Those Astonishing Heteros

(Insert title here)

I think you're applying the concept of a stereotype improperly. Whatever diversity you wish to claim about heterosexuals, it has to do with issues below the surface, or behind the outcome. The outcome, however, is undeniable. For whatever diverse reasons, a majority voting in California, for instance, insisted on invoking sex-based discrimination in order to strip a right from a minority.

The idea of a stereotype doesn't necessarily apply to this fact. Indeed, I wonder how you think it does. Despite the diversity of the a majority, how many of that majority do you really think would accept the treatment given minorities?

Would the white people of the eighteenth century have accepted being chained, prodded, auctioned, and exploited? Would men, a traditional empowerment majority accept being treated the way women have been treated? Would Christians accept the proposition that their books should be removed from library shelves—or even banned from sale—in order to accommodate an atheist's views about religion?

Would you call it some sort of unjust stereotype if I assert the answer in all of those cases is a resounding, "No"?

Start with an individual. A person expects certain rights and dignity in society. Is this a stereotype?

That person happens to belong to an ideological majority clinging to arguments that have been consistently shown to be irrational. We can set aside the question of a stereotype; the only real questions is whether one decides that comparing a person to a farm animal is rational; or whether citing a single member of an outlaw group who is hiding in a foreign country as a stereotypical representative of a bloc of people who disagree with him is rational; or whether insisting on circumstances that are not described by any statistical reality is rational; things like that.

That majority, for whatever diverse reasons you care to describe, decides that a certain minority is not entitled to expect the same rights or dignity in society.

No matter how diverse the individuals might be, the outcome is the same: The minority does not deserve the same rights and dignity that we do.

You asked in what way consistency is lacking. And there you have it.

I consider it absurd that it is somehow unfair to compare what a majority thinks it deserves for itself against what it is willing to afford minorities, especially in a country in which all people—majority or minority—are granted equal consideration before the law.

Not comparable in what way? That is, according to what criteria?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Marriage is not a right! It's a legal, social contract between two people of the society. California did NOT discriminate against anyone ..it merely voted to define that legal, social contract of marriage as between a man and a woman.

If gays want a similar legal, social contract, then they should apply for such a contract in court ....call it "gay-riage" or something.

Marriage is not a right! It's a legal contract with the state ...nothing more, nothing less. The courts have defined that contract by popular vote in California as well as some other states in the USA. All similar legal contracts have clear definitions, why shouldn't marriage be clearly defined?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Insert title here)

And?

By redefining the contract in a deliberately exclusionary way, the people have committed a foul. I've tried pointing this out to you before, but you refuse scholars and experts, pretending that they know nothing more about history and the law than you do. The Law School at Cornell University, a university professor who specializes in the history of marriage and family, the Supreme Court of the United States—you consider yourself on par with all of these, and that's just not the case.

Max, you seem to forget that the "separate but equal" standard was struck down fifty years ago.

I'm curious, though: What, if any, difference do you see between what actually is and what you want?

All similar legal contracts have clear definitions? Like what?

And what other contracts can I only enter conditionally according to my sex?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope, that's the way laws are always handled. And I would suggest that every freakin' law in the country is "deliberately exclusionary".

It's not the same thing.

Baron Max

 

Grasping at random contexts is not rational, Max

Explain how, oh, I don't know, say, the speed limit is deliberately exclusionary in the context of equal protection. Or, perhaps, laws against murder?

How so? You're proposing a separate standard—e.g. civil unions or "gay-riage"—that will allegedly be the equal of marriage in order to protect a religiously-derived sentiment that demands sex discrimination.

 

Actually, the courts decided that not allowing homosexuals the right to marry was unconstitutional. It was a popular vote that overturned the court's decision.

And you're also wrong about gays wanting special rights. See, your logic is that men can't marry men, and women can't marry women, so it's equal, right? Well, following that logic, allowing gays to marry would simply be allowing men to marry men and women to marry women--equal rights to everyone. Even straight folks. The gays wouldn't be getting special rights, the rights would simply be extended to include them.

 

How 'bout the age limitations on driving?
How 'bout the age limitations on drinking?
How 'bout the age limitations on buying cigarettes?
How 'bout the restrictions of legal-age incestuous couples?
How 'bout the age restrictions on voting rights?
How 'bout laws against women in ground combat?
How 'bout laws against women in military tanks and armored vehicles?

Note the other rules and laws above that are also socially-derived sentiments that demand sex discrimination.

See, Tiassa, you gays want SPECIAL RIGHTS, above and beyond what normal males/females are afforded under the law. And it's all because of the way y'all like to have sex! You want society to sanction that sexual abberation by granting the rights to marry.

Baron Max

 

Are you sure about that???? As I understand it, the popular vote was to change the legal definition of marriage to be that between a man and a woman.

As far as I know, no popular vote could overturn a state Supreme Court decision!!

Baron Max

 

Quit trolling, Max

Hey, Max: I've addressed those issues before.

So either address those arguments or quit repeating yourself.

What, women in the military? I'll state it explicitly for you: I think it's bullshit to keep women out of combat. (Try this six year-old thread if you really care to slog through the details of that argument.)

I've addressed this before, too, Max. Perhaps, if you don't want to be seen as a troll, you might be courteous enough to address those arguments.

Well, the answer there is yes and no, Max. A state supreme court ruling is generally based on constitutional issues. That's the state constitution. The way to undo a state supreme court ruling is to amend the state constitution.

And in most states, that's fairly easy. According to the legal challenge against Prop. 8, though, it's not that easy in California; the challenge is procedural. If that challenge is refused by the CSC, the only question left is whether states can arbitrarily defy the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe if you didn't waste your participation in these discussions insisting on ignorance,

 

Yes, it changed the state constitution. And it also overturned the state Supreme Court's decision. Which further proves that we need to get rid of some of these ridiculous, archaic, obscure laws that allow for majority rule. We've never been a direct democracy, and majority rule is tyranny. Not even the state Supreme Court has a chance with laws like that, and they're supposed to be keepers and interpreters of the state constitution.

 

This and that

It's not my fault if the standard people want isn't nice.

I never did understand that, how so many people could blindly participate in a cruelty, and then when they're treated remotely in the same fashion, they screw up their faces and bawl, "That's not fair!"

Strangely, though, no matter how much I make the point that there is an obvious response, nobody wants to take it up. Now, for those who aren't so offended by the idea of looking at heterosexuals according to the same standard that is allegedly "fair" for viewing homosexuals, there is no reason to take up that response.

For the rest, though, it seems they just want to cry about it.

I remember this one time—and, really, I didn't realize denim burned like that—this guy, Ted, somehow landed a cigarette cherry in the rolled cuff of his Levi's 501s. I don't know. It only took a few seconds. I think someone said, "Uh, Ted?" And maybe someone else didn't really think much of it; we'd all dropped cherries on ourselves before. Just not like this. In the seconds it took for us to recognize the difference, smoke was pouring off Ted's leg. He literally did that cartoonish, "What's burning?" thing, and then looked down as the heat finally reached his ankle.

Yes, it was hilarious watching him hop around with, really, quite thick smoke trailing off leg as he tried to unroll the cuff. And then it was over, and Ted was sitting on the curb laughing his ass off and lighting another cigarette.

Life goes on.

The one thing he didn't do was stand there and scream, "That's not fair!" and cry about it until someone did something for him.

The jeans weren't totally wrecked. He put a classic blue and white bandana-looking patch over the burned part, and defiantly wore the damn things, smiling graciously whenever someone asked him about it, since the patch was on the inside of the fabric, and therefore visible when he rolled the cuff.

• • •​

We do have a law in place. For some reason, though, the challenge is slow to come.

It's the Fourteenth Amendment, and when gay marriage finally goes before the Supreme Court of the United States, the main question will be whether the right to marry is invested in the sex of the partners, or if there is something more to it.

And there is something more to it, since heterosexuals get married for some pretty stupid reasons. You know, like how they think they're in love, and that it will always feel that way. And then the feeling fades, and they take up a lover, and eventually file for divorce, or some stupid melodrama like that.

Hence, the need to protect the sanctity of marriage.

 

Let's also not forget the fact that people get married for reality TV shows. Or, more seriously, homosexuals get married to the opposite sex in sham marriages so they appear "normal". And I'm not talking about those cruel and unusual "fix your gay" camps, I'm talking about closeted homosexuals who get married to protect their lives.

Sanctity my ass. All these bigots care about is protecting what sex can get married.

 

Chains

Chains. When Gerry Goffin and Carole King wrote—

Chains, my baby's got me locked up in chains,
And they ain't the kind that you can see.
Whoa, oh, these chains of love got a hold on me, yeah!​

—I don't think this is what they had in mind.

Sssssanctified!

A tip of the hat to the folks at Slog. Dan Savage had this to say:

The sanctity of marriage is apparently invested in sexism, and not conduct. No wonder people are confused.
_____________________

Notes:

Thanawala, Sudhin. "Chained teen shows up at Calif. gym, 2 arrested". MyWay.com. December 2, 2008. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081202/D94QNIOG0.html

Savage, Dan. "Today in Traditional Marriage". Slog. December 2, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/12/02/today_in_traditional_marriage

 

Mod Hat - Splinter notice

Mod Hat — Splinter notice

A splinter thread has been formed in response in order to accommodate a significant number of off-topic posts complaining about the propriety of this thread. All further comments on that subject should be posted in—

"Splinter: Rhetorical Ethics (Those Astonishing Heteros)"​

—and further posts regarding those issues placed in this thread will be deleted at least.

Let's stay on topic, people.

 

Are you ready for some football?

Source: The Stranger
Link: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=808786
Title: "Last Days", by David Schmader
Date: December 2, 2008


What? Come on, this one's spectacular.

And, hey, why am I the only one posting new material?

 

Ouch

A twenty-eight year-old woman is involved in a five-year relationship with a married man. And while he keeps saying he will leave his wife eventually, he never does.

Typical, eh?

Anyway, that part is beside the point. The problem is that the lover has just discovered she's pregnant. This is her second pregnancy by the man; the first ended in a miscarriage that she suggests was the result of emotional stress—it's all his fault.

In the meantime, this other woman has been trying to plant evidence for the wife to find in order to wreck the marriage, but for some reason this ill-conceived scheme keeps failing. Perhaps the most devastating part of this macabre tale are two truly amazing sentences: "I could leave him, but if I do, I want to make sure he's miserable. I'm not going to vanish from his life and leave him all happily ever after."

She is thinking of telling the wife straight out, and wonders if Dan Savage has an opinion. Is there any way she can force her lover to tell his wife?

And (drumroll, please) ... the response:

I mean, ouch. But, still, what the hell is wrong with people?

And don't get me wrong. The relationship that created my daughter was a twisted and insane one. But, damn, it was nothing like that.
____________________

Notes:

Savage, Dan. "Savage Love: Face Sitting". The Stranger. December 11, 2008. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=830675

 

No, it's not typical at all ...and to think so is only more evidence that you don't know what the fuck ye're talking about!

Citing isolated incidents as some kind of proof of something is idiocy in the extreme. And worse, that's what you've been doing all through this thread ....citing one or two isolated heterosexual incidents in some misguided attempt to prove or show something about them all.

In the past, you've done the same with cops ....one isolated incident and you make it out to be proof that all cops are bad.

Baron Max

 

Tiassa, this thread seems a little bogus, if not outright trollish. Can you please explain why homosexuals want to get married and why this is a civil rights issue? Judging from this thread and statements you have made, it seems a petty jealousy that the media labels a crime by a heterosexual as simply horrendous while a similar crime committed by a homosexual is horrendous and GAY.

Is it about taxes? Do you want the state to force employers to grant benefits to same-sex couples? What is the aim?

I have very few gay friends, which makes sense considering homosexuals make up a very small minority, and within that minority many do not even wish to be associated with the "gay community". Two women I know fell in love, they got engaged and had a ceremony. They live together, eat, sleep, fuck, go the movies, etc. One files the other as a dependent and they do well. They don't care in the least about a piece of paper from the courthouse.

What am I missing? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask these questions. I just am at a loss when debates regarding this issue arise because I haven't heard credible supportive arguments. Crying for equality doesn't seem sufficient. Maybe I want to have a menstrual cycle every once in a while or run faster than Jesse Owens but I can't. I am male and I have short stubby legs.

 

This and that

Frankly, I don't understand why anybody wants to get married. But from what I understand from both heterosexuals and homosexuals who have marital aspirations, it has something to do with love.

It's about equality, Prospero. For all we hear about gay, gay, gay, we ought to hear something about heterosexuals, too. As I mentioned at the outset, this is a companion thread to "The Gay Fray".

In the meantime, it's not my fault if people only want to complain. They could try contributing, but that's just a suggestion. To each their own priorities, you know.

Hmm ... after you've read through the opening post of "The Gay Fray", try #14 in that thread, also known as "Some thoughts on the benefits of being discriminated against".

Despite my disdain for marriage in general, my personal threshold on the issue came in the late 1990s when a local judge had to apologize to a gay man. See, once upon a time, a young man came out of the closet. His family disowned him, kicked him out of the house. But of so many who were sent to the streets in those days, he was one of the lucky ones. He met someone, they became close. And they spent thirty years together before he died.

But he died without a will. So his family sued for his estate. His partner of thirty years, prohibited from marrying the love of his life, was not entitled to a damn thing. The judge, in issuing his ruling, could only apologize to the partner; there was nothing, under the law, that he could do. So the father and brother, who thirty years before kicked a young man out of the house for the crime of being gay, inherited the produce of his life's love and labor.

In the time since, "traditionalists" (who appeal to a 1950s idyll reminiscent of Leave it to Beaver or Ozzie and Harriet) have grudgingly surrendered their heterosupremacy in a piecemeal fashion, kicking and screaming the whole way, asking each time, "Isn't this enough?"

And no, it isn't.

I haven't decided yet what to do with a recent blog post I recently encountered called "Proposition Hate". Give it a read. And before you come back and complain about how horribly it depicts heterosexuals, consider for a moment, please, that's not the point. That's not Jake's point. That's not my point. And I'm just a bit struck at how many heterosupremacists, traditionalists, and humorless, oversensitive heterosexual egalitarians just can't cope with the discussion in any other terms.

For instance ....

• • •​

Oh, for heaven's sake, Max, get yourself either a sense of humor or a connection to the American culture around you. Maybe it's a generational thing, but what is "typical" is the idea that an adulterous male would promise his mistress that he's going to leave his wife. It's a freakin' standard among my generation. Really, we hear some woman we know say, "He's not happy in his marriage," we roll our eyes. When she says, "He's going to leave his wife," we all laugh.

Ding-ding, Max, get on the trolley. Do you ever look at anything without looking for the worst possibility you can find to complain about?

Actually, you can cite isolated incidents as proof of statistical deviation.

Yes, your assessments of my intentions have been so accurate over the years.

Speaking of which, are you ever going to get around to explaining how choosing to be a cop is the same as being born black?

 

Thank you for taking time to respond.

My response is twofold.

I disagree. I have always understood it to be mate selection. Love is not a necessary part of the equation. I think of Joni Mitchell singing, "We dont need no piece of paper from the city hall, keeping us tied and true." Why does a homosexual couple need to validate their love by subscribing to a social institution designed by and for heterosexuals?

Secondly, I'd like to point out that you didn't answer my question regarding homosexual marriage being a civil rights issue. First definition I found describes civil rights as "rights held by individuals and groups derived from the social contract - the common consent of society at large to the rules under which its members live." (source) Society at large is not on board with gay rights therefore I feel the ball is in the homosexuals' court to persuade the majority of "traditionalists" this is in fact legal injustice. If homosexuals are waiting for an unconstitutional fix from the Feds similar to Roe v. Wade, I would advise not holding your breath. This is a battle that will have to take place state-by-state, through public awareness and legislation. Vitriolic speech condemning "traditionalists" of "throw[ing] out the constitution" and being "so offensively and ineffably stupid and mean-spirited" that "they're willing to rape the Constitution on this one, over and over and over again" doesn't seem like the best way to educate and gain sympathy for the plight of a very small minority.

All this being said, I am not well-versed in Constitutional law. If I am missing some key element(s) to the gay rights movement, please correct and educate me.