German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

What can I say? It doesn't fit above, put it here. Also the location of board rules/info.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6175
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Ahzoh » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 20:04

OTʜᴇB wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote:Really? I find them very easy to compare, as they are both opinions and so both equal.
No. That's false. Opinions are not equal because they are opinions and neither are those ones.

:roll: SMH that's something privileged people who haven't faced systemic oppression would say. It's nonsense.
Personally, I'd describe someone that hasn't experienced systemic oppression as fortunate rather than privileged as privilege implies I am allowed to not be attacked, where I in fact have no choice on the subject, for it is the choice of the attacker as to whom he/she attacks.
Privilege in the sense I use it means having certain invisible benefits granted to members of a group that others do not. White privilege for instance means being more likely to get hired with a white person name, or less likely to get harsher penalties for a crime than a non-white person, or less likely to experience police brutality, or less likely to be suspected of crime or terrorism. These are only some of the "benefits" and they are not readily visible to class of people have them. Similar benefits are given to people who are straight, or cisgendered (as opposed to trans), heterosexual, male, able-bodied, or neurotypical.
The thing about being privileged is that you are blind/unaware to the full extent of the systemic oppression that unprivileged people face. It also tires and annoys people when they point this out and privileged people fight them every step of the way because of cognitive dissonance.

Relatedly I'm not a fan of liberals because while they are well meaning and perfectly willing to end oppression with regards to identity politics even they can be racist, sexist, queerphobic, and ableist, etc. They also lack class analysis and only want to REFORM capitalism rather than abolish it. Thus they are perfectly fine with diversifying our OPPRESSORS.
Last edited by Ahzoh on Sun 02 Jul 2017, 20:20, edited 3 times in total.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48
Contact:

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by Micamo » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 20:13

"All people deserve to have the same rights" is not the same kind of subjective statement of personal preference as "chocolate ice cream tastes good." The same way that "I can flap my arms and fly" is not. If you believe that it is, and you go jump off a cliff cause you think you can fly, you will die. If you allow people who think others shouldn't have the same rights as them to continue on as "just a different opinion", then society will die.
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter
User avatar
OTʜᴇB
roman
roman
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 10:59
Location: SW England

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by OTʜᴇB » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 21:17

Micamo wrote:"All people deserve to have the same rights" is not the same kind of subjective statement of personal preference as "chocolate ice cream tastes good." The same way that "I can flap my arms and fly" is not. If you believe that it is, and you go jump off a cliff cause you think you can fly, you will die. If you allow people who think others shouldn't have the same rights as them to continue on as "just a different opinion", then society will die.
I'm really not getting the message you're properly understanding me so allow me to try and reword it.
You are correct. "All people deserve to have the same rights" is not a subjective opinion, and I made no effort to imply it was one. The whole point of subjective opinions is that it really doesn't matter which ones you have in the end and they aren't worth discussing. I don't like mustard. I don't need to justify that because it's just me and what my brain is deciding is a good idea to eat or not.
Micamo wrote:If you allow people who think others shouldn't have the same rights as them to continue on as "just a different opinion", then society will die.
This I completely disagree with. You're suggesting we force opinions onto others. Granted this is a rather bad opinion to have, but you're not respecting equality of opportunity. It is when equality goes out the window that society dies and you get slavery and all that nonsense all over again. If people having different opinions was what killed societies, then democracy wouldn't exist and society would never have existed. This kind of authoritarian view on opinions doesn't do anyone any good, and only promotes even worse things like censorship and dictatorial ideologies.

And of course I'd let them have their opinion! That's what opinions are all about! Of course I'd be sceptical about their opinion and question it, but I'm not just going to call them evil, get them angry, and achieve nothing. By treating their opinion like all the others and questioning it rather than dismissing it, you get your little chance to convince them that maybe their opinion isn't the best one to have, and you might change them for the better. I think humans have already done a pretty good job of demonstrating why dismissing different opinions or attacking people with them doesn't do shite.
Ahzoh wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote:Really? I find them very easy to compare, as they are both opinions and so both equal.
No. That's false. Opinions are not equal because they are opinions and neither are those ones.

:roll: SMH that's something privileged people who haven't faced systemic oppression would say. It's nonsense.
Personally, I'd describe someone that hasn't experienced systemic oppression as fortunate rather than privileged as privilege implies I am allowed to not be attacked, where I in fact have no choice on the subject, for it is the choice of the attacker as to whom he/she attacks.
Privilege in the sense I use it means having certain invisible benefits granted to members of a group that others do not. White privilege for instance means being more likely to get hired with a white person name, or less likely to get harsher penalties for a crime than a non-white person, or less likely to experience police brutality, or less likely to be suspected of crime or terrorism. These are only some of the "benefits" and they are not readily visible to class of people have them. Similar benefits are given to people who are straight, or cisgendered (as opposed to trans), heterosexual, male, able-bodied, or neurotypical.
The thing about being privileged is that you are blind/unaware to the full extent of the systemic oppression that unprivileged people face. It also tires and annoys people when they point this out and privileged people fight them every step of the way because of cognitive dissonance.

Relatedly I'm not a fan of liberals because while they are well meaning and perfectly willing to end oppression with regards to identity politics even they can be racist, sexist, queerphobic, and ableist, etc. They also lack class analysis and only want to REFORM capitalism rather than abolish it. Thus they are perfectly fine with diversifying our OPPRESSORS.
That just sounds more like the cumulative effect of Racism, Sexism, and the rest. I'd be attacking the people providing this "privilege" rather than those that you claim have it. It sounds very "tu quoque" to me. You're taking the issue of these minorities being under-represented (though this may just be because they are part of a minority and so them being less represented than the majority makes perfect sense, unless figures are made even, in which you equality of outcome and suddenly you have black privilege and so on, but I'll need to check the figures) and almost turning it away and diverting it at the majority, accusing them of having this special privilege that the majority of them probably don't want. I don't like the idea of it because it's just racism with a mask on. Maybe if this whole idea of privilege was ditched and instead, we talked about "racism in employment", then the problem would be a bit clearer and something could be done. It's like having a public building without a wheelchair ramp, but instead of saying "there isn't a wheelchair ramp", you make everyone else feel bad for having legs.
:con: : Current Project

BTW I use Arch
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4399
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by qwed117 » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 21:54

OTʜᴇB wrote:
Micamo wrote:If you allow people who think others shouldn't have the same rights as them to continue on as "just a different opinion", then society will die.
This I completely disagree with. You're suggesting we force opinions onto others. Granted this is a rather bad opinion to have, but you're not respecting equality of opportunity. It is when equality goes out the window that society dies and you get slavery and all that nonsense all over again. If people having different opinions was what killed societies, then democracy wouldn't exist and society would never have existed. This kind of authoritarian view on opinions doesn't do anyone any good, and only promotes even worse things like censorship and dictatorial ideologies.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by elemtilas » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 22:36

Xonen wrote:
elemtilas wrote:
Xonen wrote:In other words, you were trolling. It's against the rules. Don't do it.
The key point to remember about trolling is that, once delivered, the proper troll never follows up.
You seem to be using your own idiosyncratic definitions for words again... But that's not the key issue here, that being: don't compare other board members to pedophiles, please.
How so? In my experience, trolls typically don't actually want to engage in any kind of actual discussion. If they do follow up, it's only to continue riling people up. They just want to inflame. They typically don't participate in the life of a community. They certainly don't wait four or five years before trolling a place!
Gender is a thing that our (Western) society is currently working on extending. We've got all kinds of trans people, we've got in between genders. For the most part, except for some egregious examples, this extension is just bubbling along in an organic fashion. Ordinary people will, if this process continues, eventually come to accept that situation and it will be seen as entirely normal. The key point here is that in no way were the "traditional notions of gender" (female and male) ever threatened or redefined or done away with at law.

[...]
It should come as no surprise that there is a very strong backlash against the latter that really doesn't exist against the former.
No, traditional notions of gender are being challenged. And from what I've seen, the backlash has been at least as extreme as against gay marriage, probably more so.
In what way are they being "challenged"? New categories are evolving (I think we can agree on that) but the classic two are still in place and don't seem to be under attack.
There is no basis for "marriage equality".
False. There is no rational basis for not having it, as has already been argued in several posts here. But if you're just going to keep repeating this while ignoring the counterarguments already presented, then I don't really see much point in continuing the discussion.
Well, there's not much more to add, because the nature of the issue pretty much that simple. Marriage is what it is. I have no problem whatsoever with a new category evolving, but there is no rational basis for redefining what already exists. That's not the logical path for moving forward.
Fair enough. I personally love a good satire.
The point is that yours isn't even really satire, let alone good.
Didn't work for you --- that's okay!
No one on the Right seriously thinks that gay marriage is anything like child marriage or bestial marriage.
Um. Well, this... this just might be the crux of the problem here. Maybe, uh, crawl out from whatever rock you've been living under for the past few years and spend a little time on the internet before trying to comment on serious issues again, okay?
Um. Actually, I talk with real people, thank you.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2632
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by Dormouse559 » Sun 02 Jul 2017, 22:50

elemtilas wrote:How so? In my experience, trolls typically don't actually want to engage in any kind of actual discussion. If they do follow up, it's only to continue riling people up. They just want to inflame. They typically don't participate in the life of a community. They certainly don't wait four or five years before trolling a place!
I don't think Xonen is calling you a troll, as such. However, you don't have to be "a troll" to engage in trolling. Established members get some benefit of the doubt when they behave in questionable ways, because we do know your motivation for being on the board is not to cause trouble, but that doesn't make you immune to the rules.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4399
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by qwed117 » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 00:25

elemtilas wrote:
No one on the Right seriously thinks that gay marriage is anything like child marriage or bestial marriage.
Um. Well, this... this just might be the crux of the problem here. Maybe, uh, crawl out from whatever rock you've been living under for the past few years and spend a little time on the internet before trying to comment on serious issues again, okay?
Um. Actually, I talk with real people, thank you.
This really only confirms to me that you're one of those people who grew up in a mid-left bastion and never saw the "right" in America.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/?s=pedophilia
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/?s=bestiality
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 00:38

Micamo wrote:I really shouldn't bother but I can't sleep and queerphobes make me angry.
If you can't respond with anything but personal insult, then no, you shouldn't have bothered.
You say you value heterosexual marriages over other types of relationships because they lead to reproduction. You say you value reproduction because it is the will of Nature and the Divine. A few things you probably perfectly well know, but choose to ignore because they do not suit your bigoted worldview:
Actually yes, I do value marriage over other types of heterosexual relationships (like shacking up or friends with benefits kinds of arrangements). I'm sorry you feel that is bigoted, but I do believe your habit of taking this personally is clouding your judgement. Who am I being bigoted against here? Snowflakes that can't handle or don't want to handle the responsibilities of adult life?
1. Nature and the Divine aren't real.
Well, actually, they are. I'm sorry you're blind to it! "Nature" is not a personification, no, but there are clearly laws that govern nature. In order for life to continue, it requires the participation of the appropriate combination of gendered beings (where gender based sexual reproduction is in play). Other combinations are, with all due respect, "contrary to nature" as far as reproduction goes.

As far as culture goes, humans have long known that in order to make a baby, you need a guy and a girl. In order to raise the resulting child up in whatever counts for a civil society, the mother and father naturally form a bonded pair. Hence marriage.

Enter modern times. We now recognise that other possibilities exist. Two guys, two girls --- obviously they can not form the same kind of relationship that the woman and the man together do. I'm not being bigoted in stating the obvious! You may not like it; we may disagree about it; but it's not a bigoted position.

As for the Divine, we clearly have no basis to even start talking about that.
You can't hurt them. Queer people, however, are very real, and you certainly can hurt us.
I'm guessing by "queer" you must mean something other than what I'm used to it meaning. Until corrected, I'll assume you mean, here, homosexuals. If so, no homosexuals were insulted anywhere in this whole conversation.

I'm sorry if you don't like to hear the truth; but I'm going to speak it all the same. I don't do it to insult you personally, or to insult any group of people. I do it because it is, well, truth. If you want to be insulted by the truth, then be my guest!
4. Marriage already has nothing to do with reproduction.
Reproduction (and its sequellae) are actually central to marriage.
Do you reject heterosexual marriages as invalid if, whether due to choice or medical necessity, the couple adopts instead of reproducing the natural way, or has no children at all?
No. This is valid. Not every married couple has kids. Relatively few couples enter marriage knowing that one the other or both are infertile. (And frankly, if they already know this is the case, who better to marry with than someone with whom you can never expect to have any children? --- It's far worse for one to enter the marriage knowingly infertile while the other is expecting babies. That is, as I understand it, grounds for annulment, as the covenant was defective in its origin.)

Adoption is not even at issue. I've already asserted (I think!, and if not, I'm asserting it now) that being a same sex couple is and ought not to be an absolute impediment to adoption. Barring a more complicated system of surrogacy (which I also have no problem with at all, and in fact, am in favor of), adoption is the only way for a same sex couple to raise a child.
Do you accept homosexual marriages as valid if one of the partners is transgender and still has the necessary biological hardware to reproduce the natural way?
No, because the other person is transgender. I accept same sex unions --- a legally defined and socially acceptable parallel to marriage --- as 100% valid, to be lauded, embraced and encouraged. Marriage is one woman (female person) plus one man (male person). It's not hard to understand. Once you bring in homogender couples or couples where transgenderism is in process, then you no longer have marriage cos you no longer have a female and a male.
Do you accept homosexual marriages as valid in a society where we can induce meiosis through entirely artificial zygotes from both participants, regardless of what genital configurations these partners have, and then grow the fetus in an artificial womb?
If they're in a same sex union. Yeah. I'm all for that! Marriage is one woman (female) plus one man (male). Again, not difficult to understand. Whatever technology you want to throw in there is actually not relevant. Interesting, but not relevant.
Do you consider a man and a woman "married" if they have and raise children together, despite having not gone through the ritual to make that marriage "official?"
Yes. This is what is called a common law marriage. Classic. Sadly, the term is not well understood, and even in jurisdictions where the status applies, it's not always clear what counts. Typically, if a woman and a man have lived together, have children together and publicly appear to be married, then society generally considers them married at common law. It can be dicey when there are children involved and no clear legal status, but yeah, I consider them well and truly joined at the hip!
No? I thought not.
I guess you thought wrong. Notice that all the "noes" are qualified contingent on the actual definition of "marriage". I consider all of the unions above valid, when properly understood in their appropriate context: "marriage" = woman+man; "yokage" (we need a better word than that, too!) = M+M, F+F, any trans/allogender combination you care to dream up.
5. You are absolutely correct that marriage is a social construct defined by cultural norms:
And it is a particular social construct with a well defined and well understood meaning. Sorry, but you don't just get to come along and change that construct to suit your own needs or desires. There are other people who you hurt in the process.
This is exactly why it's hurtful to deny marriage to queer people.
But you know what, my friend? It's also terribly hurtful to just up and deny the reality of marriage for everyone else. Do two wrongs make it any more right?
Here's an experiment to try. Go up to any straight married man you know, and refer to his wife exclusively as "your girlfriend." Keep doing this no matter how much he asks you to stop. See how long it takes for you to get punched in the face.
Actually, most really won't care. I'm also not sure what the point of the experiment is...
In our society there exists a hierarchy, of which relationships are more important, more valued, more respected, and marriages exist at the top.
I don't disagree with this assessment. Marriage, for heterosexual couples, ìs at the top! This is why we dó need a parallel to marriage for same sex couples, for who marriage is not the appropriate relationship type! This is not rocket science. It's not bigotry. It's attempting to create a just society that respects the needs of the majority and the minority equally.
To deny that a heterosexual couple is married, by refusing to use the words "husband", "wife", and "spouse", is to deny that their relationship is important and deserving of respect, by implication.
To deny that a (civilly or religiously) married heterosexual couple is married, proper paperwork in evidence, is simply to deny reality. It is to deny the textbook definition, the cultural and historical expectation, the social norm and the religious nature of the covenant.

On the other hand, to state that a same sex couple is "married" is also to simply deny reality. It too denies the textbook definition, the cultural and historical expectation, etc. More, it denies the very nature of the same sex couple! It denies the masculinity (or femininity) of one of the partners! By calling two men "married", what you're really and truly saying is that one of them is the woman. Is that really where you want to go? I honestly don't think so, but that's exactly what you're doing.

We have a problem here, don't we? A big problem! Even though, as a percentage of the whole population, non-heterosexual orientation is very small, we can't just deny them the same rights, protections and benefits everyone else can access through marriage. This is why we need a parallel --- in order to "bring the lost sheep into the fold" as it were.

I know, or at least I'm sure, you feel this has to be "marriage". That redefining marriage is what solves the problem. Well, I've got to tell you all that does is turn people away from you who might otherwise be sympathetic to your cause and who, like me, recognise the real need. Now, I'm one of those ones who has been turned away. I'm one of those one's who is frankly sick and tired of "radical homosexual" rhetoric. Leaving aside the loony-tunes over on the fringe, really, most people towards the Right side of the spectrum just don't really care if people are gay or not. Just live your life, enter your conjugal yokage with the love of your life and get on with it already. But I'm just telling you, when you (not you personally, of course) start f@cking around with the underlying culture, start redefining established words, you stir up a hornet's nest. People don't like that. And of course, this will really get the radical Right, "what's next, paedophilia, bestialia..." folks going full tilt. When forced into a corner, those of us who are more moderate, more sympathetic of your plight will tend to be turned off by your position than not. We don't "fear" homosexuals, we don't "hate" homosexuals, we are not "bigoted". We strongly despise and disagree with the Left's politicisation of the situation (and quite frankly, I am disappointed both that homosexuals allied with the Left, but more that the Right didn't take the lead in a matter of clear social justice); we do not like being forced to accept the redefinition. That was simply the wrong way to go. Good intention, disastrous results.
This is why civil unions fundamentally don't work: No matter how much you insist they are equal to marriages before the law, the very semantics of the words involved ensures that they are not equal in practice. Far as I see it, there are three ways to deal with this.
Actually, they work fine. For me, it's not an organic term. It didn't evolve naturally in the language or culture. So yeah, it seems unnecessarily different. But given what marriage actually means and what it entails, and given that our society needs a parallel, sòmething has to formulated.
First, just allow queer people to get married, why is this so hard.
Sure. If a gay man and gay woman want to get married, I have no problem with that! [;)]

If you're a gay woman and you want to join yourself with another gay woman, that's not a marriage. Why is thát so hard to understand?

Changing the definition is not the way to go. That's already an insult. A tyranny of the minority. A wrong that doesn't make anything right.
Second, change the entire hierarchy of relationships in our society so that marriage is only a thing a man and a woman can have, but it's not important and nobody cares.
Well, to be honest, I think a lot of people don't really care. They don't take the covenant seriously. The flip side, of course, is that "yokage" is only a thing two men or two women can have, but it's not important and nobody cares either. Is that acceptable for you? (I don't think so! Why would you fight for something only to accept not caring about it!?)

I would much rather change the hierarchy of relationships to crystalise the formal equivalence between "yokage" (I agree with you that "same sex union" just doesn't have the right ring to it, and I can't think of a better word to name it) and "marriage". One is simply proper for a couple of the same gender to engage in; the other is proper for a couple of differing gender to engage in.

In any event, both share the same ball-and-chainage, so there is that! :mrgreen:
Third, accept that queer relationships will always have second-class status.
No. NO. This is not right. Again, I'm guessing you mean same sex relationship here. I don't think there's anything particularly unusual or strange about it. But it definitely can not be a second class status. That's a non-starter. It has to be a first class status or no one gets a status.
I imagine you reject the third, because unlike me you're a very tolerant person who believes in the equal and common humanity of all people.
I do reject the third. Categorically.
I imagine you reject the second, because you say you don't want to change the social norms around marriages, and this is a much bigger change to those norms than the first, by a factor of a thousand at least.
Right. I reject all three of your proposals. The first is a non-starter. The second, I think is just kind of bizarre. Really queer. The third is also a non-starter. I'm surprised you would even suggest it.

I'l take No. 4: "change the hierarchy of relationships to crystalise the formal equivalence". If you think I'm straight, then I can't be "yoked"; you say you're gay, so you can't be "married". Everyone can at least live peaceably, happily chained in a conjugal misery appropriate to their natures!
Yet, you reject the first. Something doesn't add up here. Perhaps your objection isn't really that you want to preserve the social norms. Perhaps you're not really the tolerant and open-minded person you think you are.
You didn't give me the right options, that's what's not adding up! I think you'll find that your assessment of me is dead wrong. If you give me three bad choices, and I reject all of them, then calling me a bigot is your problem, not mine. You presented a faulty set of proposals, I can only suppose as a trap of your devising intended to corner me into your own strange fiction about my attitudes.
6. Social norms have no inherent value.
Here we disagree. Perhaps to some random space alien our social norms have no inherent value. To humans, they do actually have considerable inherent value. This is why we keep perpetuating them.
It's the authority problem again. If changing a social norm would be a net positive, then it must be changed.
Generally speaking, we agree. Some things (norms) are clearly wrong and need changing. But only if the whole of society changes that norm in an organic fashion and in such a way that everyone moves along with the change. And for preference that does not involve bloodshed (although we've done that in the past, too). Marriage is simply not a norm that needs changing. What does/did need changing is the fact that same sex couples could not access the goodies that come with marriage!

A governor signing a piece of paper doesn't change anything. All it does is change the wording in the law book. It does not change the culture, it does not change hearts. Or at worst, it turns hearts against you that otherwise might have been with you.
If changing a social norm would be a net negative, it must be maintained. It is only the consequences that matter here. Now, I'll freely admit that changing a social norm has an inherent cost.
We agree on that.
However, this is not a valid concern here, because the cost is already in the process of being paid. Going backwards and outlawing it again, would actually have much bigger costs than just allowing the process to finish. Why should we do this? So queerphobes don't get their feelings hurt?
Outlawing same sex unions is also not even at issue! What's the point of that!? Are you really under the misapprehension that I want same sex unions of all types to go away?

Again with the personal insults? Kindly leave them aside. The actual discussion is so much more fruitful without them! I'm just going to note that you called me a "queerphobe" (whatever the hell that actually means?) twice and a bigot I think twice. I haven't called you any names. I haven't prejudged you. Or even post-judged you.

The rest snipped. When you get all insulting, you just demonstrate that you don't really want to engage in any kind of real discussion. I kind of wonder why I bothered, too! But I figure, it's best to talk about this with you rather than trade insults or ignore you entirely. Isn't it better to try and understand one another?
I didn't insult you; I didn't insult any group of people. If you can't or don't want to handle truth, that's fine, but it's not a matter of me insulting you.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by elemtilas » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 00:43

qwed117 wrote:
elemtilas wrote:Um. Actually, I talk with real people, thank you.
This really only confirms to me that you're one of those people who grew up in a mid-left bastion and never saw the "right" in America.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/?s=pedophilia
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/?s=bestiality
Heh. I just skimmed the headlines...that lot are every bit as nutty as the "left". [:(]

Reading that, I think we'd all be better off if we took all the loons on both the Left and the Right, stuck em all in Hawaii and left the rest of the country to more sensible folks.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4399
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by qwed117 » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 01:09

Some more questions for elemtilas: You do know that you can have children out of wedlock right? And that the legal consequences of childbirth in marriage separation and out of wedlock are similar?

I assume you're supportive of a civil partnership for LGTQ couples, but honestly I'd rather just make sure and ask it here.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by elemtilas » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 01:55

qwed117 wrote:Some more questions for elemtilas: You do know that you can have children out of wedlock right?
[;)]

I rather think, in a discussion about legal unions, the above question (as well as the one I snipped) is rather neither here nor there...

Where it becomes important, of course is this: what happens when a same sex couple have a child "out of wedlock"? .i., when, say, the natural father of a child (say a widower) lives with another man, the love of his life (we'll leave aside the queer journey that got him there!). What happens to the kid then, if something should happen to its (biological) father? What say does his other dad have? This is why it's important for there to be available to all a union with legal protections for these kinds of things.
I assume you're supportive of a civil partnership for LGTQ couples, but honestly I'd rather just make sure and ask it here.
Even religious partnership. I guess I've been clear as mud! I do in fact favour, support, encourage and respect such unions. Um. I think this is what I said in my reply to Micamo as well.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon 15 Feb 2016, 06:10
Location: Napa Valley, California

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 02:31

So then is this just, dare I say it, a linguistic issue? Just don't call it "marriage", but otherwise it's in practice the same as marriage?
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48
Contact:

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Micamo » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 02:47

[ˈhoʊ.liː.ˈʃɪt]
elemtilas wrote:Actually yes, I do value marriage over other types of heterosexual relationships (like shacking up or friends with benefits kinds of arrangements). I'm sorry you feel that is bigoted, but I do believe your habit of taking this personally is clouding your judgement. Who am I being bigoted against here? Snowflakes that can't handle or don't want to handle the responsibilities of adult life?
HAHAHAHAHAHA oh my fucking god are you serious? "Who am I being bigoted against here?" Do you even hear yourself?
Well, actually, they are. I'm sorry you're blind to it! "Nature" is not a personification, no, but there are clearly laws that govern nature. In order for life to continue, it requires the participation of the appropriate combination of gendered beings (where gender based sexual reproduction is in play). Other combinations are, with all due respect, "contrary to nature" as far as reproduction goes.

As far as culture goes, humans have long known that in order to make a baby, you need a guy and a girl. In order to raise the resulting child up in whatever counts for a civil society, the mother and father naturally form a bonded pair. Hence marriage.

Enter modern times. We now recognise that other possibilities exist. Two guys, two girls --- obviously they can not form the same kind of relationship that the woman and the man together do. I'm not being bigoted in stating the obvious! You may not like it; we may disagree about it; but it's not a bigoted position.
Nature does not give a shit if we live or die. A gamma ray burst from a distant galaxy could reach us just now as you're reading this and the Laws Of Nature would not suddenly throw up a shield to protect us. The value of the continuation of the human race is something we humans place upon ourselves. The idea that every human being must contribute to producing the next generation is a thing that came from you, that you have decided to project onto an imaginary authority because it makes you feel better about yourself.
I'm guessing by "queer" you must mean something other than what I'm used to it meaning. Until corrected, I'll assume you mean, here, homosexuals. If so, no homosexuals were insulted anywhere in this whole conversation.
"Queer" is a community umbrella that includes homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, transgender, non-binary, intersex, etc. It is the label that the community has chosen for itself and it is what is used in serious academic literature on our history and culture. You can get a degree in Queer Theory or write a thesis on Queer Literature in Edwardian London.

Really, not knowing what the word "queer" means in a discussion on marriage rights is like walking on stage at a physics conference when you have no idea what "gravity" is. Educate yourself or shut up and listen.
I'm sorry if you don't like to hear the truth; but I'm going to speak it all the same. I don't do it to insult you personally, or to insult any group of people. I do it because it is, well, truth. If you want to be insulted by the truth, then be my guest!
I'm sorry you don't like to hear the truth, elem, but I'm going to speak it all the same. You're a bigot. I do it to insult you personally, and to insult all people like you.
I guess you thought wrong. Notice that all the "noes" are qualified contingent on the actual definition of "marriage". I consider all of the unions above valid, when properly understood in their appropriate context: "marriage" = woman+man; "yokage" (we need a better word than that, too!) = M+M, F+F, any trans/allogender combination you care to dream up.

And it is a particular social construct with a well defined and well understood meaning. Sorry, but you don't just get to come along and change that construct to suit your own needs or desires. There are other people who you hurt in the process.

But you know what, my friend? It's also terribly hurtful to just up and deny the reality of marriage for everyone else. Do two wrongs make it any more right?

Actually, most really won't care. I'm also not sure what the point of the experiment is...

I don't disagree with this assessment. Marriage, for heterosexual couples, ìs at the top! This is why we dó need a parallel to marriage for same sex couples, for who marriage is not the appropriate relationship type! This is not rocket science. It's not bigotry. It's attempting to create a just society that respects the needs of the majority and the minority equally.

To deny that a (civilly or religiously) married heterosexual couple is married, proper paperwork in evidence, is simply to deny reality. It is to deny the textbook definition, the cultural and historical expectation, the social norm and the religious nature of the covenant.

On the other hand, to state that a same sex couple is "married" is also to simply deny reality. It too denies the textbook definition, the cultural and historical expectation, etc. More, it denies the very nature of the same sex couple! It denies the masculinity (or femininity) of one of the partners! By calling two men "married", what you're really and truly saying is that one of them is the woman. Is that really where you want to go? I honestly don't think so, but that's exactly what you're doing.

We have a problem here, don't we? A big problem! Even though, as a percentage of the whole population, non-heterosexual orientation is very small, we can't just deny them the same rights, protections and benefits everyone else can access through marriage. This is why we need a parallel --- in order to "bring the lost sheep into the fold" as it were.
You know better that this is not how words work, and I am ashamed you even tried to pull this. Did you really think you could get away with that on a forum about linguistics?

The prototypes of words (which are the actual salient features of their meaning, definitions are just an attempt to pin down these prototypes in a meta-language) change over time not just through accidental slips of association but from purposeful, directed attempts to change the ways in which they are used. That's why "Queer" can refer to the Queer Community now, and does not just mean "strange."

The prototype of marriage changing to include queer couples is not a hypothetical being proposed, it has already happened. All the crying about "But that's not the traditional definition!!!" won't undo it.
I know, or at least I'm sure, you feel this has to be "marriage". That redefining marriage is what solves the problem. Well, I've got to tell you all that does is turn people away from you who might otherwise be sympathetic to your cause and who, like me, recognise the real need. Now, I'm one of those ones who has been turned away. I'm one of those one's who is frankly sick and tired of "radical homosexual" rhetoric. Leaving aside the loony-tunes over on the fringe, really, most people towards the Right side of the spectrum just don't really care if people are gay or not. Just live your life, enter your conjugal yokage with the love of your life and get on with it already. But I'm just telling you, when you (not you personally, of course) start f@cking around with the underlying culture, start redefining established words, you stir up a hornet's nest. People don't like that. And of course, this will really get the radical Right, "what's next, paedophilia, bestialia..." folks going full tilt. When forced into a corner, those of us who are more moderate, more sympathetic of your plight will tend to be turned off by your position than not. We don't "fear" homosexuals, we don't "hate" homosexuals, we are not "bigoted". We strongly despise and disagree with the Left's politicisation of the situation (and quite frankly, I am disappointed both that homosexuals allied with the Left, but more that the Right didn't take the lead in a matter of clear social justice); we do not like being forced to accept the redefinition. That was simply the wrong way to go. Good intention, disastrous results.
"You'd better not call yourselves married, or we'll get mad, and you won't like us when we're mad!"

That paragraph above? That is an attempt to get me to agree with your demands to deny me of my rights by threatening me with violence if I do not give in.

You, elemtilas, are engaging in terrorism.
Again with the personal insults? Kindly leave them aside. The actual discussion is so much more fruitful without them! I'm just going to note that you called me a "queerphobe" (whatever the hell that actually means?) twice and a bigot I think twice. I haven't called you any names. I haven't prejudged you. Or even post-judged you.
Thing is, you did prejudge. And post-judge. You think that because I am queer I am unworthy as a human being. You think that I am icky and gross and will stain your precious institution by being able to participate in it. So you want to segregate me, confine me to an "other" institution. And you dress up that disgust in an argument polite enough to fool non-queer liberals by pretending it's all about "preserving definitions" instead, and attack those who refuse to buy your bullshit by calling them "intolerant."

I don't give a shit how upset my existence makes you. Fuck your feelings. Try to make good on your threats and prevent my queer family from marrying with violence and I will put you down myself.
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4399
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by qwed117 » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 03:00

If all marriage was called a "qhskwbl", would you feel the same, elem?
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by elemtilas » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 03:04

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:So then is this just, dare I say it, a linguistic issue? Just don't call it "marriage", but otherwise it's in practice the same as marriage?
No, I don't think it's just linguistic. Clearly the participants are different.
Edit: Inter alia -- different founding principles, etc.
Last edited by elemtilas on Mon 03 Jul 2017, 03:17, edited 1 time in total.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by elemtilas » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 03:04

qwed117 wrote:If all marriage was called a "qhskwbl", would you feel the same, elem?
Sftrblvt?
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4399
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by qwed117 » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 03:05

elemtilas wrote:
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:So then is this just, dare I say it, a linguistic issue? Just don't call it "marriage", but otherwise it's in practice the same as marriage?
No, I don't think it's just linguistic. Clearly the participants are different.
:roll:
Now I'm wondering if I just ask if "marriage" is even a word.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 03:09

Micamo wrote:I do it to insult you personally, and to insult all people like you.
Clearly, there is no possibility for rational discussion with someone like you! I don't have the time or energy to deal with willfully stupid people. You know what, Micamo, if you want to grow up in the next couple days and have a reasonable and civil discussion, I'm willing. Until then, I really can't see you as anything but an immature little prick and see no point in continuing with this.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by elemtilas » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 03:10

qwed117 wrote:
elemtilas wrote:
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:So then is this just, dare I say it, a linguistic issue? Just don't call it "marriage", but otherwise it's in practice the same as marriage?
No, I don't think it's just linguistic. Clearly the participants are different.
:roll:
Now I'm wondering if I just ask if "marriage" is even a word.
Pretty sure it is! [:D]
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6175
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Ahzoh » Mon 03 Jul 2017, 03:14

elemtilas wrote:
Micamo wrote:I do it to insult you personally, and to insult all people like you.
Clearly, there is no possibility for rational discussion with someone like you! I don't have the time or energy to deal with willfully stupid people.
Why should she be civil with someone with monstrous views? People can only be civil with people who hold idiotic and oppressive views for so long. Don't be a sea lion. You call her willfully stupid but that's rather the pot calling the kettle black with the way you argue here.

Marriage is NOT just man and a woman, it's a union between two consenting adults. That's what it means now. That what it will mean from now on. Fuck how it used to be. Now, we can either grant every married couple the same benefits and advantages as straight couples OR abolish marriage. Those are the only two just choices.
Last edited by Ahzoh on Mon 03 Jul 2017, 03:22, edited 1 time in total.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
Locked