Same sex marriage

Post Reply New Topic

Uhhh, LKL, don't mind Philologos. He is an academic, and he is especially one of those types who like to take contrarian perspectives on things. If you understand him, though, his insights are usually fairly interesting, if not always what I would tend to align myself with.

I just usually don't respond to him because I understand we're on such different wavelengths that we'd just get each other confused and frustrated if we tried to have an in-depth discussion. I try to just read his stuff and try to pick up on his vibrations as well as I can.

But really, Phil here is definitely not a bigot of any shape or stripe. He just sees the wind blowing in a certain direction, and he is trying to ask it why. He can't help himself.

I thankee for those kind words. I tend not to respond to many of yours because you tend to be a bit louder than is always comfortable and [I do it myself] say a lot at a time - and not always on my topics. Still, I have not put you on the stack with the ranting dolts [most of whom could not put together a post at your level of cohrence.

But on this one thing - said it before - at the risk of sounding contrarian - how do you convincingly deny being contrarian? - I ain't.

I form my own views which being based on a different stack of data often differ from other peoples' takes. But the key note is independent analysis, not looking at the other balllots and voting against them.

It is possible to disagree with one's church body on the matter of gay marriage.
I for one belong to the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, which basically is a right-of-center mainline denomination that is both (in comparison to others) mildly pro-life, and opposes gay marriage. While my church believes homosexuals are in fact genetically predisposed to their same sex attractions, the Missouri Synod still holds that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.
I have made my views clear to my pastor and my fellow members of my congregation that I am pro-gay marriage - and from results of one poll taken on the subject in my church body, I'm hardly the only one. We're a minority, but it seems we are growing as people in general are becoming more enlightened.
But the issue of gay marriage goes beyond religion, as it's clearly a civil rights matter. If pressed on the question if gay Americans are entitled to equal treatment under the law as anyone else, knowing my church members (at least in the more open minded Northwest district), even more Missouri Synod Lutherans would concede gay marriage is only fair.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

@Phil, I suppose that I was using the term "contrarian" rather loosely. I think that academics tend to be "radical contrarians" in that they don't just take an opposite viewpoint, but they take a viewpoint that flies in the face of practically everyone's assumptions about the topic. Of course, I have been briefed on the risks of stereotyping, and I am taking them into account and advise it be taken with a particle of salt.

An example would be if I were to point out to two people arguing about the Arab-Israeli conflict, "Well, it depends on whether you're talking about this neighborhood in the northern part of East Jerusalem or this other one a half-mile south of it. In the first neighborhood, Group A has a stronger legal claim to lots x, y and z but Group B has contested the claim based on arguments n, t and f. In the other neighborhood, the case is more clear-cut, and the disagreement is based on ideological and ethnological tensions."

The reason I say "radical contrarian" is that I'm not just going against one group or the other, but I'm flying directly in the face of the assumptions being made by both parties in the disagreement. The way I see it, the parties to this disagreement actually don't disagree on anything at all: both of them agree that the rules are, "one of us or the other will be green monkeyed in one way or the other, and being truthful or objective is optional, even bad style." So I am not just controverting one viewpoint in the discussion, but I am controverting the protocols on which the discussion is based. And, of course, this gets me in trouble.

Same sex couples should have the same rights as male and female couples. Marriage is essentially a legal agreement between two people and whatever else they make of it spiritually. I see absolutely no reason why the government needs to be involved and the whole notion of marriage licenses needs to be abolished. People need to learn the history of why we have marriage licenses in the country.

Ah, yes. I once saw in one of the journals an exchange of views - after reading both sides [I was still young] I sent in a contrib for the next issue pointing out that they were both wrong because over;looking an important factor NOT in the standard model's worldview.

It earned me no points.

What they cannot stand - what is worse than a Green Monkey - is a Green Monkey who stands up and says he is as good as the next ape. The Greenies should know their place.

The green monkey (Chlorocebus sabaeus), also known as the Callithrix monkey,[3] is an Old World monkey with golden-green fur and pale hands and feet.[4] The tip of the tail is golden yellow as are the backs of the thighs and cheek whiskers.[4] It does not have a distinguishing band of fur on the brow, like other Chlorocebus species, and males have a pale blue scrotum.[4] Some authorities consider this and all of the members of the genus Chlorocebus to be a single widespread species, Cercopithecus aethiops — confusingly, the name "green monkey" has also been used for this single species.

Look to your scrotum.
Green monkeys note 'em.
It gives them a look most distinguished.
Since their balls have a shade
That some may degrade
Be they Chinese or Russian or Englished.
So monkeys most green
Can make the scene
As novel or crazy or pissed.
But temper aside,
They often provide
An ambiance frequently dissed.

nihil obstat

Never studied Latin. "No problems" is much more meaningful on a site where English is assumed.But your delight in being obscure must be hard to suppress.

Anyway, anyone who really thinks that marriage would a reward of some kind to a person who is only interested in sex and money probably has no idea what marriage is all about. The very idea is just ignorant and stupid. A long-term relationship of any kind a lot of responsibility. You can't even just be in the same room with your lover and just sit there taking up space: you have to be attentive to the emotional needs of your lover. You have to learn when to give your lover space, when your lover needs attention, when you should try to establish a boundary, when you should probably reconsider your boundaries and whether or not they are reasonable, consider and prioritize your expectations and whether those expectations, if met, would actually address your needs substantially, and it is really not the easiest thing in the world to do.

The reason most marriages in this country are dysfunctional is that people seem to have this concept that either it's a bothersome burden or this romantic fantasy that never was. Do these ideas seem like the opposite of each other? Far from it. They are two different faces of the same stupid idea: this is the idea that we should see "duty" as something to be avoided and "pleasure" as life's ultimate fulfillment. Does anybody have any concept of duty anymore?

But what's annoying to me is that the people out there who do still have the concept that duty, sacrifice and obligations are part of a fulfilling life still have this stupid idea that gay people should have to suppress their homosexuality. It's not sustainable! It can't reliably be done! It is simply beyond the capability of the human psyche!

If you are homosexual, your real duty is to come out of the closet and not to try to make a pretense that you are capable of maintaining a heterosexual marriage. Don't try to fool yourself. I've seen enough broken marriages out there to last me a lifetime: if you choose to fool yourself into thinking you've "cured" yourself of your homosexuality, you're fooling yourself into letting down your family and everyone in your life who has any meaning to you. You may think for a while that you can do it, but the loneliness and hollowness of it would wear you down. It would wear just about anyone down.

When you finally break down and admit to your husband or wife that you have never really had feelings for the opposite sex, it doesn't matter if you grew to love your spouse in spite of this incompatibility. The relationship would never be the same, and it would break down. If you have children in the home, their delicate minds will inevitably be affected by this phenomenon. They will watch you go through separation and divorce, and you won't even be able to explain to them why. It is a living hell. Having been around for a while, I have watched this tragedy play itself out.

Gay marriage is not what the old guard thinks it is. Regardless of what certain radical liberals say, it's not about breaking down a redundant social convention. It's not an extension of eradicating gender roles. It's not about liberation and "do as you may." It's not about that. It's about recognizing the concrete, observable fact that gay people can no more pretend to be straight than an elephant can flap its ears and fly like a bird. It can't be done.

Trying to force gay people to be straight has resulted in nothing but destruction and tragedy. Nothing good will ever come of it. It's evil. A gay youth suddenly forced to break all connection to everything he or she understands can lose touch with reality completely, and this leads inevitably to the self-destructive, lunatic behavior that we saw during the 1980s.

Acceptance is the only solution we know that actually does any good at all, and that is the duty of our society. You may not feel comfortable with homosexuality. You may not like it. You may think it is gross or nasty. Deal with it. If you damage the psyche of some gay guy or transsexual, which you know is already in a delicate state just from being a minority, it can turn into a soul-eating and destructive disease of the mind. Smile and nod, and live with it as well as you can if you can't force yourself to truly accept it. There is nothing you can do to change it, and criticism can only cause hurt.

Your education has been neglected.

I never found much use when I was younger for languages beyond English. I concentrated on the stuff Sagan appreciated. Having lived for some periods in France, Germany, and Israel I found it something of a hindrance to not have linguistic facility but I managed. Finnish is another story altogether.

Someone who doesn't appreciate the Finns and their language is just sad, sad, sad. Sweden is also a superior culture, but their language is packed with English cognates and has a syntax functionally identical in most respects to English. But Finnish is rather unique, by comparison.

However, I must agree that Latin has grown rather redundant even in the academy.

I am learning Finnish very slowly. The standard teaching of Finnish here in Helsinki is very heavy on rules and grammar and very weak on conversation. I have no idea how this works with other people but I only started to gain some ease in speaking the language by spending a great deal of time in conversation. It took me a long time to discover that I had to learn the language as a child learns it. By listening and speaking. The rules come later.

UgroFinnic in general is fascinating stuff. I could easily have gone that route. Worked with a Finn - fellow classmate then colleague - interesting character. One of my parent's - I had been told he was Dutch, but the minute I heard him talking to his wife on the phone I knew better - was Estonian.

I am by no means happy these days with the UralAltaic proposition - some of the alleged links are just too tenuous. But [though I doubt I have the breath control to handle Magyar right] they are exactly the kind of languages I love.

I disagree regarding Latin.

I think many doctors and lawyers would benefit from taking Latin. I am sure there are other discplines that would benefit from the study of Latin as well.

I took many Latin courses in my younger days, and I still find it to be useful when I encounter a word derived from Latin that I'm unfamiliar with - rarely do I have to resort to pulling out my dictionary.