Entry tags:
i have made a Decision.
backdated note two things:
1. this is a back- (i.e. front-) dated copy of this post, the original timestamp on which was 12feb2004, 14:08 EST.
2. either before or after you read what follows, you should also read this post by
thebratqueen.
Have been thinking about this since this morning, when I heard the latest report from Massachusetts on the radio in the car on the way to pick up
darthrami. Thinking about it more, as one tends to, in response to
theferrett's post about the sincerity of Christian belief (more or less). Finally reached a decision:
I'm not going to speak of gay marriage or same-sex marriage any more.
Language influences thought. Gay couples wish to be granted the right to marry, yes -- but the whole idea is that those marriages should be legally equivalent to marriages that happen to include people of opposite sexes. The political right wants to codify the definition of marriage to specify one man and one woman; and as long as people keep using the phrase gay marriage, it's going to be easier for the right to claim that this is something different than "real" marriage.
I'm not going to allow that. Language belongs to all of us, and we can and should be aware of the implications of the words we use and construct our speech with care. (Over here on the pro-choice side, don't we describe our opponents as anti-choice, because "pro-life" suggests that we are "anti-life" or "pro-death", which is sort of off-message? And don't they call us pro-abortion, as though we were insisting that people have the operation whether they wanted it or not?) So from now on, instead of talking about gay marriage and same-sex marriage and whatnot, I'm going to call it like it is: the debate is about marriage, which is available to some and not to others on legally artificial grounds. What the equal-rights crowd wants is for marriage to be available to everyone. Full stop.
Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "done."
Who's with me?
1. this is a back- (i.e. front-) dated copy of this post, the original timestamp on which was 12feb2004, 14:08 EST.
2. either before or after you read what follows, you should also read this post by
Have been thinking about this since this morning, when I heard the latest report from Massachusetts on the radio in the car on the way to pick up
I'm not going to speak of gay marriage or same-sex marriage any more.
Language influences thought. Gay couples wish to be granted the right to marry, yes -- but the whole idea is that those marriages should be legally equivalent to marriages that happen to include people of opposite sexes. The political right wants to codify the definition of marriage to specify one man and one woman; and as long as people keep using the phrase gay marriage, it's going to be easier for the right to claim that this is something different than "real" marriage.
I'm not going to allow that. Language belongs to all of us, and we can and should be aware of the implications of the words we use and construct our speech with care. (Over here on the pro-choice side, don't we describe our opponents as anti-choice, because "pro-life" suggests that we are "anti-life" or "pro-death", which is sort of off-message? And don't they call us pro-abortion, as though we were insisting that people have the operation whether they wanted it or not?) So from now on, instead of talking about gay marriage and same-sex marriage and whatnot, I'm going to call it like it is: the debate is about marriage, which is available to some and not to others on legally artificial grounds. What the equal-rights crowd wants is for marriage to be available to everyone. Full stop.
Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "done."
Who's with me?

no subject
I try to remember to refer to "gender-neutral marriage", but it's hard to remember in casual conversation sometimes.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2004-04-19 02:41 pm (UTC)(link)er, I apologize for barging in on your LJ like that, but I just happen to have a little time today and I really, really wanted to drop you a note:
In Sam's Sweet Home, a long, long time ago, you corrected his French as follows:
je suis un pédé: -- I don't think that un belongs there. Predicate nominals in equative sentences don't get articles in French when the subject is a pronoun. il est étudiant = he is a student
I agreed with you at the time - mostly because I didn't have much time and didn't give it too much thought. Sadly, I am also a language nut and the thought that I hadn't taken the time to set things right has been nipping at my brain cells ever since. so I should do something about it before all of my brain is gone
So: actually, this only works when describing someone's occupation: il est docteur, elle est pianiste, etc. If you're describing someone's characteristics as a person "tu es un sale type", "tu es une brave fille" - or simply "tu es une fille", you will have to use the article. This is only relevant for the first and second person; in the third person you would use "c'est", thus justifying the use of the article anyway.
Now, you were actually right for "je suis pédé", not because it is his occupation *g* but because pédé can be used as an adjective in this context.
Pfew. I'm glad I got this off my chest *g* . I'm sorry, I know it's silly (and such a long time away too), but you seemed genuinely interested in the French language aspect, so I thought I might take the liberty to mention that to you. I would have sent it to you via email, only I coudn't find an email address in your profile.
also, je suis le président du Burundi, because Burundi, the country, would be a masculine noun in French (le Burundi)
French Lurker (belatedly coming your way via Sam's LJ, with a bunch of virtual flowers to make up for barging in)
no subject
i don't have an e-mail address listed in my profile, but i do have a paid account, so darthfox@livejournal.com will always work nicely. ;-)
and: i'm not going to change the president de burundi thing, because it's a specific quotation and mr. eddie izzard said it wrong himself. but i do know you're right. [g]
thanks for stopping by!
no subject
(Anonymous) 2004-04-21 09:07 pm (UTC)(link)Just goes to show how LJ savvy I am *g* (I don't have a LJ, but I think I'm getting there... I'm still resisting because I might end up spending even more time on the computer than I do now - v. bad - but then again, maybe not *sighs*. Would you mind if I friended you, once I've gone through the whole tedium of creating a journal?)
Président de Burundi it's a specific quotation and mr. eddie izzard said it wrong himself Oh, I didn't know that! *g*
French Lurker
no subject
no subject
I didn't want to be French Lurker, because I'd rather step out of lurkdom ;o)
So I gave up any pretention to pass as a tall, dark, handsome and slightly dangerous lurker to become a tiny, colourful frog. Suits me well. *grins happily*
I have even managed to friend you :) Am very proud of myself. Thanks for you offer to help me, I'm sure I'm going to need a hand pretty soon.
Burundi
(Eddie Izzard, forsooth!)
no subject
no subject
totally OT
have you seen the movie Men With Brooms? if not, get it. :) it's about 4 washed up, has-been curling champions reunited by their coach for one last hurrah. it was an awesomely spectacularly funny and charming movie. curlers really are a "sect" ;)
Re: totally OT
no subject
While we're being semantic, it should be "je suis le Président du Burundi" & not "de Burundi".
Have you seen that Kenny of Echostation fame now has a LJ?
It's a stampede!
no subject