//Find another word//

You don't read/remember so good, eh Joe?

I HAVE.

I have suggested it on this very forum. When I did, the homophobes immediately decided they didn't like the word I'd found, and shifted the goalposts to demand that those in favour of gay marriage invent a new word instead of finding an old one and re-purposing it.

I didn't bother to invent a new word, because I had a fairly strong hunch that even if I did, the homophobes would do another swift repositioning of the goalposts.

I can't be arsed repeating myself again. What's the point of applying my linguistic abilities to solve the problem set, when as soon as I give an answer the problem changes? Waste of my time.

The fact that it resulted in a misunderstanding of what I was saying, phanto.

<<What does it matter what a person's feelings toward homosexuality might be?>>

You need to read my words in the context of what I’m responding to.

<<It might not be necessary but if it costs you nothing to accept a new word and it pacifies other people then why would you not want to change it?>>

Because it implies (and indeed the clear motivations of those who insist on a different word confirm) that same-sex marriage is somehow inferior to, lesser than, or not as legitimate to opposite-sex marriage. Then there are issues of symbolic equality:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227202
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227191
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227182
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227162

Do we really need to go through that again?

<<Surely same-sex couples value peace and harmony and if it can be had this way then why would they refuse it?>>

Because it is not in a society’s interests to pander to irrational fears and bigotry. Fear and bigotry should be fought, not accommodated. Perhaps if those insisting on a different word could rationally justify it… But until then, such irrational fears should be shown the same disregard and contempt that proposals to label interracial marriage differently would be.

<<Is calling your relationship a marriage really that important?>>

If I were denied the “privilege”, yes.

<<What would be the problem if [the evolution of marriage] did stop?>>

Nothing, per se. It’s the reasons that people want it to stop that are at issue.

<<Just because marriage has evolved does not mean it has to go on evolving.>>

No-one has suggested otherwise.

<<That is not an argument for a continuation of evolution - it is simply an observation that our understanding has evolved.>>

Correct.

<<Since it is up to human beings to decide when such evolution should cease why shouldn't it stop at the point where it excludes homosexuals?>>

For reasons of equality. Your memory is appalling.

<<You have to provide an argument why the evolution of the understanding of marriage should continue beyond where it now resides - as relationship between a man and a woman.>>

Equality.

Dear Phanto,

No forum rules prevent us from arguing here, but no rules say that we should argue or that this is what this forum is about. I think that currently the balance here tips too much towards an argumentative culture.

«It [argument] is how human beings strive to come to the truth»

What if some Greek suggested a theory that this is how humans should operate - how many actual human beings do you personally know who do so in their life? Then of those who do, how many arrive at the truth?

«to work out the best way to structure society»

Isn't society already too structured?

«Most people come to these forums because they want to contribute to that process»

Count me as one who wants to unstructure society, so as to protect individuals from its tyranny.

A J Philips:

Stating the word equality is not an argument. It is just a word. Just stating a word in response to an argument is pointless. If you do not want to argue then don't argue. That is the most rational way to behave. If you do not want to argue then why would you say one word? There seems only two courses of action which make sense to me. Either you present a coherent argument or stop posting single words. Either you put up or shut up.

"Do we really need to go through that again?"

You sound exasperated. No we don't have to go through that again if you do not want to. It is up to you. If it is all too exasperating then don't do it! That would be the logical way to behave. If you are going to do it then it is your choice and you should take responsibility for your choices in which case it is irrational to behave in such a way as to make it sound like it is my fault. So either you don't go through it all again or you take responsibility for your choices. The only logical reason for such a query would be that it is an attempt to paint me as some kind of dullard and why would you need to do that if you were convinced of your position?

AJ,

<<What is anomalous about inter-racial marriage ?>>

"Nothing, now. But it used to be anomalous, just as same-sex marriage is now. The similarities between the push against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (regardless of their legal statuses at the time) are striking .... "

No, inter-racial marriage did not require any change in the law: it's always been legal, at least in SA and, I suspect, in all States. So there was nothing particularly anomalous about it, any more than marriage between left- and right-handers. And it was wonderful.

Joe

It is if it answers your question, phanto.

<<Stating the word equality is not an argument.>>

I had even provided you with links before that to where I had explained why equality is an argument.

<<If you do not want to argue then why would you say one word?>>

See above.

<<There seems only two courses of action which make sense to me. Either you present a coherent argument or stop posting single words. Either you put up or shut up.>>

Does the fact that your arguments are so simplistic and ignorant that they can be countered with one word annoy you?

It should.

There’s a third course of action: actually read what I say and link to. There’s a fourth too, now that I think about it: engage your brain and try to think back to the last time we discussed the issue of equality. Or the time before that, or the time before that…

<<No we don't have to go through that again if you do not want to. It is up to you. If it is all too exasperating then don't do it!>>

So is it your plan to exasperate me by getting me to repeat arguments that you were never able to counter in previous discussions? Maybe then I’ll go away and you’ll be free to make all the fallacious arguments you like, eh?

Déjà vu!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227202