riella,
Language is “labels”; that’s what words are - labels. If you want to argue for non-parity of some types of marriage then you do it using labels, thus: “gay (label) marriage (label) is not on a par (label) with heterosexual (label) marriage (label) because…” etc. Sometimes too these collections of labels represent a consistent position such that we can use other labels like “sexist” or “racist” or, yes, “homophobic” to describe what those positions are.
Can I suggest that if you really want to patronise someone with phrases like “Label away if doing so adds some meaning to your day” you take the time to establish first how out of your depth you are?
Can I suggest that given the patronising tone of most of your posts on here without first taking the time to establish how out of your depth you are, your suggestion won't be taken seriously. Glad we are agreed that labelling is fine if that is what you want to do on here. If you want to labour the point that we both agree that you can attach labels to posters, please feel free to carry on.
Irrelevant. That’s like trying to defend racism on the grounds that, yes some people are horrible to people of different ethnicities to their own, but not all of them – after all, a “sizeable chunk” are horrible to everyone.
No idea what point you think you are making with that comment or how it has any relevance to what I wrote.
The point though that you keep ducking and diving to avoid is that there is a set of people who will use non-procreation as their justification for non-parity, but will only apply that criterion only to gay people. That’s what homophobia entails. So far as I can tell for example, Spud is one such – certainly he’s made no reference to thinking other types of non-procreational marriages are not on a par with procreational ones. Why do you suppose that is if not for his deep-seated homophobia?
I have not suggested that Spud is or is not homophobic so not sure why you are addressing that question to me. You will have to ask Spud about the details of his opinions on heterosexual non-procreational sex in order to form an opinion.
You do know that gay people can adopt don’t you? That sometimes they have children from previous relationships they wish to bring up with their new partners? That sometimes people who thought they were infertile turn out not to be? That…etc. All of these folks are every bit as capable of good parenting as anyone else, so why would their relationships still be "not on a par" with those who by some means know pre-marriage that they can conceive even if you were stupid enough to use conceiving or bringing up people as your criterion for marital equality?
I have already answered this so there is no point asking me the question again as my answer has not changed. Whether something is "on par" with something else depends on which criteria people choose to apply to form a judgement. If the criteria is parenting, and the evidence is that the parenting of same-sex couples is equal to the parenting of opposite-sex couples, then based on that criteria the relationships are "on par". If the criteria is the ability to procreate with each other then the relationship is not "on par" with relationships where procreating with each other is possible. If the criteria is love or companionship, and the evidence shows that same-sex couples feel the same love and companionship as opposite sex couples, then based on that criteria the relationships are "on par". Presumably we form opinions based on the evidence currently available.
Which all goes to show that marriage is a societal construct rather than a universal property, and one therefore that can adapt as societies adapt. Hooray! Whence then those who would claim that marriage is "meant to be …X” as if it were the former?
Yes that was my point - it's a social construct based on social values. I suggest you ask those people to explain their claims but my impression of those people is that those people view themselves as part of society and therefore will lobby and argue and seek to construct marriage according to their particular values.
Yes I know, and traditional religious marriage confers various advantages to those who find them meaningful too. Why grant some people equal treatments with civil partnerships and deny other equal treatments from traditional marriages? Either you believe in equality or you don’t – suggesting it in some some areas but not in others is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Religious rituals are often arbitrary and depending on who is interpreting and practising them, they are probably often inconsistent. Non-religious cultural values and behaviour and rituals can also be arbitrary and inconsistent, including social constructs such as marriage which prohibit polygamy. So not really sure what point you are trying to make.
Equality is an abstract value that is open to interpretation and subject to change over time, usually through court cases, the work of pressure groups, activists and as the result of public campaigns. So I think your statement "either you believe in equality or you don't" is meaningless. Whose interpretation of equality do you suggest I believe in? Yours? I think I'll form my own opinions and beliefs, thanks.
You seemed to be taking a “civil weddings are nothing to do with me so I don’t care about them, but traditional marriages are so I do care about them” approach. I was just asking why either would matter to you more or less than the other.
I'm still not sure how you are differentiating civil marriage from traditional marriage. I know how I am using the 2 terms. I used the term "civil" marriage to mean the legal form of marriage formally enacted by laws. Given that in England, laws are decided by Parliament and interpreted by the Courts and that Parliament is accountable to voters and that laws are used by society to regulate behaviour, I was focusing on the laws around marriage.
I think the term "traditional marriage" refers to the social construct that existed for centuries and then became codified in UK law before the law was recently changed to allow same-sex civil marriages. What are you referring to when you use the term "traditional marriage"?
But we do share dictionaries – “hysterical” is described in them and no-one here that I know of has behaved in a way that matches the description. What “wildly uncontrolled emotion” have you seen though?
You do know that despite sharing dictionaries and even legal qualifications, there are numerous court cases where lawyers and judges differ in their interpretation of words used in legislation and reach different opinions and conclusions?
Not only did I understand your point, I rebutted it.
I believe you claimed earlier that if you make a point you are entitled to decide whether I missed your point or not. So on that basis - you misunderstood the point I made and therefore did not rebut it. I said the Searching for God thread argued that our like and dislikes are determined by nature/ nurture. Nurture refers to environmental factors, which obviously includes feedback from your environment.
And what you did above was just to list some of the areas in which civil partnerships grant equal treatment to gay couples. There’s nothing there though that even tries to justify the denial of other equal treatments to gay couples.
Where am I listing areas in which civil partnerships grant equal treatment? I don't think I mentioned civil partnerships - can you quote the bit you are referring to where I was discussing civil partnerships? I thought we were discussing civil marriage.
No it wouldn’t. The answer is none, zero, zilch obviously. Don’t you think so? Why not?
I already explained why not. Restrictions in spending tax-payer funds on more effective law enforcement and the decision by society to not put everyone under surveillance all the time to ensure that no crime is committed undetected, means that society is inevitably tolerating the beating up of some gay men.
No, “society” – or rather this society – privileges religions in various ways, and when those religions are inherently homophobic (as many are) then their views are thereby legitimised and encouraged. That’s nothing to do with freedom of speech – they can say whatever they like – but I happen to think that doing it with the sanction of the state is a bad thing. Don’t you?
The state is made up of elected representatives. So it depends on what the public - the voters - want from the State. I assume they weigh up alternative scenarios and at some point they may well decide that the State should not privilege religions. I presume that depends on what benefit the majority who make up society perceive that they get from privileging religion and what they perceive as the cost of dismantling those privileges.
Only the charge of homophobia is legitimate and the charge of hysteria isn’t according the meanings of those words, but ok…
You 're certainly entitled to hold that belief/ opinion.
Yes, and when that perception is shown to be misplaced using reason employing words with commonly understood meanings but they persist in it anyway that’s called prejudice or bigotry.
According to the Searching for God thread their perception is determined by their nature/ nurture. The environmental inputs to their perceptions are interpreted by filters constructed by their nature/nurture. Once their conscious brain becomes aware of their perceptions, they will have a choice of either tolerating or not tolerating something they dislike. I don't think the pragmatic reality of resolving this choice changes just because you call them prejudiced or bigoted. You can call them that if you like, if you perceive a benefit to doing so. You must exercise your own judgement on that.
Not really. Either you think there’s commonality of language and reason or you don’t (in which case anything goes).
I don't think there is commonality when it comes to the abstract ideas that humans are capable of constructing, hence we have debates about it.
Despite not “sharing one brain” we agree what we mean we either of us says “table”
A table is not an abstract construct.
we agree that the reasoning available to each of us implies that germs cause disease etc.
Until evidence to the comes along that challenges that view.
You also (presumably) agree that there are such things as prejudice and bigotry – you can’t therefore just sweep away the versions of it you quite like on the basis we don’t share one brain, but recognise its existence in respect of matters of which you disapprove. Either homophobia and racism both exist, or neither of them do. Take your pick.
Not sure what your point is. Humans have created abstract concepts, which they label "homophobia", "racism", Islamophobia etc. You do know that there are often protracted court cases and appeals that are required to determine if the reasoning supports a claim of homophobia or racism? The lawyers don't just come to the Religion & Ethics forum and ask for a show of hands. In fact on this forum most people decided the Ashers Bakery case was an example of homophobia and I disagreed and the Supreme Court decided that it wasn't homophobia and the case has now been referred to the ECHR.
Good. So are we now agreed that you no longer “tolerate” gay marriage as you said you did earlier but rather that you’re just indifferent to it?
I will respond once you clarify where I said I "tolerate" gay marriage.
Yes it is when the argument and reasoning they attempt to justify their beliefs are shown to be false. If they still assert them nonetheless, then (depending on the topic at hand) that makes them homophobic, racist, sexist, ageist, whatever-ist etc. You know this already though – imagine if I were to say that I perceive black or brown people to be Untermensch, fit only for slavery and in no circumstances should they be allowed to marry into the pure Aryan “race”. That would be my “perception” about the “traditional meaning” of racial purity etc and maybe too I’d want that perception to be “passed on” to my offspring in my “circle of friends or communities” etc. And lets’s say too that you’d dismantled every attempt I’d made to justify these views using your superior command or reason and argument.
At what stage would you say would you be entitled to call my views racist, and at what point too would you think your eventual “well fuck you then” to be anything but “hysterical”?
You are entitled to employ it right at the start of the discussion as much as you are entitled to wait for 4 years of back and forth discussion before employing the term. As far as I know there is no rule as to the timing of deploying the term. Whether someone calls you hysterical or not depends on what you actually say and how you say it. Different people will have a different point of view on that. It's almost as if you haven't read all the recent media reports on people being called "transphobic" for discussing issues about vulnerable women. Clearly different people have different views on when to deploy the term.
And if I was a disgusting racist the fact of black and brown people would be something I’d perceive I’d need to tolerate too. That wouldn’t mean that I wasn’t a racist though would it?
Yes you might well be being racist, and yet you would still have to make a choice of whether you tolerate and don't get arrested for a hate crime or don't tolerate and possibly end up in prison.
