Gay People Against Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
I never said anything about privilege. I am just pointing out that the argument for same sex marriage based in equality is invalid.

No it isn't. The basis of your argument is nothing new. For example, it cropped up in the racism in the USA. In some states in the USA, people of different "races" weren't allowed to marry. This was overturned by national law on the basis that it was racist. Some of the states in question appealed on the basis that the law forbidding "mixed" marriages wasn't racist because everyone had an equal right to marry someone of the same "race". Their appeal failed because it's a fallacy. Your version of it is worse because it doesn't allow marriage at all for one of the groups. It's like arguing that rich people and destitute homeless people are equally situated because they have equal opportunity to sleep in doorways.
 
Last edited:
Having justifiable exclusionary groups is fine.

Rape support centres for one, gyms or places where a person has to strip off (same logic as changing rooms).

As with everything, I don't think a singular black & white law is sufficient - but overall then I'd agree, but exceptions may always be required.

What constitutes "justifiable"?

I know that the original gyms did feature people exercising in the nude, but modern ones don't. Well, I suppose there might be some nudist gyms, but it's not the norm. So the argument is that men should be excluded because some women are uncomfortable in the presence of men. Well, some heterosexual people are uncomfortable in the presence of homosexual people. So excluding homosexuals is exactly as "justifiable" as excluding men for exactly the same reason. Also, why are men-only gyms unjustifiable while women-only gyms are justifiable?

Everyone who approves of any form of discrimination thinks that it is justifiable. In the context of discrimination, "justifiable" has always meant "discrimination against some groups is right but the same discrimination against other groups is wrong". The groups that it's considered justifiable to discriminate against have changed over time, but the idea remains the same.

I agree that in some rare circumstances excluding people for being in the "wrong" biological group might be justified, but I think that the bar should be set much higher and not simply follow whatever prejudices are dominant in any particular place and time.
 
Last edited:
what I don't understand is how that female only garage works, how do they get away with only employing women?

Same way garages got away with only employing "whites" in apartheid South Africa or segregationist USA - people get away with whatever discrimination is considered acceptable in any place and time. There's just more hypocrisy about it nowadays, more of an effort to corrupt and thoroughly destroy the concept of equal treatment rather than honestly opposing it. So they'll call their anti-male sexism sexual equality.
 
I agree that in some rare circumstances excluding people for being in the "wrong" biological group might be justified, but I think that the bar should be set much higher and not simply follow whatever prejudices are dominant in any particular place and time.
That's the point, some reasons exist (breast cancer groups for women, testicular cancer groups for men, rape support groups for women) - the only reason I don't suggest rape support groups for men being exclusionary is due to the obvious fact most men are raped by men, not women.

I'm saying all reasons are justifiable, but it's not as simple as applying a blanket rule - regardless as to what people think, the reason for the exclusive nature of a group really does matter.

Wanting a exclusionary group for reasons of not wanting to be judged are better reasons than just not liking women/men/gay people/ethnic minorities, then a sliding scale exists - with some more justifiable, some not justifiable & some completely understandable.

Rational judgement needs to be applied to first determine if people are being discriminated against, the reasons for the nature of the split & if it can be justified ethically.

No flat singular rule will ever really be workable in this scenario.
 
Last edited:
what I don't understand is how that female only garage works, how do they get away with only employing women?

The same way you can have female only gyms, female only swimming times and can employ only females in sex shops and underwear shops. Females have been discriminated against from birth and continually are when it comes to mechanics and engineering, fields typically dominated by males and have a male orientated workplace and tradition, to combat that and make females more comfortable with areas.

It's not bullying when the little guy punches back, upwards and defends itself against bigger aggressors.
 
Pretty sure that's a photoshop job, even to my untrained, squinting and slightly refreshed eye.

I know, Slowpoke.jpg etc...

http://www.heavy.com/social/2013/05...raditional-marriage-fans-and-brings-the-lols/

Its not, it was a disastrous circle jerk campaign by homophobes to attempt to justify stopping gay marriage. George Takei responses got way more publicity and way more credibility.

8iOusbG.jpg


Dae4Owi.jpg
 
Can you give a more detailed etymology? That's the first time I've seen breeding pairs in agriculture cited as the origin of the word 'marriage'.

Maritare has its origins in agriculture and predominantly the practice of grafting vines to produce varieties of grapes, the word combines the male and female genders to imply procreation. It was later used to replace Conubium as the predominant terminology for a legal union of a man and a woman, mainly because the word for Male Sex was Maris and this replaced Coniunx as the preferred term for Husband as it became combined with the term for Lover. This evolved over time to form several variations such as Maritus, Maritaticum and so on....
 
Last edited:
Yes and because of that I continually check my privilege when discussing minorities and the disenfranchised. I am still guilty of ableism, homophobia and misogyny occasionally and am working on trying to better myself.

You know you mentioned self-hating gays and "blacks", who advocate prejudices and discrimination against gays and "blacks"?

There are self-hating "straight white males" too. More of them nowadays, as it's a fashionable group to be prejudiced against and to blame for everything wrong.

I think you're one of them. Or maybe you're doing the white knight alpha male thing. I'm not sure which.
 
Gay marriage, I don't care eitherway.

Gays adopting children, I simply can't agree with. Seems to be a massive flaw with it somewhere.

I also believe homosexuality is not normal.

Would you care to point out the massive flaw in gay people adopting children?

I use a number of forum posters on here as moral & ethical sun-dials.

If they are at 3, what's correct is most likely 9 - it's a huge time saver.

It's not always a good measure and I'd always try to come to a view on my own first but it does on occasion give me a little bit of reassurance when certain people post a view diametrically opposed to mine. Then again there are others whose opinions I respect and if their views differ from mine that will give me pause for thought even if I don't ultimately change my mind.

On the other hand i personally disagree with churches being forced to conduct same sex marriage. In my eyes a religious marriage is the joining of a male and female together in the sight of God. This therefore rules out gay marriage. I also believe it's wrong to force priests/reverends etc to conduct a ceremony that they find to be against their religious beliefs.

tldr; same sex secular marriage = good, same sex religious marriage = not so good

It might be that you're talking about a theoretical forcing of religious institutions to carry out gay marriages but the proposals don't actually suggest that should be the case. If a religious institution chooses to carry out marriages of homosexual couples then it's just that - their choice and nothing else.

There may have been more hard-line suggestions from some that all churches must carry out marriages for homosexual couples but that's not present in any proposals I have seen recently.
 
Maritare has its origins in agriculture and predominantly the practice of grafting vines to produce varieties of grapes, the word combines the male and female genders to imply procreation. It was later used to replace Conubium as the predominant terminology for a legal union of a man and a woman, mainly because the word for Male Sex was Maris and this replaced Coniunx as the preferred term for Husband. This evolved over time to form several variations such as Maritus, Maritaticum and so on....

Thanks. It seems that I hadn't looked at good enough sources - the quick look I'd made took it back as far as Roman marriage and then went with "etymology uncertain" for further back, speculating a connection with husbands. How certain is the etymology back from Roman marriage to Roman agriculture? It makes sense, but how solid is the evidence? This is your thing, so I'm assuming you know.
 
It's not always a good measure and I'd always try to come to a view on my own first but it does on occasion give me a little bit of reassurance when certain people post a view diametrically opposed to mine. Then again there are others whose opinions I respect and if their views differ from mine that will give me pause for thought even if I don't ultimately change my mind.
Hehe - well it's part tongue in cheek. :p

In reality my view is pretty similar (pleased that certain posters are opposed on moral issues).

But yeah, still a good few posters on here I don't always agree with but can articulate a great response & have views based on reason (just arrived at via different data).

The problem is you have to push through the waves of idiotic posts from people who don't feel they need to know anything about a subject to post about it.
 
Thanks. It seems that I hadn't looked at good enough sources - the quick look I'd made took it back as far as Roman marriage and then went with "etymology uncertain" for further back, speculating a connection with husbands. How certain is the etymology back from Roman marriage to Roman agriculture? It makes sense, but how solid is the evidence? This is your thing, so I'm assuming you know.

Its as solid as these things can be and subject to revision, the Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg made the comment that the term Maritare was broadly used in Vulgar Latin (not unlike Marry is in modern English) and that the earliest usages of the word (or rather Maritus and it's derivatives related to Agriculture (Husbandry) and it was later that we see it supersede the traditional words such as Conibium in reference to Human Social and Legal Unions.

If you check the Latin Lexicon, you will find confirmation of this:

http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2034742

Here are the relevant parts:

Transf. Of animals and plants. Pass.: maritari, to be coupled, i. e. to have a mate: tunc dicuntur catulire, id est ostendere, se velle maritari, Varr. R. R. 2, 10, 11.

Of plants, to wed, i. e. to tie or fasten to another tree: adultā vitium propagine Altas maritat populos, Hor. Epod. 2, 10: ulmi vitibus maritantur, Col. 11, 2, 79; 4, 2, 1: maritandae arbores, id. 4, 1, 6; cf. id. 5, 6, 18.

and this is true across the various forms of the term...



The issue we have is that over the millennia the root has been attributed (and quite correctly) to various other words and attributed to their creation or evolution. Earlier derivatives (as shown above) such as Maritus (Husband, Lover, Nuptial or even Married) and it's root Mas (of the male sex). Maritus forms with Conibium to give us Nuptials, as a variant of Conubialis which in turn is derived from Com + Nubere (together + to wed). We also have the word Conjugal, again derived from the earlier word for marriage and effectively means to join together with a spouse.

There are loads of examples of how the etymology of a word as old and widespread and broadly attributed to various definitions as Marriage has come into modern usage, this is why most etymology guides will give the most recent derivations and stop at only mentioning the most commonly attributed Latin Root (common to the most languages, rather than the most commonly known, if you get my meaning), rather than delving into the myriad of branches that have developed over the centuries or going back into the etymology of the Latin Root itself.

Effectively it means that you cannot use the definition of marriage as always being between a Man and Woman as a justification to oppose same sex marriage, as the word Marriage has historically such a broad and varied etymology.
 
Last edited:
You know you mentioned self-hating gays and "blacks", who advocate prejudices and discrimination against gays and "blacks"?

There are self-hating "straight white males" too. More of them nowadays, as it's a fashionable group to be prejudiced against and to blame for everything wrong.

I think you're one of them. Or maybe you're doing the white knight alpha male thing. I'm not sure which.

How is recognising my privilege in society hating myself? It's just being aware?
 
How is recognising my privilege in society hating myself? It's just being aware?

You passionately advocate prejudice and discrimination against the group that you identify yourself by.

That's self-hatred in the same way that you used the term to refer to people in other groups doing the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom