2014: the year Ellen Page made scores of neckbeards cry out in psychic anguish

[sheatheman]

༼ つ x_x ༽つ

[luke viia]

 

 

 

way to shift the debate. whether marriage is a homophobic institution or not is none of our business here. the homophobia point is irrelevant to the questions raised by the specific situation i'm talking about. it's off-topic in the current situation of france.

Just a silly idea and other generalisations: Americans and cultural context tend not to mix very well, I've noticed.

 

Might be because the US is a huge melting pot of immigrants from the outset and it doesn't have any kind of noteworthy culture or tradition left in it. Any culture from outside gets smashed into pieces as soon as it crosses US borders. In a way, in the US every culture is valid (which is good), but the result is that every culture or tradition loses meaning in the greater scheme of things. So in American thinking, culture or context does not exist. (Silly idea, i know....and not arguing it's good or bad or anything..just trying to explain this awkward phenomenon)

 

It's either that, or it's just their debating style. Absolutes and absolutes.

 

It's a rare event to see an American arguing sensibly about foreign cultures when it comes to morals, for instance. When it comes to morality, it tends to be argued from some absolute position which might work on the US mainland, but not so much for the rest of the world. It's a kind of a blind spot, which is often interpreted as the typical US arrogance from outside US borders.

 

So, the notion that marriage means different things in different cultures is just lost and the result is some absolute concept where different cultural backgrounds are irrelevant, and entitlement becomes the dominant position from a moral point of view. Leaving some kind of: everyone is entitled to be able to marry, regardless of various cultural meanings.

 

In France the situation might be that gays couples could have the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but it's just called different (because marriage has a specific meaning in french culture). In the US, the cultural meaning is irrelevant and if heterosexual couples have a thing called marriage, than so do gay couples. End of...

 

Again, no judgment intended. Just trying to understand why the fuck this discussion tends to go on and on and on ...

 

Anyways....I already feel ashamed of being part of this discussion. And I'm not that big of an Ellen Page fan either.

good post imo, love it when godel and i can agree on something

[gmanyo]

but the thing is what if gays take all of our rights

[brian trageskin]

Also, Brian, fuck you. Fuck your bullshit arguments. Fuck your trolling. Fuck your attitude. You're a disgrace. Fucking scum.

 

[Adieu]

 

Also, Brian, fuck you. Fuck your bullshit arguments. Fuck your trolling. Fuck your attitude. You're a disgrace. Fucking scum.

 

 

 

You do realize in this scenario you are implying that you are the emperor, correct? So, you're openly cultivating evil and hatred...

[hoggy]

i didn't say "imo" in the context of "but marriage was never meant for other configurations than man + woman, for whatever reason". read more carefully.

whether you like it or not, it is an indisputable fact that "marriage was never meant for other configurations than man + woman, for whatever reason". just saying.

 

was marriage ever 'meant'? or did it evolve?

 

i never said it should. you deduced that out based on my opinions.

i never gave my opinion on the topic of marriage and i won't, since it's irrelevant. i only gave my opinion on the political context in which this topic was discussed, and the way the debate was led. which, IMO, is a gazillion times more relevant to the situation. smoke screen baby, smoke screen.

your opinion is relevant in an argument about your opinion

 

i personally have no political power, i'm nobody. so my beliefs allow me nada, zip, niente, ничего, waxba.

 

by your/you I mean one: "one's beliefs..."

 

way to shift the debate. whether marriage is a homophobic institution or not is none of our business here. the homophobia point is irrelevant to the questions raised by the specific situation i'm talking about. it's off-topic in the current situation of france.

 

I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY the topic

 

 

by the way, i'm gay.

 

I wish I could believe you!

[hoggy]

damn, I edited for brevity, but maybe it will be harder to follow without the previous back and forths - sorry

[Adieu]

damn, I edited for brevity, but maybe it will be harder to follow without the previous back and forths - sorry

 

It doesn't matter. you are debating with someone who claims to take no personal stance on an issue they are debating.

 

You might as well debate with a brickwall. Literally, it would be just as effective. The only reason this is slightly more effective is that others see the conversation and can be influenced by it.

[brian trageskin]

we're discussing 2 different topics hoggy.

yours is gay marriage per se, gay rights per se etc.

mine is the way the french government is currently dealing with gay marriage and gender theory in france. i couldn't care less about the topic of gay marriage per se, gay rights per se.

if you read again all the posts i made in this thread, you'll see that i never changed the subject. i'm only interested in that specific social and political issue, not in the internal societal debate on gay rights per se.

[usagi]

IMO the legal authority to marry should be taken away from all churches and only civil unions being legal. If you want to add a bunch of rituals and other fuss in a church or other house of worship then you are welcome, but the legal business is signed and stamped in a magistrate.

 

this seems like the most sensible position.

 

Christianity in particular seems suited to this notion because it allows a certain separation between religious life and other spheres of your life, so removing "legal" authority from a church to declare marriage might sit ok with Christians because they would still feel their church has ultimate "religious" authority in that matter anyway.

 

however this presents a problem with other religions. I can't speak for most other ones but in Islam there is no separation, everything is connected and a Muslim's religious outlook governs everything in their life (I don't think many non-Muslims realise this). so when it comes to declaring a marriage "legal", it has to be in every sense possible. removing a Muslim cleric's authority to make a marriage "legal", as recognised both by his religious institution and by the state at large, would present a problem I think.

 

that being said I do think, given my current outlook on life, that it seems like the most sensible position.

 

what I don't get though is why gay couples even bother with marriage. I can only imagine it's for the legal benefits and not for the intrinsic significance of being "married", the latter of which I'd have thought would be meaningless to gay couples.

[xox]

brian, if you really are a gay, leave the fight,

 

 

 

Also, Brian, fuck you. Fuck your bullshit arguments. Fuck your trolling. Fuck your attitude. You're a disgrace. Fucking scum.

 

 

 

You do realize in this scenario you are implying that you are the emperor, correct? So, you're openly cultivating evil and hatred...

 

 

hey man, relax, just relax...put your self a 12"

[hoggy]

we're discussing 2 different topics hoggy.

yours is gay marriage per se, gay rights per se etc.

mine is the way the french government is currently dealing with gay marriage and gender theory in france. i couldn't care less about the topic of gay marriage per se, gay rights per se.

if you read again all the posts i made in this thread, you'll see that i never changed the subject. i'm only interested in that specific social and political issue, not in the internal societal debate on gay rights per se.

 

The teaching of gender theory is very interesting, you're right about my ignorance - I didn't know there was a backlash regarding this going on in France - I'd like to know more about what is actually being taught, I'm not against it in principle but there are a wide range of theories about gender

 

What is your specific grievance with the French governments' handling of the issue of gay marriage? That they didn't put it to a referendum or what?

[kokoon]

by the way, i'm gay.

That would be a really cool twist.

[chenGOD]

 

what I don't get though is why gay couples even bother with marriage. I can only imagine it's for the legal benefits and not for the intrinsic significance of being "married", the latter of which I'd have thought would be meaningless to gay couples.

 

 

Yeah, why would they want a ceremony to celebrate their union? Silly gays.

[Guest A/D]

what I don't get though is why gay couples even bother with marriage. I can only imagine it's for the legal benefits and not for the intrinsic significance of being "married", the latter of which I'd have thought would be meaningless to gay couples.

It's meaningful for straight couples, so why wouldn't it be meaningful for gay couples?

[usagi]

^ I thought they'd be past it lots of people these days don't see the need to have their relationship/union validated by some institution (except, as I said, for the legal benefits/status perhaps).

 

don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the practice or value of marriage at all. I come from a traditional Eastern background where it's of great importance, and while I've moved away from that background a fair bit, I still see it as important. but I imagined (probably wrongly, I guess) that if I put myself in a gay person's shoes, they would just not care.

 

what I don't get though is why gay couples even bother with marriage. I can only imagine it's for the legal benefits and not for the intrinsic significance of being "married", the latter of which I'd have thought would be meaningless to gay couples.

Yeah, why would they want a ceremony to celebrate their union? Silly gays.

 

 

I'm talking about the "being married" part, not the "getting married" (ceremony) part. I figured that, where the state denies marriage to gay couples, they'd just shrug their shoulders and say "fuck it then" and continue to live together happily. admittedly I haven't discussed this in great depth wit ma gay homies.

 

edit: so, to satisfy my curiosity here, you guys are saying that, on the whole, gay folks value marriage as much as straight folks?

[Adieu]

^ I thought they'd be past it lots of people these days don't see the need to have their relationship/union validated by some institution (except, as I said, for the legal benefits/status perhaps).

 

don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the practice or value of marriage at all. I come from a traditional Eastern background where it's of great importance, and while I've moved away from that background a fair bit, I still see it as important. but I imagined (probably wrongly, I guess) that if I put myself in a gay person's shoes, they would just not care.

 

 

what I don't get though is why gay couples even bother with marriage. I can only imagine it's for the legal benefits and not for the intrinsic significance of being "married", the latter of which I'd have thought would be meaningless to gay couples.

Yeah, why would they want a ceremony to celebrate their union? Silly gays.

 

I'm talking about the "being married" part, not the "getting married" (ceremony) part. I figured that, where the state denies marriage to gay couples, they'd just shrug their shoulders and say "fuck it then" and continue to live together happily. admittedly I haven't discussed this in great depth wit ma gay homies.

 

You are not even considering the far reaching implications of just being granted the right by society, and also the effects caused by a large portion of the population standing in opposition to it. The messages that this sends, and the psychological impact it has on everyone. It isn't just important that gays be allowed to wed. It's important that those in society that wish to diminish others, and spread hatred and intolerance to be shown the error in their ways. Then and only then, as a species we can continue to make progress. Until then we will be stunted. It negatively impacts everyone.

 

This is the entire basis for equal rights.

 

Separate and equal is not equal. Basically the same is not equal.

 

This is important, and when the opposition can provide no substantial arguments in support of their position it should be made clear that their stance is unfounded.

[brian trageskin]

What is your specific grievance with the French governments' handling of the issue of gay marriage? That they didn't put it to a referendum or what?

 

the true violation imo is not the parliament/congress voting a societal reform without referendum, but the government not holding a referendum once it sees hundreds of thousands of people protesting against the reform. my guess is the government doesn't want a referendum because they know the reform would be rejected. but that's just me speculating.

 

The teaching of gender theory is very interesting, you're right about my ignorance - I didn't know there was a backlash regarding this going on in France - I'd like to know more about what is actually being taught, I'm not against it in principle but there are a wide range of theories about gender

 

what's being taught, iirc, is that sexual identity (boy, girl) and sexual orientation (homo, hetero) being different things, we as a society should have an open mind regarding sexuality. because some boys like boys, some girls like girls, some boys feel like girls, and some girls feel like boys.

which opens the door to the core of gender theory: sexual identities are nothing but social constructions, and if people get rejected because they don't fit into the norm, proof is given that sexual identities are arbitrary, discriminatory, and based on power, therefore, must be overcome. which results in: a boy is not necessarily a boy. no kidding.

at least that's what i understood of it. i might be wrong, or partially wrong on this.

[Guest A/D]

sexual identities are nothing but social constructions, and if people get rejected because they don't fit into the norm, proof is given that sexual identities are arbitrary, discriminatory, and based on power, therefore, must be overcome. which results in: a boy is not necessarily a boy. no kidding.

Yep, that's it exactly. It's true, too!

[brian trageskin]

 

sexual identities are nothing but social constructions, and if people get rejected because they don't fit into the norm, proof is given that sexual identities are arbitrary, discriminatory, and based on power, therefore, must be overcome. which results in: a boy is not necessarily a boy. no kidding.

Yep, that's it exactly. It's true, too!

 

 

from a certain perspective, sure. many people disagree with this though (crypto-homophobia?).

[brian trageskin]

whether this is true or false is not the problem here btw. the problem is this theory being put in some schools' curriculum without informing parents about it. and french ministers officially lying about that being put in the curriculum, when all proofs are there for everyone to see. if they had nothing to hide, they wouldn't have to publicly lie.

[brian trageskin]

the trick the ministers used to hide their lie is beyond ridiculous: not only did they deny the existence of that curriculum, they also denied the very existence of gender theory (at least i know the minister of women rights did), which is one fucking joke.

[lumpenprol]

 

sexual identities are nothing but social constructions, and if people get rejected because they don't fit into the norm, proof is given that sexual identities are arbitrary, discriminatory, and based on power, therefore, must be overcome. which results in: a boy is not necessarily a boy. no kidding.

Yep, that's it exactly. It's true, too!

 

 

no wai. Even one day old babies show gender differences (according to Sascha Baron Cohen's brother). Girl babies look at human faces, boy babies look at objects. *Supposedly*

 

not that there isn't some variation. I was never into sports, for example. But nobody can convince me that I liked playing with toy guns when I was a kid because society pushed it on me. My parents were frigging hippies. I just thought guns were cool. Thanks, testosterone!

 

Edit: I have no idea how this relates to the current discussion, just emphasizing that I don't think there's much that is arbitrary about gender roles.

[Guest A/D]

haha . . congratulations, you're more male on the gender spectrum! Not all boys are like you. Like me for example. Then there are girls stuck in boys' bodies.

 

Surely you've noticed "more masculine" women and "more feminine" men. In extreme cases, people feel like they are living a lie unless they physically change their sex. It's light years away from your experience, so I'm not asking you to instantly understand this, or identify with it in any way. But it happens, and I'm glad for any step towards a more generalized acceptance of people like this.

[Adieu]

 

 

sexual identities are nothing but social constructions, and if people get rejected because they don't fit into the norm, proof is given that sexual identities are arbitrary, discriminatory, and based on power, therefore, must be overcome. which results in: a boy is not necessarily a boy. no kidding.

Yep, that's it exactly. It's true, too!

 

 

no wai. Even one day old babies show gender differences (according to Sascha Baron Cohen's brother). Girl babies look at human faces, boy babies look at objects. *Supposedly*

 

not that there isn't some variation. I was never into sports, for example. But nobody can convince me that I liked playing with toy guns when I was a kid because society pushed it on me. My parents were frigging hippies. I just thought guns were cool. Thanks, testosterone!

 

Edit: I have no idea how this relates to the current discussion, just emphasizing that I don't think there's much that is arbitrary about gender roles.

 

 

How does your thinking guns are cool have anything to do with testosterone? Girls like guns. Girls like violent video games.

 

This is all merely a matter of some biological predispositions mixed with environmental factors. Which is the entire reason that gender roles are questionable.

 

Up until the 20th century most everything was built on the idea of cliches and generalizations. Now that we are all connected it obviously becomes quite obvious for everyone that humans are very nuanced in their behavior.

 

Me personally, I played with dolls, guns, played video games, played sports, played house, played dress-up, lit crazy fires, blew stuff up, built forts, got into fights, and sang in choir.

 

The reason I varied my behavior is because I didn't have a direct influence of someone telling me that I shouldn't do the things I enjoy. Had I been exposed to that I would have been suppressing aspects of my personality in order to fit into a predefined system of behavior based on my biological gender. I basically would have been conditioned to behave a certain way and find interest in certain things.

 

You don't have to be a genius to entertain the possible effects of suppression nor how having forces in your life attempting to push you into specific things based on something relatively arbitrary is not productive for us as a species.

 

Obviously, there are some things about gender that are pretty concrete scientifically but I think they are relatively superficial.