![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 updarthrami. 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
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?
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.