8 ms·

Yes, I've considered it, and no, it's not possible, since inequal marriage rights harms gays by definition. What scenario did you have in mind?

by natep 14y ago

mibbitier 14y ago
Some people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions other than a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about that. Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of "men" to include women :/
- danparsonson 14y ago
  > Some people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions other than a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about that. How else would you categorise it? What other reason do you have to oppose the slight broadening of the definition of a word? "Loving union between a man and a women" into "Loving union between two people"? > Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of "men" to include women :/ That's a non sequitur and I hope you know it. Redefining marriage in this way is more akin to the last century's redefinition of the word 'citizen' in the US and the UK to include black people - it erases a distinction that was incorrectly made in the first place. "Men" and "Women" are biologically separable.
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient and reduces the need for clarification :) We have words such as "waitress" and "waiter", because it adds useful information. It tells us their sex. It's not sexist to have such words, it's just useful. Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and reduces the chances of faux pas. To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant.
    - corin_ 14y ago
      > "It's not sexist to have such words, it's just useful." Less so now than in the past, but there are feminists who would disagree with you on that, and who do consider "waitress vs waiter", "actress vs actor" etc. to be sexist. > "Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter." Actually our language does have some specific words for people of different colours, plenty of them are now considered racist. I'm sure you don't need a list of examples here.
    - danparsonson 14y ago
      > Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient and reduces the need for clarification :) Well that's my point precisely - the fact that you see gay marriage as being different to heterosexual marriage simply because of who is involved illustrates the flaw in your reasoning. If you think you would feel awkward entering into a conversation with someone who may or may not be gay, may I suggest you refer to their 'partner' or their 'other half' until it becomes clear what gender the person is that you're talking about? Or just be direct and say 'your... wife? husband?'. Most reasonable people really won't mind. But let's be honest - your delicately-phrased attempt to pour logic onto the question does not disguise the fact that your concerns run beyond linguistic convenience. It's a very weak argument. > Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and reduces the chances of faux pas. It's really not that useful - if you need to know, ask, but the chances are that you don't - and as I'm sure you realise, 'mere' language is a powerful tool for enforcing segregation and bigotry. It makes a real difference to the people actually involved, and, if you're honest with yourself, not a jot of difference to you. If you think about it, carving the world up based on sexual preference would be hilarious in its stupidity if it didn't cause so much pain. I mean, honestly, how does anyone's choice of lover alter your life? Millions of people are in happy homosexual relationships RIGHT NOW and I bet you hadn't noticed. > To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant. Actually, likening the redefinition of 'marriage' to the redefinition of 'man', as you did in the parent comment, is silly. The parallel I was drawing was between predjudice that existed (and in places still does) based on racial differences and the predjudice that you are demonstrating, whether you realise it or not, against homosexuality.
- gdilla 14y ago
  you don't have to recognize it, nor does your church or whatever. All marriages are civil unions in the eyes of the state, precisely because it's a legal distinction that affords lega rights and tax status. nothing homophobic about that.

Yes, I've considered it, and no, it's not possible, since inequal marriage rights harms gays by definition. What scenario did you have in mind?

by natep 14y ago

Yes, I've considered it, and no, it's not possible, since inequal marriage rights harms gays by definition. What scenario did you have in mind?

mibbitier 14y ago

Some people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions other than a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about that. Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of "men" to include women :/

danparsonson 14y ago
> Some people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions other than a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about that. How else would you categorise it? What other reason do you have to oppose the slight broadening of the definition of a word? "Loving union between a man and a women" into "Loving union between two people"? > Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of "men" to include women :/ That's a non sequitur and I hope you know it. Redefining marriage in this way is more akin to the last century's redefinition of the word 'citizen' in the US and the UK to include black people - it erases a distinction that was incorrectly made in the first place. "Men" and "Women" are biologically separable.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient and reduces the need for clarification :) We have words such as "waitress" and "waiter", because it adds useful information. It tells us their sex. It's not sexist to have such words, it's just useful. Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and reduces the chances of faux pas. To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant.
  - corin_ 14y ago
    > "It's not sexist to have such words, it's just useful." Less so now than in the past, but there are feminists who would disagree with you on that, and who do consider "waitress vs waiter", "actress vs actor" etc. to be sexist. > "Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter." Actually our language does have some specific words for people of different colours, plenty of them are now considered racist. I'm sure you don't need a list of examples here.
  - danparsonson 14y ago
    > Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient and reduces the need for clarification :) Well that's my point precisely - the fact that you see gay marriage as being different to heterosexual marriage simply because of who is involved illustrates the flaw in your reasoning. If you think you would feel awkward entering into a conversation with someone who may or may not be gay, may I suggest you refer to their 'partner' or their 'other half' until it becomes clear what gender the person is that you're talking about? Or just be direct and say 'your... wife? husband?'. Most reasonable people really won't mind. But let's be honest - your delicately-phrased attempt to pour logic onto the question does not disguise the fact that your concerns run beyond linguistic convenience. It's a very weak argument. > Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and reduces the chances of faux pas. It's really not that useful - if you need to know, ask, but the chances are that you don't - and as I'm sure you realise, 'mere' language is a powerful tool for enforcing segregation and bigotry. It makes a real difference to the people actually involved, and, if you're honest with yourself, not a jot of difference to you. If you think about it, carving the world up based on sexual preference would be hilarious in its stupidity if it didn't cause so much pain. I mean, honestly, how does anyone's choice of lover alter your life? Millions of people are in happy homosexual relationships RIGHT NOW and I bet you hadn't noticed. > To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant. Actually, likening the redefinition of 'marriage' to the redefinition of 'man', as you did in the parent comment, is silly. The parallel I was drawing was between predjudice that existed (and in places still does) based on racial differences and the predjudice that you are demonstrating, whether you realise it or not, against homosexuality.
gdilla 14y ago
you don't have to recognize it, nor does your church or whatever. All marriages are civil unions in the eyes of the state, precisely because it's a legal distinction that affords lega rights and tax status. nothing homophobic about that.