Text 10943, 135 rader
Skriven 2007-01-28 07:27:58 av Vorlonagent (14380.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================

"lizardgirl" <gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1169957417.440682.222520@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

> I don't buy the argument that marriage is a 'privilege' determinable
> by the government.  What was marriage before government?

Doesn't matter.  In the US in 2007, it's a government privelege.  You do not 
live in a different time or place so their rules aren't binding.


> The same
> thing it still is, a voluntary commitment.  Governments are little
> more then record keepers after the fact.  They serve the legal
> interests of the individuals material processions/obligations not the
> marriage.  As someone else already mentioned they protect each party
> there in against fraud (polygamy) and/or abuse (40 year old men
> marrying 12 year old girls and vies versa)  I do not see how this
> entitles a government to restrict legal marriage between two
> individuals contracting in good faith.

Because the government is the bestower of the legal benefits to marriage. 
Anyone can be married in a non-legally-binding sense now.

I never said it it was good that the government could restrict marriage in 
this way, just that it can.  We can all complile long lists of bad things 
the government has the right to do, and does.  Restricting marriage to 
heterosexuals is another item on that list.


> So there is a bit of transference going on here then -  if we accept
> gays and their deviant tendencies then we must also accept our own
> 'heterosexual' fetishes.  Correct?
> We have to, oh my gosh, get in touch (can I say that?) with our own
> sexualities?  I don't see this as a bad thing.  but that's me.

Exactly.

Problem is, most people are not comfortable with the devient aspects of 
themselves.  People commonly project discomfort they have with inner aspects 
of themselves onto individuals who exhibit those traits.  If I'm 
uncomfortable with my gay aspect, I am going to be uncomfortable around 
gays.  If gays desire to be accepted, this is something that they will need 
to deal with in ways that are less harsh than "in your face" tactics or they 
will end up encouraging the very homophobia that is the bane of their 
existence.

If you are comfortable with or curious about the devient or fetishistic 
parts of yourself, you're ahead of the curve.  You can't expect the average 
american to welcome behaviours that they are uncomfortable with just because 
you do or because that is a healthy way for a human to process their world.

Nor do you do yourself or them any favors by looking down on them for 
retreating in the face of the things that discomfit them.


> I understand your concern that the message of love between same sex
> individuals will get lost in all the taffeta and feathers.  But I
> don't think it's the fault of the messenger.   People who think gay
> marriage is about 'deviant sexual behavior' will never come to accept
> gays no matter how modest and well mannered they are.   Our culture
> is, as you have said, homophobic.  'It' is the problem not the folks
> at the parades, which are in fact a form of nonviolent protest.   The
> reason 'outing' folks has fallen out of fashion is because it is no
> longer 'necessary.'  More and more folks are finding the courage (feel
> it's 'safe') to come out on their own.  Not just in Hollywood and
> politics but in every day America.  Homophobia has nothing to do with
> the homo and everything to do with the phobic.

Absolutely.  That phobia is your enemy, not any individual or religion.

Thing is, it's your problem too if you want something from those who have 
the phobia.  Since gay-phobia is a background piece of US culture, you need 
the permission of gay-phobics for to be accepted in society and to be able 
to legally marry.

I think for most people fear of gayness boils down to fear of the unknown, 
be it an external unknown or unknown areas of themselves or both.  Those 
that have an axe to grind, sure, aren't going to get it.  I believe that 
those people are reltively small in number.  Every prejudice you'd care to 
name is still abroad in our world in some small amount.  That's just the way 
life is.

The flipside is that most people will respond positively given the 
opportunity.  Gayness needs to be de-mystified.


>>But to understand painting requires understanding color.
>
> No it doesn't :^)

If you want to create art it does.


>>You can't understand color unless categories exist that define what a 
>>"color" >is.
>
> 'Color' is a wavelength of light reflected by an object in space.
> Which may mean the 'colors' we see are not the color things 'are.'

If color is defined as you do, yes it is.


> but that hardly matters as its not the colors that are the problem.
> it's the folks who say, "do you see that color? Yeah, me too.  That
> color goes here."  I think you get that.

I try.


> (good luck with the new job and the pending move.)

Thanks.  I go up to Redwood City tomorrow to look at rooms for rent (thank 
you, craigslist.com).  Unless something goes horribly wrong, I will select 
one of five choices.  I have one I got through relatives of a friend, 2 off 
of craigslist previously, 2 more today.  I have only made definite 
appointments with two of them, though I have made e-mail contact with a 
third.  I have a list of important questions to ask and room to compare side 
by side.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent

"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."

"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)