Joe,

So it’s that there is/was nothing “anomalous” about interracial marriage specifically in law?

<<There was and is nothing anomalous in law about inter-racial marriage.>>

Because, before, it sounded like you were just talking about anomalousness in general. I wouldn’t have thought that ‘anomalous’ was the best word to use to convey the fact that something had always been allowed for in legislation either.

Anyway, that’s all irrelevant because I’ve already agreed with you, for the sake of argument, that, back in ‘the day’, interracial marriage was standard, normal, expected, welcomed by the most hardened conservatives, and blessed by even the most fundamentalist churches, and have gone on further to point out that having an issue with labelling same-sex marriage thus is as irrational and abhorrent as what having an issue with labelling interracial marriage thus would have been had the past not been a time of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows everywhere.

Just not the gay kind.

Whether or not a form of marriage has always been legislated for does not say anything about whether or not the word ‘marriage’ should be used. To argue otherwise would be a non sequitur, and borders on the Argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy.

<<I rest my case.>>

On that note? I’ll take it, then, that you don’t have a rational justification for finding another word for same-sex marriage.

AJ,

It's not my task to find another word for homosexual unions. Why should it be ?

As you say,

"back in ‘the day’, interracial marriage was standard, normal, expected, welcomed by the most hardened conservatives, and blessed by even the most fundamentalist churches, and have gone on further to point out that having an issue with labelling same-sex marriage thus is as irrational and abhorrent as what having an issue with labelling interracial marriage thus would have been had the past not been a time of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows everywhere."

That's right, inter-racial marriage was quite legal between British subjects, as Indigenous people were, like it or not. But you do tie yourself in knots in the second part - a sort of argument by somersault ? You still seem to imply that inter-racial marriage was somehow objectionable ? And 'therefore' sort of, almost, more or less, illegal, as illegal as 'homosexual marriage' ? Is that what you are attempting to say in a roundabout, and possibly racist, way ?

As for equality, and its controversial relationship to difference (and the relationship between difference and INequality), I refer you to Joan W. Scott's wonderful feminist article in about 1986.

Joe

//There is no way of telling which ones are homophobes and which ones are against all same-sex marriage. It is rather arrogant to act like you know which is which.//

Awww, isn't that cute? A lecture on phanto about the arrogance inherent in inferring people's motives from their actions.

Once upon a time, phanto, there was a mighty king of a primitive, savannah dwelling people. Being savannah-dwellers, they fashioned their crude huts from the materials available to them: grass.

This king, who we shall call 'Bob', ruled wisely and justly from the seat his forefathers - a great throne, carved from an enormous boulder. From time immemorial it had been the material symbol of the power of his dynasty, but everybody agreed that Bob occupied it the best out of any ruler.

In order to pay homage to their great ruler, the best grass hut builders constructed a mighty grass palace for him. They even managed to make it a multi-storey construction, an impressive feat of engineering when your raw material is grass.

Unfortunately, Bob ruled a little bit too well: his kingdom grew wealthy and his neighbours grew envious. They plotted an invasion, and Bob, fearing that their raiding parties might steal away his most prized possession - his colossal rocky throne - decided to have it hidden in the attic of his grand palace.

Where it immediately fell through the flimsy grass floor, crushing poor Bob flat.

Now, what's the moral to this story?

That people who live in grass houses should not stow thrones.

//It's not my task to find another word for homosexual unions.//

So whose job is it? I've volunteered but been rejected.

//You still seem to imply that inter-racial marriage was somehow objectionable ?//

It was. Joe, if you won't take my word for it then at least take Sherlock Holmes' (yes, I know he's fictional). Read 'The Adventure of the Yellow Face', published in the 1890's.

Possibly a bit more relevant than articles from the 80's. For one thing, A.C. Doyle was actually there.

Pogi:

I didn't bother reading your post but the mere fact that you felt the need to respond to me only proves my point.

A J Philips:

Why would you need to thank Pogi for his insights into my bizarre behaviour? It sounds like you are unsure about your own insights. You wouldn't need his insights if you were confident about your own. Perhaps you are sucking up to him in the hope of forming a partnership but that presumes he needs a partnership with you. I don't think Pogi is as insecure about his insights as you are trying to suggest by your behaviour that he is.

Joe,

At no point have I said or even implied that it is up to you to find another word.

<<It's not my task to find another word for homosexual unions.>>

I have only asked you what rational justifications there are to necessitate a different word. That was the worst sidestep I've ever seen.

<<That's right, inter-racial marriage was quite legal between British subjects, as Indigenous people were, like it or not.>>

At no point have I claimed that it was illegal, like it or not. You’re ducking and weaving.

<<You still seem to imply that inter-racial marriage was somehow objectionable ?>>

It was to many conservative types. This is still irrelevant to my argument, though.

<<And 'therefore' sort of, almost, more or less, illegal, as illegal as 'homosexual marriage' ?>>

Frowned upon by some, not illegal. Still irrelevant.

<<Is that what you are attempting to say in a roundabout, and possibly racist, way ?>>

Yeah sure, Joe. Play the ‘racist’ card with one of OLO’s most vocally anti-racist regulars, while never saying peep in opposition to OLO’s actual racists. Even if I WERE trying to stretch a bow as rediculously long as that, no-one in their rational mind could possibly extract racist undertones from it.

By the way, you may feel all virtuous ‘n’ stuff being anti-racist, but your homophobia makes you no better than a racist.

<<I refer you to Joan W. Scott's wonderful feminist article in about 1986.>>

Going by your description and the year, I can only assume you're talking about ‘Gender and the Politics of History’. But that's a book, not an article. All of Scott’s journal articles date no earlier than the nineties and don't appear to be as relevant.

How about you tell me how what she says supports your position or contradicts mine? Are you suggesting that the difference between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage demands a different word? Your reasoning would want to be good given the innuendo in, and deleterious consequences of, demanding a different word. People aren’t that easily confused, after all.

Toni Lavis:

I agree with you that people who live in glass houses ..etc. What is your point though? How does that apply to the statement I made?

If you do not know the reasons why someone objects to same-sex marriage then it would be arrogant to act as if you do know. That is what arrogance is. You have no evidence to support your claim that someone is homophobic and yet you behave in such a way that you do know.

The change in the Marriage Act would make it possible for two heterosexuals of the same sex to marry. There is no denying this as a fact. These two could go on to become parents and many people think that children should have parents of opposite sex. They could be opposed to same-sex marriage for this reason. Homophobia is obviously not the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage. However much homosexuals want it to be about them it is not.

When you say that you will not bother giving us all your 'other name' because the homophobes would jump on you then you are acting on the assumption that all opponents to your 'other name' are homophobes. You cannot make that assumption and to act like that is arrogance.