Hard News: Gaying Out
295 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
So your argument for denying someone a basic human right is that they do not make up an arbitrarily sufficient proportion of the population and that they may not want to exercise that right?
Would you also argue that, since gay people make up a small proportion of society and many do not want to get married anyway, marriage equality for gay people is not important?
The number of consenting adults who are: 1) in an incestuous relationship, and 2) want to get married, is vanishingly small. Single figures? Non-existent?
The number of gay people in this country is well into the thousands.
From a purely pragmatic sense, I'm entirely comfortable with concentrating on gay rights to the exclusion of those in an incestuous relationship.
-
The number of gay people in this country is well into the thousands.
Well. I'd have thought hundreds of thousands.
-
I did think about putting hundreds of thousands, but thought it possibly might not quite be that high, once children and straights are excluded from the population.
Thanks to a lack of sleep, I don't currently have the mental agility to do sums good.
-
Yamis, in reply to
once children and straights are excluded from the population.
What? When did we get voted off the island?
-
nzlemming, in reply to
What? When did we get voted off the island?
Muahahaha!
-
To be honest, all I want to do is have the civil right to marry my partner, and the whole bleepin’ conversation descends into incest, poly something or other, marrying dogs, condescending comments about the gays wanting civil rights, and goodness know what.
It’s quite depressing knowing my desire provokes discussion that equivocates it to the worst of humanity. Since when did discussion of heterosexual marriage lead to discussion of incest, marrying horses, poly whatever, and other scintillating titbits and innanities which in the end are nothing to do with heterosexual marriage? Or my wanting to marry my partner??
-
Horse walks into a bar. Barman says "Why the long face?". Horse says, "I proposed but Ed said neigh".
That's the best I could do with horses and marriage. I need better material to work with.
-
It’s quite depressing knowing my desire provokes discussion that equivocates it to the worst of humanity. Since when did discussion of heterosexual marriage lead to discussion of incest, marrying horses, poly whatever, and other scintillating titbits and innanities which in the end are nothing to do with heterosexual marriage? Or my wanting to marry my partner??
Yep. Let's drop the barriers to gay marriage tomorrow, and we can start talking about everything else the day after.
-
andin, in reply to
marrying horses
I think Lenny Bruce was having a good old dig at WASP conventions around sex and marriage in Psychopathia Sexualis.
Unfortunately, back then it went over most peoples heads. And, it seems, it still does.
I can quote more verses if you like…….Sorry if I came across as flippant. -
Christopher D - the 'worst of humanity' argument is not quite correct - actually, it's not correct at all. You *can* engage in a civil union with your partner - 'marrying' =?in the sense of a religious union?why?- maybe not.
The worst-of-humanity equates to pyschopaths, religious or otherwise, who will happily kill you, partner, me & all whom I love, simply because aforesaid nutters cannot abide DIFFERENCE -
-
It’s quite depressing knowing my desire provokes discussion that equivocates it to the worst of humanity.
There's always that derailing asshole guy in these discussions, and then it inevitably turns into one of those rhetorical logic-offs... when it's actually *your life* we're talking about. Sorry. :/
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Boom tish!
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
Sorry Christopher, again, for my part in it, you’re right. Shouldn’t’ve bitten. I don’t have much skin in the game and it’s not like there aren’t plenty of people here who are able to stand up for themselves when required.
[ETA: less is more, frequently]
-
and the whole bleepin’ conversation descends into incest, poly something or other, marrying dogs, condescending comments about the gays wanting civil rights, and goodness know what.
Well, not the whole conversation, and only one guy was being condescending, I think.
As to the issue of multiple marriage partners, it was raised by Graeme, and followed up by Tracy Mac here…
And actually, being polyamorous, I’m in favour of having some kind of legal recognition of multiple relationships
… among others, well before ‘that derailing asshole guy’ showed up.
in the end are nothing to do with heterosexual marriage? Or my wanting to marry my partner??
I don’t see how it’s an unrelated issue, for the purposes of discussion. But if could vote in I/S’s bill to allow for same sex marriage tomorrow, I would.
-
Yes, going right back to the beginning of the thread, I was also kindly advised by I/S that if I don't want to get married, I shouldn't. Thanks so much for that observation, not that I have any choice anyway. Both from the queer side and from the poly side.
And I love how many people here are all happy to get me one set of rights, but are all about implying multiple relationships are SOMETHING ELSE that CAN'T POSSIBLY be wanted by sane people. Thanks for that too.
What pisses me off, now that we come down to it, is this automatic privileging of one relationship paradigm over any other. To insist that these days it's entirely free of religious connotation seems pretty disingenuous. Why are so many people so against this right being extended across the board except if not because of their religious hang-ups? (Oh, ok, you can get people who are anti-gay out of pure bigotry, but the "protect holy matrimony at all costs" kind seem to be mainly the Christian moderate to right-wing).
To be totally honest, I think it should all be civil contracts, because legal marriage entails a whole bunch of property and inheritance rights, guardianship of children, powers of attorney (healthwise) etc etc etc. To enact these things individually costs a bomb and requires a lawyer. So why not make the Public Trust Office the registrar of such things at a nominal sum, and if you want to do the whole package with one person only, and call it "marriage", great, go to it.
-
...Not that I seriously believe that those proposals would ever gain traction. Did I mention I'm an anarchist, philosophically? :-} (In terms of wild and unrealistic idealism - still pay taxes and vote though)
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
There’s always that derailing asshole guy in these discussions, and then it inevitably turns into one of those rhetorical logic-offs… when it’s actually *your life* we’re talking about. Sorry. :/
Hey, some times you've just got to join Mr. Cee-Lo Green in an un-sanitized chorus of 'Fuck You'. (yeah, you too Paltrow and Glee)
Now, anyone feeling any sympathy for people like Andrew Sullivan who've shovelling this kind of shit from all sides for close on two decades?
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
It’s quite depressing knowing my desire provokes discussion that equivocates it to the worst of humanity. Since when did discussion of heterosexual marriage lead to discussion of incest, marrying horses, poly whatever, and other scintillating titbits and innanities which in the end are nothing to do with heterosexual marriage? Or my wanting to marry my partner??
Sorry. +1 to wot Danielle said.
-
Thanks all for your apologies - which to be honest I wasn't expecting. I was just voicing my frustration... being gay is well, unique, and totally fabulous which I wouldn't swap for the world, but that fabulousness has a dark side... which one endures.
Anyway, sticking my professional elected rep hat on...
I've just finished up two days of a 'symposium' where the Local Boards got together to listen to wonderful speakers, and to start to think about our Local Board Plans.
My advice to you is to get close (in whatever way you choose) to your favourite Local Board Member and be informed about the Local Board Plans. In other words, private venture captial speak, get in on the ground floor.
Whipping off said hat...
-
Jackie Clark, in reply to
Christopher, are you free tomorrow, by any chance? If you are, would you like to email me? I have a proposition for you. In the nicest possible way.
-
Oh. Also. Not that it helps one jot, really, but I imagine that there are quite a number of us who think you should be legally allowed to have as many spouses as you like, Tracy. <raises hand in a voting 'aye' fashion>
-
Sacha, in reply to
I've just finished up two days of a 'symposium' where the Local Boards got together to listen to wonderful speakers, and to start to think about our Local Board Plans.
Anyone talking about disability angles?
-
Christopher Dempsey, in reply to
Yes, am free - you'll need to email me at my council address which is
christopher.dempsey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Thanks.
-
Christopher Dempsey, in reply to
Wearing my ER hat...
No, not really - it didn't get down to that level of detail - but it is a good reminder - I'm deaf (you should see my $9k hearing aids), my brother is in a wheelchair and my other brother is blind. So I will make sure that all Local Bds consider disability in their plans.
Doffing said hat...
-
Sacha, in reply to
I'm deaf (you should see my $9k hearing aids), my brother is in a wheelchair and my other brother is blind. So I will make sure that all Local Bds consider disability in their plans.
Ta - sounds like you'd know more than most already :)
May drop you a line myself about how to progress this.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.