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!
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.