![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerChoking back the immediate response to a post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
catalana, because angry as I am I don't want to get into a fight with her about it if I can avoid it (been there, done that, painful for both sides), I bring it back here, because here she has the option to ignore my BS, but I need to get it out of my system. I would take it to my other journal that nobody knows about tee em, but I think I want feedback from someone on whether my reactions are valid. Here's the post, line by line, and quoted in full to make sure no-one can accuse me of taking things out of context.
"...I'm not sure how useful preaching to the choir is. Telling each other that you support things that most of your friends already know you support doesn't strike me as that useful. But if it makes people feel happy, go forth and post."
We who participated in the pro-gay-marriage meme are portrayed as "preaching to the choir," the implication being that we waste time repeating our shibboleths to each other for, what, mutual reassurance I suppose. This is, of course, not why we posted the meme: if it were, the posts would be friendslocked, and while I'm not going to go back and check every iteration, I'm willing to bet that most of them weren't. As for most of our friends knowing we support it anyway, well, yes, maybe that's true in some cases--I have remarked on how opinions seem to come in packages, such that you can't seem to support A without opposing B--but in fact, this particular issue strikes across political boundaries, and I've been encouraged to see people post this meme with whom I have disagreed quite strongly on other issues. I see this kind of thing as outer-directed, like standing up and saying "I'm Spartacus!", joining a chorus for the rest of the world to hear. it's kind of like, you know, voting. I don't know if anyone who isn't on my flist reads me, but if they do, then they now know how I feel on that issue. As for the indulgent "if it makes people feel happy, go forth and post," that particularly irritates, because there is nothing to feel "happy" about here, and I don't frightfully care for being patronised.
Moving on.
"I just decline to participate because I don't think soundbites (or memes like this) can represent a nuanced position on any topic. And pretty much all rights-based or political topics are nuanced. Or at least should be, if we actually treated them seriously."
Ummm, actually I don't think they are, or should be, and I am as serious about them as anyone, and again with the patronising. There are no nuances about this one. Some people are saying that certain relationships between adult humans are Good and other relationships between adult humans are Not Good. Those who oppose are saying that both types of relationship are Good. Where is there room for "nuances"? You agree or you do not agree. This is not about any other issue. This is about whether gay people can be "married" in the same way that het people are "married." Clearly some of them want to be. Clearly those who oppose them want them not to be. You either think they should be able to have what they want, or think they shouldn't. If you think they shouldn't, but are uncomfortable about it, then maybe you really think you should change your mind.
There are no nuances about racism. There are no nuances about sexism. There are no nuances about torture. There are no nuances about exploitation of workers, or child abuse, or conditions in the slums, or any of these rights=based or political issues. What there are--what there are in abundance--is excuses. Codicils. Qualifications. Riders, exceptions, supposedly mitigating circumstances, the whole gee-officer-Krupke routine. All to blur the issue, muddy the waters, and obscure the fundamental, simple, un-nuanced truth that We Should All Be Equal Under The Law. Whatever we do. Whoever we are. Whomever we love. Nothing complex about it. Pretty much all rights-based topics actually come back to this: either you believe that all human beings should be equal under the law, or you don't. And that is treating them as seriously as possible; not making an academic game out of them, or assuming a position of detachment so as to study these quaint human customs from the outside. That is not serious, because nothing depends on it.
"Of course, if we treated them seriously, we probably wouldn't let politicians mess with them.*grin*"
Politicians, to give them some credit, are perhaps the only people who do treat these issues seriously, because they engage with them on a daily basis as part of their job. They take a position, rightly or wrongly, honestly or dishonestly, and act accordingly. Sometimes that position is equivocal when it should not be, and then they too talk about "nuances." But too many of my friends are politicians of good conscience and strong conviction for me to disparage them as a class. Even in fun.
I am, of course, going to get stamped on for this, because how dare I presume to be able to tell a darker shade of grey from a lighter shade of grey and all the rest of the rubbish. All I can say is, look at the icon, and if you seriously want a piece of me on this, then bring it.
EDIT: further thoughts. To say that the issue is complex because marriage is a religious thing and should not be the basis on which government and society grant legal rights and protections is, I think, avoiding the issue rather than explicating it. Marriage is, at the moment, a point where religion and society coincide, and as an institution is a lot older and more widespread than many of those secular and religious institutions who now feel competent to decide what it is or should be: it's not an exclusively Christian or even Judeo-Islamo-Christian thing, even though we talk about it as though it were. But whether we should sweep away the old "religious" institution and put in its place something like "domestic partnership" or "civil partnership" or "significant otherhood" or whatever is not the subject under discussion here. (Personally, I don't think we should. Rather we should accept that "marriage" is the generic name for a union of loving people with shared finances, domicile and washing-up duties, and broaden it out beyond the narrow restrictions of religious proscription, and this is what the meme and other things people do in support of same-sex marriage is trying to achieve. But, as I say, that's irrelevant for the moment.)
People in general, I think, don't necessarily (although I'm sure some do) buy plastic furniture because they enjoy the sensual touch of it, or admire the play of light on the moulding lines, or love the smell of newly coagulated polyethylene: they buy it because it's cheap and available. What they'd prefer, in many cases, is the option of cheap, available, good quality wooden furniture. In the same way, people who want to commit to a loving relationship and share their lives don't necessarily (although I'm sure some do) want to be "civil partners" or "spousal units" or some other circumlocutory modern buzzphrase coined by someone with no ear. They want the option to be husbands, and wives, whether they're one of each or two the same or three or four or more. They don't want to move into the modern block of flats: they want the old house to be extended in keeping to have room for them.
Expanding "marriage" to include gay marriages is that option. It's wanted, and there is no good reason to deny it. It doesn't have to be put off till the new block of flats is built. We can do it now. The meme says "Let's." And (FURTHER EDIT: while I support anyone's right not to participate in it without being regarded as opposed,) I see no good reason for actually objecting to it, unless you don't think it should happen.
catalana, because angry as I am I don't want to get into a fight with her about it if I can avoid it (been there, done that, painful for both sides), I bring it back here, because here she has the option to ignore my BS, but I need to get it out of my system. I would take it to my other journal that nobody knows about tee em, but I think I want feedback from someone on whether my reactions are valid. Here's the post, line by line, and quoted in full to make sure no-one can accuse me of taking things out of context."...I'm not sure how useful preaching to the choir is. Telling each other that you support things that most of your friends already know you support doesn't strike me as that useful. But if it makes people feel happy, go forth and post."
We who participated in the pro-gay-marriage meme are portrayed as "preaching to the choir," the implication being that we waste time repeating our shibboleths to each other for, what, mutual reassurance I suppose. This is, of course, not why we posted the meme: if it were, the posts would be friendslocked, and while I'm not going to go back and check every iteration, I'm willing to bet that most of them weren't. As for most of our friends knowing we support it anyway, well, yes, maybe that's true in some cases--I have remarked on how opinions seem to come in packages, such that you can't seem to support A without opposing B--but in fact, this particular issue strikes across political boundaries, and I've been encouraged to see people post this meme with whom I have disagreed quite strongly on other issues. I see this kind of thing as outer-directed, like standing up and saying "I'm Spartacus!", joining a chorus for the rest of the world to hear. it's kind of like, you know, voting. I don't know if anyone who isn't on my flist reads me, but if they do, then they now know how I feel on that issue. As for the indulgent "if it makes people feel happy, go forth and post," that particularly irritates, because there is nothing to feel "happy" about here, and I don't frightfully care for being patronised.
Moving on.
"I just decline to participate because I don't think soundbites (or memes like this) can represent a nuanced position on any topic. And pretty much all rights-based or political topics are nuanced. Or at least should be, if we actually treated them seriously."
Ummm, actually I don't think they are, or should be, and I am as serious about them as anyone, and again with the patronising. There are no nuances about this one. Some people are saying that certain relationships between adult humans are Good and other relationships between adult humans are Not Good. Those who oppose are saying that both types of relationship are Good. Where is there room for "nuances"? You agree or you do not agree. This is not about any other issue. This is about whether gay people can be "married" in the same way that het people are "married." Clearly some of them want to be. Clearly those who oppose them want them not to be. You either think they should be able to have what they want, or think they shouldn't. If you think they shouldn't, but are uncomfortable about it, then maybe you really think you should change your mind.
There are no nuances about racism. There are no nuances about sexism. There are no nuances about torture. There are no nuances about exploitation of workers, or child abuse, or conditions in the slums, or any of these rights=based or political issues. What there are--what there are in abundance--is excuses. Codicils. Qualifications. Riders, exceptions, supposedly mitigating circumstances, the whole gee-officer-Krupke routine. All to blur the issue, muddy the waters, and obscure the fundamental, simple, un-nuanced truth that We Should All Be Equal Under The Law. Whatever we do. Whoever we are. Whomever we love. Nothing complex about it. Pretty much all rights-based topics actually come back to this: either you believe that all human beings should be equal under the law, or you don't. And that is treating them as seriously as possible; not making an academic game out of them, or assuming a position of detachment so as to study these quaint human customs from the outside. That is not serious, because nothing depends on it.
"Of course, if we treated them seriously, we probably wouldn't let politicians mess with them.*grin*"
Politicians, to give them some credit, are perhaps the only people who do treat these issues seriously, because they engage with them on a daily basis as part of their job. They take a position, rightly or wrongly, honestly or dishonestly, and act accordingly. Sometimes that position is equivocal when it should not be, and then they too talk about "nuances." But too many of my friends are politicians of good conscience and strong conviction for me to disparage them as a class. Even in fun.
I am, of course, going to get stamped on for this, because how dare I presume to be able to tell a darker shade of grey from a lighter shade of grey and all the rest of the rubbish. All I can say is, look at the icon, and if you seriously want a piece of me on this, then bring it.
EDIT: further thoughts. To say that the issue is complex because marriage is a religious thing and should not be the basis on which government and society grant legal rights and protections is, I think, avoiding the issue rather than explicating it. Marriage is, at the moment, a point where religion and society coincide, and as an institution is a lot older and more widespread than many of those secular and religious institutions who now feel competent to decide what it is or should be: it's not an exclusively Christian or even Judeo-Islamo-Christian thing, even though we talk about it as though it were. But whether we should sweep away the old "religious" institution and put in its place something like "domestic partnership" or "civil partnership" or "significant otherhood" or whatever is not the subject under discussion here. (Personally, I don't think we should. Rather we should accept that "marriage" is the generic name for a union of loving people with shared finances, domicile and washing-up duties, and broaden it out beyond the narrow restrictions of religious proscription, and this is what the meme and other things people do in support of same-sex marriage is trying to achieve. But, as I say, that's irrelevant for the moment.)
People in general, I think, don't necessarily (although I'm sure some do) buy plastic furniture because they enjoy the sensual touch of it, or admire the play of light on the moulding lines, or love the smell of newly coagulated polyethylene: they buy it because it's cheap and available. What they'd prefer, in many cases, is the option of cheap, available, good quality wooden furniture. In the same way, people who want to commit to a loving relationship and share their lives don't necessarily (although I'm sure some do) want to be "civil partners" or "spousal units" or some other circumlocutory modern buzzphrase coined by someone with no ear. They want the option to be husbands, and wives, whether they're one of each or two the same or three or four or more. They don't want to move into the modern block of flats: they want the old house to be extended in keeping to have room for them.
Expanding "marriage" to include gay marriages is that option. It's wanted, and there is no good reason to deny it. It doesn't have to be put off till the new block of flats is built. We can do it now. The meme says "Let's." And (FURTHER EDIT: while I support anyone's right not to participate in it without being regarded as opposed,) I see no good reason for actually objecting to it, unless you don't think it should happen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-31 01:15 pm (UTC)I haven't posted the meme because I have other things on my mind, but I'll go and stand up and be counted. Thanks for saying this.