How do you configure Firefox to make Duck Duck Go the default search engine?
Oh. Now I get it. You're a homophobe, and by the new account, a coward.
Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of "men" to include women :/
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.
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.
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.
It IS different. Just like "women" is different from "men" simply because of who is involved.
Logic doesn't seem to be working... As someone else noted, it's like extreme feminists who consider 'waitress' to be sexist.
What is so offensive about having two words, marriage and "union/civil partnership", to describe things, and have completely equal rights for all?
No, marriage is a social construct whereas gender is based on biology - there's a big difference there. You can measure the gender of a person without them having to give you any information, but (as you have argued) not the gender of a person's spouse. Besides, you've already made this point earlier:
> > > Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant.
So which is it? Are these things relevant or not? You don't need to say 'black waiter', but you do need to say 'civil partnership'? Why is one important but not the other?
Once again - your insistence upon this distinction and the value of it speaks volumes about your unconscious prejudices. Perhaps you like being able to say you're married and have everyone know you're not gay? But of course that would be outright homophobia and you're still apparently labouring under the misapprehension that you don't suffer from that. Perhaps you're actually a closet homosexual and trying hard to deflect people away from finding out? If that's the case then I'm genuinely sorry for you, as the need to hide from the world can take a terrible toll on a person. Fortunately our society is (generally) becoming more open.
If it's useful to keep a different word for same-sex marriages, perhaps you also advocate having different words for inter-racial marriages, marriages between people who are more than a certain number of years apart, who wear different types of clothes, etc.? After all, that's all equally "useful" information and one wouldn't want to make a faux-pas.
> What is so offensive about having two words, marriage and "union/civil partnership", to describe things, and have completely equal rights for all?
It's very easy as a white, heterosexual male to insist that words are meaningless and ask 'who cares?', but the reality is that linguistic distinctions contribute significantly to prejudice. You can't have "completely equal rights for all" whilst making such distinctions between people - that's a sad fact of human psychology (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group%E2%80%93out-group_bias for example). Additionally, let's not forget that the whole debate in the larger world isn't just about the definition of a word - it's exactly about creating a situation of equal rights for all that doesn't exist currently. It's not about being 'offended' and the fact that you trivialise the issue thus suggests that you really don't understand the issues at stake.
It's not only completely ridiculous to make a distinction about someone based on their sexual preference, it's harmful and often very unpleasant to be on the receiving end of - perhaps you read this article when it did the rounds on here? http://intransigentia.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/why-sexist-hu... That's about sexism but the point is the same. "It's just a joke!" "It's just a word!" etc.
If you truly desire equal rights for all, then the 'redefinition' of marriage shouldn't matter to you. On the other hand if you want to keep tabs on who's gay and who's not - you're homophobic. You may insist you're not but that stubborn refusal to introspect or question yourself doesn't change the fact.
We're all minorities, depending on how you cut the population. The question is whether you let it define you negatively and become a 'victim', or just get on with being happy. People who get offended by words are wasting their energy on silly things that don't matter, and often actually making racism/sexism/etc worse by drawing attention to things that aren't actually there in the first place. Judge people by their actions. Not by words.
If you really want to redefine the word 'marriage', then go ahead. I do not think it's the most pressing fight for those after equal rights though. If I was gay, I certainly wouldn't care, as long as I was free to love who I like.
I'm done here...
a) are possibly homophobic, or a closeted homosexual
and
b) enjoy certain privileges as a white, heterosexual, (cis) male
Is not meant to be a personal attack, IMO, but a wake-up call. Read it again, as if danparsonson were talking to a third person, and maybe you'll gain some new perspective.
If you feel like marriage has had an immutable definition since forever and just now, people are trying to change it for the first time, you should check your facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by...
And words do matter. You can tell a lot about a person or culture based on the words they use.
> Quite a lot of personal attacks there...
Maybe less than you think - I'll attempt to enumerate and expand upon them in a less emotionally-charged way:
- "Perhaps you like being able to say you're married and have everyone know you're not gay?"
I still don't see where you've explained why you actually "oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage"", so was attempting to find the real reason, however this was not a constructive comment.
- "that would be outright homophobia and you're still apparently labouring under the misapprehension that you don't suffer from that"
Homophobia can simply take the form of an unconcious bias just as it can refer to physical violence for example - there's a spectrum. You demonstrate this bias in many places, as I have attempted to explain. It's very 'meta', though, so I appreciate that you may not see what I'm talking about - the apparatus you could use to understand it is also the apparatus that's exhibiting the bias which would tend to limit your visibility of it.
- "Perhaps you're actually a closet homosexual and trying hard to deflect people away from finding out?"
I'm aware this has touched a nerve with some people but if anyone thinks it is intended as a personal attack then they are actually suffering from exactly the unconcious bias I was referring to. I was aware that I was using strong language in an effort to make my point, but it also occurred to me that perhaps you suffer from these issues more than you let on and are attempting to displace attention away from them. In that case, I was trying to take the sting out of my words.
Seriously though, anyone taking offence at this - strenuously defending gay rights and then using 'maybe you're gay' as some sort of insult? That would be bizarrely hypocritical of me. Just for the record - I don't feel that suggesting someone is gay is offensive; if you do, think about what that means.
- "the fact that you trivialise the issue thus suggests that you really don't understand the issues at stake"
I stand by this - 'walk a mile in their shoes' before you brush these things aside so lightly.
- "On the other hand if you want to keep tabs on who's gay and who's not - you're homophobic"
As above - the desire to make that distinction stems from unconscious bias; after all, what difference does it make really? Any more than who likes the Beatles, who lives in London, etc.?
- "You may insist you're not but that stubborn refusal to introspect or question yourself doesn't change the fact."
It's not clear from the way I wrote it but this is conditional upon "if you want to keep tabs" etc. I'm not saying you ARE stubborn, but that you would be if the former comment were also true.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
> We're all minorities, depending on how you cut the population. The question is whether you let it define you negatively and become a 'victim', or just get on with being happy. People who get offended by words are wasting their energy on silly things that don't matter, and often actually making racism/sexism/etc worse by drawing attention to things that aren't actually there in the first place. Judge people by their actions. Not by words.
Yes we are all minorities in our way, but some minorities suffer more for it than others. It's easy to sit on the other side of that fence and say 'just get on with being happy' but when you're subject to violence and abuse from other people because of some minor fact of your being that harms no-one, it's a lot harder to actually do it. Comments like that thoughtlessly trivialise other peoples' problems.
> If I was gay, I certainly wouldn't care, as long as I was free to love who I like.
This, for me, is the key point - if you are actually gay, then I can't argue with you. However if you're not (as your choice of phrasing suggests), then you have no way of knowing what you would think if you were - your life would've been markedly different in certain (many?) ways and you have no frame of reference for knowing what that is actually like. It's like telling a person with clinical depression that 'if I suffered from that, I'd just cheer up and try to focus on the good things in life' - an 'armchair critic' type of comment which betrays no understanding of the reality of the situation.
> I'm done here...
In closing, then, maybe you can take this as an opportunity to rethink your position on some issues - I'm not getting that from your comments but hope springs eternal.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/04/21/stephen-fry-it-doesnt-m...
> Some people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions other than a man and a woman (your original post)
and
> It doesn’t matter what you call marriage (Stephen Fry)
If you agree with him then perhaps you could choose your words more carefully next time - Stephen's position is one of indifference, not opposition.
On the other hand, if you still feel 'oppose' is the right word then he doesn't support you, he's just disinclined to argue with you ;-)
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.
Will we ever reach a gender-neutral English language? Not in the near term, but it's worth being aware of.
[1] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
Marriage-protection amendments almost universally outlaw not only marriage equality but also the establishment of other non-"marriage" arrangements that carry the same benefits as marriage. Please explain how someone could agree with that but not hold any hate towards homosexuals.
Of course, politics is not about policy http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html so it's very difficult to successfully argue anything because the argument (on any political topic, and in any direction) will almost always be disingenuous.