Linklog for 18th May to 29th May

My del.icio.us links: 18th May to 29th May

(Generated by Postalicious)

This entry was posted in Linklog. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Linklog for 18th May to 29th May

  1. Clarice says:

    I think I can see both sides on the gay marriage front. I wonder if there can be a solution that gives equivalent legal rights to gay partnerships, without glossing over the cultural differences between straight and gay, that seems to so offend some people.

    I think a relevant analogy is the idea of calling MTF transexuals women. Speaking as a woman, I have somewhat of an issue with this, in fact I find it quite offensive, though I can see that for a MTF transexual, that would in turn be quite offensive. But where there’s mutual respect, there has to be a middle ground.

    I think it boils down to value judgements. If gay partnerships were viewed as having equal validity and status as marriages, then they might not feel the need to be subsumed into the majority category, and inflict the redefinition of that category on those who currently reside well within it and define themselves to some degree as being distinct from homosexuality.

    What doesn’t seem to be given much regard is that being straight is as important to a straight person as being gay is to a gay one. I think if you called it a partnership and not a marriage, but had the exact same legal rights and equal cultural validity then the problem should be solved. Unless gay people don’t think that straight people have a right to a separate identity and history.

    Negotiations between equals is the only way forward, and that doesn’t seem to be happening.

  2. Robert says:

    This is a much debated subject that I’m not sure I can address here and now, but my objections, were I to expand them, would fall into the following areas:

    First, “separate but equal” is problematic as a doctrine.

    Second, I’m not sure it is value judgements so much as definitional issues. Worrying about the gender of the two people in the marriage places too much emphasis on procreation and procreational sexual intercourse, and not enough on partnership, love, family building (even if its a family of two), commitment, and sex-as-recreation.

    This follows onto your point about MTF transexuals. If you have issue with them calling themselves “woman”, then I think you’re placing far too much emphasis on the X chromosome and not enough on the cultural, societal, anatomical and visual elements that go into the definition of “woman” – all of which are criteria that MTF women meet. Coming from you, this surprises me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>