to legal equivalence (which is obviously the most significant part) and consider the point again:
Either the idea of being married is either just a trivial bit of ceremony (in which case why deny it to some couples?) or else it does contain some "benefit" (for want of a better word) that should in all fairness also be available to same-sex couples
"I know that I have a problem with Matthew, from the moment I saw his post about me being "that BrianD" I knew he would be sniping at every post I make"
You persist in fighting these imaginary ghosts -- I recognised who you were and recalling your previous contributions to debates the way this one was going made more sense. That was all it meant.
And I am not sniping at your posts. I think your arguments are weak, poorly argued and almost certainly without foundation. I am simply pointing this out in the manner think best exposes these shortcomings.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by ErikL
BrianD,
Does this mean your reasoning behind your initial belief, i.e. that only a man and a woman can found a decent/"normal"/solid/etc family, is also gone now?
If not, does this mean you'd now accept same-sex couples to marry but not to raise children?
I ask because your initial line of reasoning for opposing gay marriages was that you believe same-sex couples can't raise a family in a respectable/decent/"normal" fashion (please correct me if I have that wrong).
Does this mean your reasoning behind your initial belief, i.e. that only a man and a woman can found a decent/"normal"/solid/etc family, is also gone now?
If not, does this mean you'd now accept same-sex couples to marry but not to raise children?
I ask because your initial line of reasoning for opposing gay marriages was that you believe same-sex couples can't raise a family in a respectable/decent/"normal" fashion (please correct me if I have that wrong).
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
But that's under the present system of no access to certain financial and other benefits.
Which sends a clear negative message to anyone fairly new who has never read a post from me before. Well done, Matthew. Are you suggesting that if any other single individual has posted that they are against same-sex marriages that this thread would have gone any other way? The reason it has gone this way is simply because I disagree with you and others and have spoken up and said so. I'm fairly certain that among the other many members of this forum there will be others with far stronger views than me on this topic but who refrain from saying so for fear of incuring the wrath of people such as yourself.
LMFHO. Methinks pots and kettles here.
It really is disgusting that you fail to show any tolerance toward someone who has a different opinion to your own. Since I've moved on the 'benefit' aspect you must clearly feel that my belief that marriage is a sacrosanct union between a woman and a man to be without any foundation. How exactly do you work that out? Oh yeah, I forgot, you just think it shouldn't be. Same as I think it should be. I see no foundation in your argument, mate.
quote:
Well of course it's not considered trivial by those who want to marry.
But that's under the present system of no access to certain financial and other benefits.
quote:
You persist in fighting these imaginary ghosts -- I recognised who you were and recalling your previous contributions to debates the way this one was going made more sense. That was all it meant.
Which sends a clear negative message to anyone fairly new who has never read a post from me before. Well done, Matthew. Are you suggesting that if any other single individual has posted that they are against same-sex marriages that this thread would have gone any other way? The reason it has gone this way is simply because I disagree with you and others and have spoken up and said so. I'm fairly certain that among the other many members of this forum there will be others with far stronger views than me on this topic but who refrain from saying so for fear of incuring the wrath of people such as yourself.
quote:
And I am not sniping at your posts. I think your arguments are weak, poorly argued and almost certainly without foundation. I am simply pointing this out in the manner think best exposes these shortcomings.
LMFHO. Methinks pots and kettles here.
It really is disgusting that you fail to show any tolerance toward someone who has a different opinion to your own. Since I've moved on the 'benefit' aspect you must clearly feel that my belief that marriage is a sacrosanct union between a woman and a man to be without any foundation. How exactly do you work that out? Oh yeah, I forgot, you just think it shouldn't be. Same as I think it should be. I see no foundation in your argument, mate.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
Earlier you asked....
My reply then was...
I have 2 children and I know the kind of pressures they suffer at school, where comparisons with others are made all the time. I don't believe it can be in any way helpful for a child to be surrounded by other children who have a father and a mother while they have a family consisting of either 2 women or 2 men. This is not to say that the adults concerned are unable to be good parents, I have no idea whether they could be and I daresay they would have as much chance of making a good fist of it as anybody else. Enough people go wrong as it is.
If you put the children first, as you should, then you should understand the potential problems they may come across if this was their environment. So, in summary the answer to your question is that my gut feeling is that the problems for the children would probably make this unsuitable.
Earlier you asked....
quote:
but is it safe to say that you're uncertain whether same-sex couples can successfully raise responsible children (adopted or otherwise) loved by the couple and the couple's parents, and who later contribute positively to society?
My reply then was...
quote:
Yes, it's safe to say that. I don't believe a same-sex marriage is a proper environment in which to raise a child.
I have 2 children and I know the kind of pressures they suffer at school, where comparisons with others are made all the time. I don't believe it can be in any way helpful for a child to be surrounded by other children who have a father and a mother while they have a family consisting of either 2 women or 2 men. This is not to say that the adults concerned are unable to be good parents, I have no idea whether they could be and I daresay they would have as much chance of making a good fist of it as anybody else. Enough people go wrong as it is.
If you put the children first, as you should, then you should understand the potential problems they may come across if this was their environment. So, in summary the answer to your question is that my gut feeling is that the problems for the children would probably make this unsuitable.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by ErikL
BrianD,
I see where you're coming from, but I have to say that it sounds like one of the arguments made against interracial marriages in the South (of the US). That is, the pressures at school, in the community, etc will be too great to overcome (but in that case for the kids and the parents), and not worth the battle.
I see where you're coming from, but I have to say that it sounds like one of the arguments made against interracial marriages in the South (of the US). That is, the pressures at school, in the community, etc will be too great to overcome (but in that case for the kids and the parents), and not worth the battle.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
Brian -- I think we've pretty much reached the end point here and there is little point in contiunuing.
I'll just re-iterate for one final time that my only motive here is to engage you in a debate by finding out your views and exploring and challenging them. I don't wish you any harm or offence and apologise for any I may inadverntently caused. At the same time I make no apology for the sometime forceful nature of my arguments which have always been made in good faith.
I do not take particularly kindly to your continual aspersions on my character, hints at dark motives and veiled threats about getting a good kicking and so on but, hey ho, each to their own I suppose.
"Although there are few people more deserving of contempt and ridicule than the "It's PC Gone Mad!" brigade"
A statement I stand by fully. In my experience such people are either stupid or unpleasant, and frequently both, and are almost exclusively homophobic, racist, sexist arseholes. I cite as my prime example the Cheerleader in Chief of this particularly noxious group, Mr Richard Littlejohn.
And, for good measure, here is their website.
Matthew
I'll just re-iterate for one final time that my only motive here is to engage you in a debate by finding out your views and exploring and challenging them. I don't wish you any harm or offence and apologise for any I may inadverntently caused. At the same time I make no apology for the sometime forceful nature of my arguments which have always been made in good faith.
I do not take particularly kindly to your continual aspersions on my character, hints at dark motives and veiled threats about getting a good kicking and so on but, hey ho, each to their own I suppose.
"Although there are few people more deserving of contempt and ridicule than the "It's PC Gone Mad!" brigade"
A statement I stand by fully. In my experience such people are either stupid or unpleasant, and frequently both, and are almost exclusively homophobic, racist, sexist arseholes. I cite as my prime example the Cheerleader in Chief of this particularly noxious group, Mr Richard Littlejohn.
And, for good measure, here is their website.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Former member
quote:
I don't believe it can be in any way helpful for a child to be surrounded by other children who have a father and a mother while they have a family consisting of either 2 women or 2 men
I was raised single handedly by my mother. My parents divorced when I was 3.
Am I:
- worse off than I would have been had my parents remained in a loveless marriage?
- better off than children raised in households of two loving partners that share a gender?
Please show workings out.
ag
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
Aye. I agree, it does. Bear in mind that I never said I was right, it is an opinion is all.
quote:
I see where you're coming from, but I have to say that it sounds like one of the arguments made against interracial marriages in the South (of the US). That is, the pressures at school, in the community, etc will be too great to overcome (but in that case for the kids and the parents), and not worth the battle.
Aye. I agree, it does. Bear in mind that I never said I was right, it is an opinion is all.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Phil Barry
Europe has a history of established religions. My sense is that for Europeans, a purely civil sphere of activity is relatively new. So it may make some sense to reserve the religious term 'marriage' for unions sanctioned by either church or state.
In the US, we have a deep tradition of separation of church and state. The State has historically used the religious term 'marriage' to refer to couples who are bound by marriage contracts, even though, as far as the state is concerned, the union is entirely outside religious authority.
That is, in the US the term 'marriage' no longer has a religious implication. Yes, some idiots talk of the 'sanctity' of marriages sanctioned only by the state; in doing so, they indicate a willingness or desire to circumvent our Constitution and our historical practices.
So in Europe a 'registered partnership' is at least a defensible use of language, unless the same sex union is sanctioned by religious as well as state authority.
In the US, however, because 'marriage' has a strong non-religious connotation, 'marriage' is the term that should be used for all state-sanctioned unions, no matter what the genders of the contracting parties may be.
As for children, I know one child of a gay father. She's creative, bright, and assertive. Her independence of mind and refusal to accept the preachings of Establishments clearly mark her as a failure in child-rearing - funny, though, the last time I saw her she was great to be with.
I can't help thinking that a stable gay couple are likely to provide a better environment for a kid than an unsatble straight couple or single parent.
There is little discernible rhyme or reason to many successful and unsuccessful traditional marriages. I would not even suggest that straight is more or less healthy than gay. I tend to think we're all about the same - too much craziness no matter what sexuak orientation is involved.
Regards.
Phil
In the US, we have a deep tradition of separation of church and state. The State has historically used the religious term 'marriage' to refer to couples who are bound by marriage contracts, even though, as far as the state is concerned, the union is entirely outside religious authority.
That is, in the US the term 'marriage' no longer has a religious implication. Yes, some idiots talk of the 'sanctity' of marriages sanctioned only by the state; in doing so, they indicate a willingness or desire to circumvent our Constitution and our historical practices.
So in Europe a 'registered partnership' is at least a defensible use of language, unless the same sex union is sanctioned by religious as well as state authority.
In the US, however, because 'marriage' has a strong non-religious connotation, 'marriage' is the term that should be used for all state-sanctioned unions, no matter what the genders of the contracting parties may be.
As for children, I know one child of a gay father. She's creative, bright, and assertive. Her independence of mind and refusal to accept the preachings of Establishments clearly mark her as a failure in child-rearing - funny, though, the last time I saw her she was great to be with.
I can't help thinking that a stable gay couple are likely to provide a better environment for a kid than an unsatble straight couple or single parent.
There is little discernible rhyme or reason to many successful and unsuccessful traditional marriages. I would not even suggest that straight is more or less healthy than gay. I tend to think we're all about the same - too much craziness no matter what sexuak orientation is involved.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
Yes, I did say this earlier this evening.
Fine. That's fair enough.
I've no problem with 'forceful' argument. I just didn't take kindly to your first reference to me, that's all.
All I can say is I would have been quite happy participating in this thread without any references of a personal nature. As I said, the "you're that BrianD" wound me up instantly and still does now. I'm certain anyone reading who had never seen a post from me would have had negative thoughts about me when they read that.
I never threaten people, Matthew. It was an observation.
quote:
Brian -- I think we've pretty much reached the end point here and there is little point in contiunuing.
Yes, I did say this earlier this evening.
quote:
I'll just re-iterate for one final time that my only motive here is to engage you in a debate by finding out your views and exploring and challenging them. I don't wish you any harm or offence and apologise for any I may inadverntently caused.
Fine. That's fair enough.
quote:
At the same time I make no apology for the sometime forceful nature of my arguments which have always been made in good faith.
I've no problem with 'forceful' argument. I just didn't take kindly to your first reference to me, that's all.
quote:
I do not take particularly kindly to your continual aspersions on my character,
All I can say is I would have been quite happy participating in this thread without any references of a personal nature. As I said, the "you're that BrianD" wound me up instantly and still does now. I'm certain anyone reading who had never seen a post from me would have had negative thoughts about me when they read that.
quote:
hints at dark motives and veiled threats about getting a good kicking and so on
I never threaten people, Matthew. It was an observation.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
ag
Really?
Well, here are some facts for you to mull over just so you know I don't come from some imaginary perfect environment.
My parents separated when I was 10, I used to go and see my father every weekend and be beaten black and blue by my mother when I came home because I wouldn't tell her "what he said".
He was buried on my 16th birthday, which I was naturally thrilled about, both my brother and I were effectively brought up by our mother and by the rest of my family members such as my grandparents, my aunts and uncles.
For a long time before they separated my mother and father used to argue to the point of fighting.
How the hell do I know? I don't even know if you're making this up. If you want some facts instead of asking me to guess what may or may not happen to somebody under some hypothetical circumstances, just read my paragraph above again. My family was what helped both my brother and myself grow up into normal, law abiding people who now have normal law abiding children of our own.
For those who have seen the original Get Carter, my father is in the Crematorium that is used as a scene in the film. We lived in the street that runs right alongside that crem' and I recall them making the film. Just thought I'd add that.
quote:
I was raised single handedly by my mother. My parents divorced when I was 3.
Really?
Well, here are some facts for you to mull over just so you know I don't come from some imaginary perfect environment.
My parents separated when I was 10, I used to go and see my father every weekend and be beaten black and blue by my mother when I came home because I wouldn't tell her "what he said".
He was buried on my 16th birthday, which I was naturally thrilled about, both my brother and I were effectively brought up by our mother and by the rest of my family members such as my grandparents, my aunts and uncles.
For a long time before they separated my mother and father used to argue to the point of fighting.
quote:
Am I:
- worse off than I would have been had my parents remained in a loveless marriage?
- better off than children raised in households of two loving partners that share a gender?
Please show workings out.
ag
How the hell do I know? I don't even know if you're making this up. If you want some facts instead of asking me to guess what may or may not happen to somebody under some hypothetical circumstances, just read my paragraph above again. My family was what helped both my brother and myself grow up into normal, law abiding people who now have normal law abiding children of our own.
For those who have seen the original Get Carter, my father is in the Crematorium that is used as a scene in the film. We lived in the street that runs right alongside that crem' and I recall them making the film. Just thought I'd add that.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Mathew, I agree with you; Littlejohn is a hypocryt and in my view an inverted
one which makes him even worse, I do watch his show on occassion though only to
see where he's coming from (also a link on my website, but many others too, I like to attempt at some kind of balanced bullshit ). Living here in Germany and being non German in contrast to Germans who don't live here and pretend they do, I have some local interest in the Berlin Gay scene and know it very well INDEED. In contrast to what the law here or anywhere else for that matter dictates on the subject of Gay Marriages/Legal partnerships I prefer to use my own opinions based on real expereience and street level fact, not Littlejohnesque tittle-tattle attempts at childish smarty point one-upmanship, I trust you'll agree, and if not I'll respect your right to do so, obvious innit as Tom would say.
And it's Goodnight from me. Fritz Von Starroving
Piss² My Father's name's Brian and he's a Yorkshireman, can't win em all I
suppose, my buddy Scarborough Lez reckons it's because we were all Magic
Roundabout fans as kids, I'm not so sure though ?
Piss³ And the good news is folks, no more Fritz on this thread, cos it's
outlived its fuckin life bigstyle, innit:
one which makes him even worse, I do watch his show on occassion though only to
see where he's coming from (also a link on my website, but many others too, I like to attempt at some kind of balanced bullshit ). Living here in Germany and being non German in contrast to Germans who don't live here and pretend they do, I have some local interest in the Berlin Gay scene and know it very well INDEED. In contrast to what the law here or anywhere else for that matter dictates on the subject of Gay Marriages/Legal partnerships I prefer to use my own opinions based on real expereience and street level fact, not Littlejohnesque tittle-tattle attempts at childish smarty point one-upmanship, I trust you'll agree, and if not I'll respect your right to do so, obvious innit as Tom would say.
And it's Goodnight from me. Fritz Von Starroving
Piss² My Father's name's Brian and he's a Yorkshireman, can't win em all I
suppose, my buddy Scarborough Lez reckons it's because we were all Magic
Roundabout fans as kids, I'm not so sure though ?
Piss³ And the good news is folks, no more Fritz on this thread, cos it's
outlived its fuckin life bigstyle, innit:
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Whatever makes you think I'm a Yorkshireman?
Dum de dum dum
Dum de dum dum
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by throbnorth
Hard though it is to drag ourselves away from the seemingly endless yet undeniably diverting spectacle of BrianD's extended public humiliation, I would like to discuss a little more what we feel about the way things may or may not pan out in the States [the topic] and a few other pertinent issues.
Although the course taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Court has unassailable logic and justice on its side, given the federal nature of America, its practical application would surely mean imposing a decision on the rest of the country in what cannot help but be seen by many people as an underhand way, which I would not have thought would lead to successful sustained legislation.
I know the Defense of Marriage Act gives all sorts of loopholes to avoid states having to actually put this into practice, but that feeling of unfairness would surely continue to be felt by large sections of a population who don't seem to have yet formed a favourable majority opinion for various reasons, which might be generally counter-productive. If large sections of the UK feel outraged by EEC straight banana/sausage/chocolate decisions etc., something which is emotive and seemingly so important to many in the U.S., and so particularly able to be exploited by various powerful and eccentric groups [AFA et al.], is surely not best served by being introduced in this way? Is there any case for 'good' legislation being imposed on an undecided and hostile majority? My memory isn't quite good enough to remember the detail of black civil rights struggles [and although the two issues are not exactly comparable, there is enough common ground to make the comparison more than valid] - maybe Judd could fill me in on the consensus of public opinion at the time of various bits of legislation?
I agree with you Matthew, in that the word 'marriage' is a red herring, but I would say it's the type of monstrous herring [a bloater in fact] that assumes such proportions in many minds that it becomes a great big stumbling block, with that black and yellow 'DO NOT CROSS' tape strung all around it. 'Marriage', as a word, has so many associations, implications and baggage that I think consideration of it are essential to the [what passes for a] debate that we are having. Although there have been explanations here about the separation in the U.S. between church and state and the consequent irrelevance of the term when applied to same sex unions, I do find this hard to believe. I think the ramifications of this word certainly and entirely explain BrianD's [for want of a better word] argument, and actually have to confess that in fact I'm really quite uncomfortable with it myself. If I'm going to have the chance to be 'married', I would like to be able to identify with some of the process that confers this happy state. Currently I don't, and frankly I don't know a gay man who does. 'I throbnorth, do take thee, Bruce Willis, to be my lawful ....' makes me a bit queasy [and goodness knows what the effect would be on Bruce]. There are a lot of significant if cosmically irrelevant issues to do with the actual wording of any form of ceremony that have to be sorted out. I called my last post 'words' for very good reason. Words are powerful things, and the particular differences and subtleties they possess are entirely significant. Happily, I expect that Language, being what it is will eventually sort things out, and any problems will eventually become gigglesome and the stuff of retro-kitsch Sunday columnists. In the meantime however, I suspect that it is this word which will continue to give difficulty. The U.K. looks set to avoid the obvious difficulty by a bit of adroit avoidance, which I have no problem with at all. I have vivid memories of the kerfuffle the last time this issue was raised, and am amazed at the way in which it has currently been handled to the extent that Conservatives are to be given a genial and approving free vote, and even the rightest of right-wing newspapers have given their guarded approval. There has not been any controversy of any sort, and there is a general air of approval from every side for siding with the causes of decency and common sense. How odd that victory can be so muted and yet so satisfying. It's all to do with recognising and responding to the radical change in public opinion.
Meanwhile in America, as far as I can see until recently mid-western men have been almost waiting by their front doors for the Fab Five to descend and Carson to start dissing their underwear. Charmed by Will, vaguely disconcerted by Jack and filled with lustful thoughts for Grace, American public opinion looks to have been turning undeniably pro-Anacreontic, and I would hate to see this blissful state subverted by a bit of cack-handed if well meaning legislature. It is sad to say that programmes such as these may seem to have done more for gay rights than any amount of well meaning activism. It's the same here - we should have posters of Peter Tatchell on our walls [not pretty, I'd agree, although he is impressively tall if you actually come across him], but there's only room for Brian Dowling and Graham - but in the event, who cares - real life is always a bugger, and we can't always be the right-on control freaks we'd like to be. Replacing one set of stereotypes for another which is infinitely more flattering - good looking, gym-savvy, incredibly witty and a firm line on French Pleats I think I can cope with. Paedophilic and Predatory wasn't me really, so it's fair exchange, on the whole. It seems to me that America might be in danger of squandering this unfocussed but well meaning attitude on the altar of judicial nicety, which would be a pity. I agree with Judd, in that eventually things will fall into place through sheer logic if nothing else. However, meanwhile countless people will be faced with unjust situations beyond their control which a cynic might be tempted to say were unduly influenced by the vagaries of major channels and their programming with a bit of pre-election meaningless posturing. That's not right, surely?
I have a very personal stake in this last aspect of my argument in that my partner of ten years [whom I've always just referred to as Partner on the forum, but actually was called Andru - not his given name by the way, but one he chose in an effort to disassociate himself from all sorts of previous bad experience] died on Christmas day. I really didn't want to talk about this, partly because discussion of my personal anguish is not appropriate for an anonymous hi-fi forum [I take your condolences as read, BTW - you don't need to post them], and also because a breath of cold reality from stark personal experience sometimes has a dampening effect on meaningful but nevertheless comfortable armchair discussion [check out my post on AIDS drugs and their implementation in the third world if you have any interest - it was started by some wanker who happily doesn't seem to post any more]. Suffice it to say that my situation after Andru's death was extremely fragile. The sort of thing that most of you take for granted and wouldn't even consider worth a mention or a thought suddenly became very pertinent to me. Can I be with him when he dies? Can I even find out how he's doing if I phone? Can I carry on living where I do? Do I have any say as to the form of his funeral? Can I even come? Can I close his bank accounts? Do I even get his ashes or a say in what happens to them? If you can apply these questions to your own probably much more conventional situation without positive answers and don't feel any sense of outrage, then I despair. Any toss about 'can I have the original meaning of gay back' [almost as reliable a signifier in my experience as a mention of 'those people'] in these circumstances assumes its rightful despicable perspective, which explains my perhaps unduly waspish tone towards BrianD in my last post. To talk of financial gain as being the chief motivation of same sex 'marriage' or whatever, while significant, I find actually insulting and offensive. In the event however, my situation was very positive. I have a very good relationship with Andru's mother; she knits things and makes chutney and we are as one. I announced myself as next of kin to everyone from hospital bereavement liaison officer to funeral director to British Gas call centre operative, and was met with nothing but respect and sympathy. Maybe I had positive and supportive experiences because I'm in sadly hip metropolitan Fulham ? I don't know. Nevertheless, it could have been very very different. Chance is no substitute for legal certainty, whichever side of the Atlantic you're on.
throb
Although the course taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Court has unassailable logic and justice on its side, given the federal nature of America, its practical application would surely mean imposing a decision on the rest of the country in what cannot help but be seen by many people as an underhand way, which I would not have thought would lead to successful sustained legislation.
I know the Defense of Marriage Act gives all sorts of loopholes to avoid states having to actually put this into practice, but that feeling of unfairness would surely continue to be felt by large sections of a population who don't seem to have yet formed a favourable majority opinion for various reasons, which might be generally counter-productive. If large sections of the UK feel outraged by EEC straight banana/sausage/chocolate decisions etc., something which is emotive and seemingly so important to many in the U.S., and so particularly able to be exploited by various powerful and eccentric groups [AFA et al.], is surely not best served by being introduced in this way? Is there any case for 'good' legislation being imposed on an undecided and hostile majority? My memory isn't quite good enough to remember the detail of black civil rights struggles [and although the two issues are not exactly comparable, there is enough common ground to make the comparison more than valid] - maybe Judd could fill me in on the consensus of public opinion at the time of various bits of legislation?
I agree with you Matthew, in that the word 'marriage' is a red herring, but I would say it's the type of monstrous herring [a bloater in fact] that assumes such proportions in many minds that it becomes a great big stumbling block, with that black and yellow 'DO NOT CROSS' tape strung all around it. 'Marriage', as a word, has so many associations, implications and baggage that I think consideration of it are essential to the [what passes for a] debate that we are having. Although there have been explanations here about the separation in the U.S. between church and state and the consequent irrelevance of the term when applied to same sex unions, I do find this hard to believe. I think the ramifications of this word certainly and entirely explain BrianD's [for want of a better word] argument, and actually have to confess that in fact I'm really quite uncomfortable with it myself. If I'm going to have the chance to be 'married', I would like to be able to identify with some of the process that confers this happy state. Currently I don't, and frankly I don't know a gay man who does. 'I throbnorth, do take thee, Bruce Willis, to be my lawful ....' makes me a bit queasy [and goodness knows what the effect would be on Bruce]. There are a lot of significant if cosmically irrelevant issues to do with the actual wording of any form of ceremony that have to be sorted out. I called my last post 'words' for very good reason. Words are powerful things, and the particular differences and subtleties they possess are entirely significant. Happily, I expect that Language, being what it is will eventually sort things out, and any problems will eventually become gigglesome and the stuff of retro-kitsch Sunday columnists. In the meantime however, I suspect that it is this word which will continue to give difficulty. The U.K. looks set to avoid the obvious difficulty by a bit of adroit avoidance, which I have no problem with at all. I have vivid memories of the kerfuffle the last time this issue was raised, and am amazed at the way in which it has currently been handled to the extent that Conservatives are to be given a genial and approving free vote, and even the rightest of right-wing newspapers have given their guarded approval. There has not been any controversy of any sort, and there is a general air of approval from every side for siding with the causes of decency and common sense. How odd that victory can be so muted and yet so satisfying. It's all to do with recognising and responding to the radical change in public opinion.
Meanwhile in America, as far as I can see until recently mid-western men have been almost waiting by their front doors for the Fab Five to descend and Carson to start dissing their underwear. Charmed by Will, vaguely disconcerted by Jack and filled with lustful thoughts for Grace, American public opinion looks to have been turning undeniably pro-Anacreontic, and I would hate to see this blissful state subverted by a bit of cack-handed if well meaning legislature. It is sad to say that programmes such as these may seem to have done more for gay rights than any amount of well meaning activism. It's the same here - we should have posters of Peter Tatchell on our walls [not pretty, I'd agree, although he is impressively tall if you actually come across him], but there's only room for Brian Dowling and Graham - but in the event, who cares - real life is always a bugger, and we can't always be the right-on control freaks we'd like to be. Replacing one set of stereotypes for another which is infinitely more flattering - good looking, gym-savvy, incredibly witty and a firm line on French Pleats I think I can cope with. Paedophilic and Predatory wasn't me really, so it's fair exchange, on the whole. It seems to me that America might be in danger of squandering this unfocussed but well meaning attitude on the altar of judicial nicety, which would be a pity. I agree with Judd, in that eventually things will fall into place through sheer logic if nothing else. However, meanwhile countless people will be faced with unjust situations beyond their control which a cynic might be tempted to say were unduly influenced by the vagaries of major channels and their programming with a bit of pre-election meaningless posturing. That's not right, surely?
I have a very personal stake in this last aspect of my argument in that my partner of ten years [whom I've always just referred to as Partner on the forum, but actually was called Andru - not his given name by the way, but one he chose in an effort to disassociate himself from all sorts of previous bad experience] died on Christmas day. I really didn't want to talk about this, partly because discussion of my personal anguish is not appropriate for an anonymous hi-fi forum [I take your condolences as read, BTW - you don't need to post them], and also because a breath of cold reality from stark personal experience sometimes has a dampening effect on meaningful but nevertheless comfortable armchair discussion [check out my post on AIDS drugs and their implementation in the third world if you have any interest - it was started by some wanker who happily doesn't seem to post any more]. Suffice it to say that my situation after Andru's death was extremely fragile. The sort of thing that most of you take for granted and wouldn't even consider worth a mention or a thought suddenly became very pertinent to me. Can I be with him when he dies? Can I even find out how he's doing if I phone? Can I carry on living where I do? Do I have any say as to the form of his funeral? Can I even come? Can I close his bank accounts? Do I even get his ashes or a say in what happens to them? If you can apply these questions to your own probably much more conventional situation without positive answers and don't feel any sense of outrage, then I despair. Any toss about 'can I have the original meaning of gay back' [almost as reliable a signifier in my experience as a mention of 'those people'] in these circumstances assumes its rightful despicable perspective, which explains my perhaps unduly waspish tone towards BrianD in my last post. To talk of financial gain as being the chief motivation of same sex 'marriage' or whatever, while significant, I find actually insulting and offensive. In the event however, my situation was very positive. I have a very good relationship with Andru's mother; she knits things and makes chutney and we are as one. I announced myself as next of kin to everyone from hospital bereavement liaison officer to funeral director to British Gas call centre operative, and was met with nothing but respect and sympathy. Maybe I had positive and supportive experiences because I'm in sadly hip metropolitan Fulham ? I don't know. Nevertheless, it could have been very very different. Chance is no substitute for legal certainty, whichever side of the Atlantic you're on.
throb
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
throb
Seriously, I'm sitting here with pint glass in hand and I almost dropped it in laughter. God, what a stupid thing to say. You have no idea.
Having gone through your post, let down by yet again more childish digs toward me that people like Jeremy will no doubt fail to notice, I have to wonder why you disregard totally the fact that I may find your position that same-sex marriage is fine, to be insulting to me.
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 22:48.]
quote:
Hard though it is to drag ourselves away from the seemingly endless yet undeniably diverting spectacle of BrianD's extended public humiliation,
Seriously, I'm sitting here with pint glass in hand and I almost dropped it in laughter. God, what a stupid thing to say. You have no idea.
quote:
To talk of financial gain as being the chief motivation of same sex 'marriage' or whatever, while significant, I find actually insulting and offensive.
Having gone through your post, let down by yet again more childish digs toward me that people like Jeremy will no doubt fail to notice, I have to wonder why you disregard totally the fact that I may find your position that same-sex marriage is fine, to be insulting to me.
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 22:48.]
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Rasher
Oh for fucks sake...
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Phil Barry
I absolutely cannot see how someone can be insulted by the fact that someone supports same sex marriage, unless one is homophobic to the core.
The human race has done OK for an eon despite the homosexuals in our midst. We'll do better when we stop pretending 'they' are not 'us'.
Straight is different from gay - not better or worse. Sexual orientation - when action is mediated by consent of adults - has no necessary moral implication.
BrianD, If you can share other sources of insult from support for same-sex marriage, besides homophobia, I'd be interested.
Phil
The human race has done OK for an eon despite the homosexuals in our midst. We'll do better when we stop pretending 'they' are not 'us'.
Straight is different from gay - not better or worse. Sexual orientation - when action is mediated by consent of adults - has no necessary moral implication.
BrianD, If you can share other sources of insult from support for same-sex marriage, besides homophobia, I'd be interested.
Phil
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Phil
Why? Does the fact that I have no problem with same sex relationships, the only thing I would not like to allow is marriage, not mean something?
It's obviously escaped you as well that it is bloody insulting to me that it's a real struggle to hold an opposing view on this forum without being told I'm absurd, bollix or anything else people care to aim toward me. All on the basis that I have a different point of view.
I wish you lot would show some of what most of you claim to want from socieity. A bit of tolerance toward someone who just happens to disagree.
I am not homophobic at all and I am insulted that you make the accusation. Does it matter to you that I am insulted, or does it only matter to you that other people are insulted by me?
quote:
I absolutely cannot see how someone can be insulted by the fact that someone supports same sex marriage, unless one is homophobic to the core.
Why? Does the fact that I have no problem with same sex relationships, the only thing I would not like to allow is marriage, not mean something?
It's obviously escaped you as well that it is bloody insulting to me that it's a real struggle to hold an opposing view on this forum without being told I'm absurd, bollix or anything else people care to aim toward me. All on the basis that I have a different point of view.
I wish you lot would show some of what most of you claim to want from socieity. A bit of tolerance toward someone who just happens to disagree.
I am not homophobic at all and I am insulted that you make the accusation. Does it matter to you that I am insulted, or does it only matter to you that other people are insulted by me?
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Former member
Brian
By using the same method of evaluation that enables you to state that marriage should only be between man and woman and that same-sex relationships are not the right place to raise a child.
ag
quote:
How the hell do I know?
By using the same method of evaluation that enables you to state that marriage should only be between man and woman and that same-sex relationships are not the right place to raise a child.
ag