The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

georgieporgy · 30-10-2012 09:40PM

28064212 wrote: »

A 5 second Google also got the author's qualifications. A doctorate in Philosophy. She is not qualified to make such a call

Gee. you're hard to please!
Biography

PhD 1996
Simona Giordano is Reader of Bioethics at the School of Law. She is Director of the medical ethics teaching in undergraduate medical education, at the School of Medicine and member of the CSEP/iSEI. Simona Giordano graduated in philosophy at the University "La Sapienza of Rome", in 1996. She specialised in bioethics in 1997. She lives and works in Manchester since 1997. She has completed a PhD in psychiatric ethics in 2000. She has been Marie Curie Fellow from 2002 to 2004. She has researched on Ageism and Ethics of Health Care distribution.

Research interests

Psychiatric ethics: this research stems from field work in psychiatric hospital. Main goal of research is to verify ethical and legal principles that justify restriction of freedom. In particular, I have extensively written on eating disorders and gender identity disorder
Moral philosophy : studies on autonomy; on moral principles; study of classic moral philosophy, in particular Henry Sidgwick and Aristotle
Bioethics: ethics of cloning; ethics of stem cell research; ethics of artificial reproduction; ethics of treatment of people with psychiatric or psychological conditions; organ transplant; palliative care; child abandonment
Ageism: study of healthcare ethics in distribution of scarce resources
Sports Ethics: eating disorders, sports and exercise; genetic and gender equality in sports

List of publications

Authored book

simona Giordano. children with gender identity disorder. London New York: Routledge, 2012. eScholarID:145973
Giordano, S. Understanding Eating Disorders: Conceptual and ethical issues in the treatment of anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Oxford University Press, 2005. eScholarID:4b172

Book contribution

Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, "Do we need (bio)ethical principles", in Arguments and analysis in Bioethics, Edited by Matti Häyry, Tuija Takala, Peter Herissone-Kelly and Gardar Árnason, Rodopi, New York Amsterdam, 2010." 2010. eScholarID:3b5191
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Is a grey world desirable, overall?”, in Harry Lesser, Ageism, details not yet available, invited publication, 2009, in press." In Ageism, ed. Harry Lesser, 2009. eScholarID:3b3717
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Atypical Gender Organisation in children and adolescents”, in Michael Boylan (ed.), International Public Health Policy and Ethics, Springer, 2008, Ch. 14, pp. 249-272." ed. Boylan, M, 2008. eScholarID:3b5198
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Choosing death in cases of anorexia nervosa. Should we ever let people die from anorexia nervosa?”, in Charles Tandy (ed.), Death and Anti-death, Volume 5, Ria University Press, 2008." In death and anti-death, 2008. eScholarID:3b2680
Giordano, S. "S. Giordano, "A heaven without giants or dwarfs", in Soren Holm, details not yet available." 2007. eScholarID:3b5193
Giordano, S., Harris, J. "Simona Giordano and John Harris, "What is gender equality in sports?", in Torbjörn Tännsjö (eds.). Genetic Technology and Sport: Ethical Questions, Routledge, London and New York, 2005, pp.209-217." 2007. eScholarID:3b5190
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Labia Mea Domine”, in Richard Ashcroft, Angus Dawson, Heather Draper, John McMillan, Principles of Health Care Ethics, second edition, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 2007, Ch. 61." In Principles of health care ethics, ed. Ashcroft, R, Dawson, A, Draper, H, McMillan, J, John Wiley and Sons, 2006. eScholarID:3b5195
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Tissues and Cells Transplant. Ethical issues”, in Law Medicine and Ethics series, Cambridge University Press, details not yet available, October 2006, invited for publication." In Law, Medicine and Ethics series, Cambridge University Press, 2006. eScholarID:3b5197
Giordano, S., Harris, J. "Simona Giordano and John Harris, "Ethics and Genetic Research in Africa", in James V. Lavery, Elizabeth Wahl, Christine Grady, Ezekiel J. Emanuel (eds). Ethical issues in international biomedical research: a case book, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004." In Ethical issues in international biomedical research: a case book, ed. Lavery, J. Wahl, E. Grady, C. Emanuel, E, Oxford University Press, 2004. eScholarID:3b483
Giordano, S., Harris, J. "Simona Giordano and John Harris, "The Sacred and the Profane" in Ben Rogers (ed.) Is Nothing Sacred?, Routledge, London and New York, 2003, pp.81-92." In Is Nothing Sacred?, ed. Rogers, B, Routledge, 2003. eScholarID:3b484

Journal article

Giordano, S. "23. Simona Giordano, “Anorexia and Refusal of Life-Saving Treatment. The moral place of competence, suffering and the family”, Philosophy, Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 2, 2010, pp.143-154." Philosophy, Psychology and Psychiatry(2010) . eScholarID:1b6792 | DOI:10.1353/ppp.0.0286
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Lives in a chiaroscuro. Should we suspend the puberty of children with Gender Identity Disorder?”, Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 8, 2008, pp.580-86." journal of medical ethics(2008) . eScholarID:1b4848
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Should we force the obese to diet?”, editorial, Journal of Medical Ethics, invited publication, 34, 5, 2008, p.319." Journal of Medical Ethics 34(5)(2008) . eScholarID:1b6791
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, "Scientific freedom”, Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 6, 2007." Journal of Medical Ethics 33(6)(2007) . eScholarID:1b6790
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Crimes and Misdemeanours, the case of child abandonment”, Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 1, 2007, pp.28-34." Journal of Medical Ethics 33(1)(2007) . eScholarID:1b10112
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Gender Atypical Organisation in children and Adolescents: ethico-legal issues and a proposal for new guidelines”, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 15, 3-4, 2007, pp.365-90." International Journal of Children's Rights 15(3-4)(2007) . eScholarID:1b8779
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano & Marco Cappato, (eds.) “Symposium of scientific freedom”, Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 6, 2007, including contributions by Lewis Wolpert, Amedeo Santosuosso and Gilberto Corbellini." Journal of Medical Ethics(2006) . eScholarID:1b10115
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Anorexia Nervosa and its moral foundations”, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 13, 2005, pp.145-56." International Journal of Children's Rights 13(2005) . eScholarID:1b10107
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Health care rationing. Demographic revolution and inescapable consequences?”, Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 14, 2005, pp.83-92." Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics 14(2005) . eScholarID:1b1025
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Is the body a republic? Ethics of organ and tissue post- mortem retention and use”, Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 2005, pp. 470-475." Journal of Medical Ethics 31(2005) . eScholarID:1b1026
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Risk and supervised exercise: the example of anorexia to illustrate a new ethical issue in the traditional debates of medical ethics”, Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 2005, pp.15-20." Journal of Medical Ethics 31(2005) . eScholarID:1b1024
Harris, J., Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano and John Harris, “Bioetica e tecnologia medica. Clonazione, ricerca sulle cellule staminali, statuto morale degli embrioni”, Bioetica, rivista interdisciplinare, 3, 2003, pp.427-41." Bioetica, rivista interdisciplinare 3(2003) . eScholarID:1b3373
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Anorexia Nervosa And Refusal Of Naso-Gastric Treatment. A response to Heather Draper”, Bioethics, 17, 3, 2003, pp.261-78." Bioethics 17(3)(2003) . eScholarID:1b1021
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Persecutors or victims? The moral logic at the heart of eating disorders”, Health Care Analysis, 11, 3, 2003, pp.219-28." Health Care Analysis 11(3)(2003) . eScholarID:1b1022
Giordano, S., Harris, J. "John Harris and Simona Giordano, « Cure Palliative », Keiron, 11, 2002, pp.42-47." Keiron 11(2002) . eScholarID:1b1020
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “A response to Savas’s comments to my ‘In Defence Of Autonomy In Psychiatric Healthcare’”, Tip Etigi, Vol. 10, No 3, 2002, pp.178-185." Tip Etigi 10(3)(2002) . eScholarID:1b1019
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano,“Qu’un souffle de vent...anorexia nervosa and morality”, Medical Humanities, 28, 1, 2002, pp.3-8." Medical Humanities 28(1)(2002) . eScholarID:1b1018
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Addicted to Eating Disorder”, The Italian Journal of Psychiatry, 11, 2/3, 2001, pp.73-77." The Italian Journal of Psychiatry 11(2-3)(2001) . eScholarID:1b1017
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “In Defence Of Autonomy In Psychiatric Healthcare”, Turkish Journal of Medical Ethics, 9, 2, 2001, pp.59-66." Turkish Journal of Medical Ethics 9(2)(2001) . eScholarID:1b1016
Giordano, S., Harris, J. "John Harris and Simona Giordano, “Tra obiezioni e fraintendimenti”, Bioetica, rivista interdisciplinare, 3, 2000 , pp.405-16." Bioetica, rivista interdisciplinare 3(2000) . eScholarID:1b10198
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “For the Protection of Others”, Health Care Analysis, 8, 3, 2000, pp.309-19." Health Care Analysis 8 (3)(2000) . eScholarID:1b10190
Giordano, S., Harris, J. "John Harris and Simona Giordano, “Pari opportunita` nella distribuzione delle risorse sanitarie”, Keiron, June 1999, pp.26-28." Keiron(1999) . eScholarID:1b10184
Giordano, S., Harris, J. "John Harris and Simona Giordano, “Trapianti e fecondazione, gli interessi delle persone”, Il Sole 24 Ore, 16 May 1999." Il Sole 24 Ore(1999) . eScholarID:1b10157
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Eating or Treating? Ethical and Legal issues relating to anorexia nervosa”, Turkish Journal of Medical Ethics, 7, 2, 1999, pp.53-59." Turkish Journal of Medical Ethics 7 (2)(1999) . eScholarID:1b10187
Giordano, S. "Simona Giordano, “Il principio di autonomia nel trattamento e nella cura dei malati di mente, una prospettiva deontologica”, Bioetica, rivista interdisciplinare, 3, 1999, pp.482-91." Bioetica, rivista interdisciplinare 3(1999) . eScholarID:1b9931

Conference contribution

Giordano, S. 2007. “End of Life decisions in the treatment of anorexia nervosa”, International Congress on Law and Mental Health, University of Padua, 25-30 June 2007. Invited for presentation. In International Association of Law and Mental Health. eScholarID:2b765

Other

Giordano, S. Ageism and ethics of health care resources distribution. http://www.les1.man.ac.uk/simona/Ageism and ethics of health care resources distribution.

30-10-2012 09:49PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Gee. you're hard to please!

No, not really. But I've already seen her bio, and neither a philosopher nor an ethicist is qualified to say that anorexia or bulimia is "first and formost a moral disorder"

georgieporgy · 30-10-2012 10:18PM

I give up. Let's just go back to talking about homosexuals everybody

NuMarvel · 30-10-2012 11:07PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

A 5 second google found this one:
Eating disorders are not "the symptom of an underlying mental disorder, as is often argued. They are the symptoms of ordinary morality, which is just being taken seriously -- or more seriously than usual" (257). http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25100-understanding-eating-disorders-conceptual-and-ethical-issues-in-the-treatment-of-anorexia-and-bulimia-nervosa/

That's a review of a book, and one where the reviewer feels the author didn't sufficient evidence -- philosophical or otherwise -- to support her claims. The reviewer also describes the author's claim, that eating disorders should be understood from a moral perspective as "challenging, intriguing, yet ultimately unsatisfying". Furthermore, the reviewer goes on to state "However, in the end, we must realize that "If the logic that underlies eating disorders is a moral logic, then understanding and unmasking that logic has, as a consequence, the loss of ethics." Thus, "the question 'What is it ethical to do?' will appear to be, in an important way, the wrong question" (9). The right question, it turns out, is "why do people want what they want (in this case thinness)?" -- a question that ultimately collapses ethics into psychology."

So even the author's own assertions bring eating disorder back into the realm of psychology and mental health.

Have you read the book in question? If so, are there pertinent parts that you feel the reviewer hasn't considered?

doctoremma · 30-10-2012 11:13PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

I give up. Let's just go back to talking about homosexuals everybody

I'm actually intrigued by your assertion.

I can understand arguments claiming that there are social and cultural elements to an eating disorder. Young people bombarded with perfect imagery via popular media and so on.

I can't understand your specific use of the word 'moral' in the context of 'moral disorder'. Who has questionable morals in the case of anorexia? You imply that it is the patient themselves displaying dubious moral character - is this what you mean? Is the patient in thrall with 'bodily perfection' and thus making 'immoral' choices? If someone responds adversely to societal ideals of size zero, how is that a matter for 'morality' over 'psychology'?

I think it's a strange term to use, are you willing to clarify? I'd be interested to hear.

Corkfeen · 30-10-2012 11:24PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm actually intrigued by your assertion.

I can understand arguments claiming that there are social and cultural elements to an eating disorder. Young people bombarded with perfect imagery via popular media and so on.

I can't understand your specific use of the word 'moral' in the context of 'moral disorder'. Who has questionable morals in the case of anorexia? You imply that it is the patient themselves displaying dubious moral character - is this what you mean? Is the patient in thrall with 'bodily perfection' and thus making 'immoral' choices? If someone responds adversely to societal ideals of size zero, how is that a matter for 'morality' over 'psychology'?

I think it's a strange term to use, are you willing to clarify? I'd be interested to hear.

I'm somewhat intrigued too but his sudden backing out of discussing his statement makes me inclined to believe that it is a baseless assumption by Georgie. It would be nice if he could also explain how alcoholism, drug addiction, kleptomania etc also deserve the label of moral disorders. Georgie, could you please elaborate a bit further?

georgieporgy · 31-10-2012 07:52AM

georgieporgy wrote: »

I give up. Let's just go back to talking about homosexuals everybody

The reason I quit is because I don't have time to argue morality with atheists. Interested readers can try this
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/8a.htm

Peregrinus · 31-10-2012 08:56AM

I think the term “moral disorder” is possibly being misunderstood. When Giordano says that anorexia/bulimia is a “moral disorder”, she not saying that the sufferer is a morally depraved, or is making wicked choices.

She’s saying, as far as I can understand it, that Western society has “moralised” thinness - as in, we’ve turned it into a moral issue. To be thin is not merely to be healthy or to be attractive; it’s to be virtuous. Thus I am “good” if I avoid dessert, “naughty” if I eat a chocolate bar. If I succeed in becoming thin I “reward” myself by buying myself new clothes - or by eating something which would otherwise be “sinful” (and thereby precipitating a vicious circle). If I run a marathon then I “deserve” a Mars bar. If I lose weight, I expect others to admire my achievement and look up to me, because I am demonstrably a better person; if I fail to lose weight my self-esteem suffers because I must be “bad”, “weak”, etc. And so forth.

From this perspective, someone who chooses to enjoy the convivial pleasures of the table, and carry a few extra kilos as a result, is a “bad” person - or, at least, less of a “good” person than they would be if they ate less and exercised more. They are not perceived simply to be expressing a subjective preference between alternative goods.

I think Giordano is saying that the anorexic/bulimic has accepted and internalised this morality. Their anorexic/bulimic behaviour is not the result of any disease or infirmity of the mind, and so is not a “mental disorder”. It’s a (rational, if perhaps rigorous) response to, or realisation of, this distorted or false morality, and so is a “moral disorder”. What is disordered is not the mind of the patient, but the morality of the patient.

From this she argues that successful treatment of anorexia/bulimia must focus not on the patient’s mind - the patient does not have what we normally think of as a mental illness - but on the patient’s morality, and in particular the patient’s moralisation of food and thinness. And, it seems she argues, it’s very difficult to do this on an individualised level, since the patient’s moralisation of food is something absorbed from modern Western society, where this moralisation is absolutely the norm. Plus, she points out, this raises difficult ethical issues - to what extent are we entitled to try and impose any morality on someone else? If the patient is not mentally ill, hasn’t he the right to determine his own moral values, and have we any right to try and erase them and substitute others? (Is this the equivalent of the "reparative therapy" to which gays are sometimes subjected?) And from there she spins off into philosophical/ethical questions. She is, after all, an ethicist and not a clinician.

All of which is very interesting, but I’m not sure how pertinent it is to the question of Christian perspectives on homosexuality.

31-10-2012 10:58AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

And from there she spins off into philosophical/ethical questions.

That line should be right at the top of your post. Everything thing she says is based off philosophical and ethical perspectives. As you rightly say, she is not a clinician, and her diagnosing eating disorders as primarily moral disorders has as much scientific and medical merit as me diagnosing them as "someone who needs a McDonalds"

Aurongroove · 12-12-2012 02:55PM

Hy guys

Now I'll be level with you, I'm not trying to beat anything around the bush I was raised catholic and as a musician I regularly perform sacred music and choir at masses, for many different churches (protestant, catholic, orthodox etc) as well as for special occasions such as marriages and Christmas celebration.
I have many friends who are very devout. Some who are down right God fearing, xenophobic, homophobic and intolerant of other faiths, some who are quite casual and pleasant in discussion but whom have May alters at the door, pamphlets from knock littered around their house I'm sure you know some people like them.

I have also performed at one or two civil ceremonies; that's a marriage, (between a man and a woman) in a non religious public building, overseen by a commissioner of oaths, public figure or judge etc.

For me the biggest surprises about looking into the issue of 'gay marriage'; one I am forced to look at more or less since I am gay, was two clashing misunderstandings.

let me concede here and say "let the term 'marriage' mean the joining of a man and a woman".
Would it be fair to say most opponents of gay marriage oppose it because they feel marriage ought to be one man and one woman?
I feel this must be so since Atheist marriages happen every day and no one seems to bat an eyelid.

Now, one of the strongest reasons most LGBT are fighting for 'marriage equality' (that is the right for any adult couple to be married, not just one man, one woman couples) is because currently there is no socially recognised equal for LGBT couples. i.e., a "civil union" doesn't grant the same social protection and fails in several ways of being equal legally and bureaucratically to a state marriage.

what LGBT are fighting for is an equal to rights granted by the state every time an Atheist couple are married. I dont think it really matters what one calls this 'event'.

The bottom line being. If atheist couple can get "married" any day of the week, and a practising Christian might think privately "ara, it's not a real marriage, but we'll let them at it".

Why then would any practising Christian be opposed to (for example) a civil union granting the same rights legally and socially that an Atheist marriage does?
They/we can even keep the name "Civil Union" to mean one and "marriage" to mean another if it allows the more semantic among us to sleep soundly in their beds.

PDN · 12-12-2012 03:07PM

Aurongroove wrote: »

Why then would any practising Christian be opposed to (for example) a civil union granting the same rights legally and socially that an Atheist marriage does?
They/we can even keep the name "Civil Union" to mean one and "marriage" to mean another and we can all allow the more semantic among us to sleep soundly in their beds.

That's exactly what I've advocated for years (a view supported publicly by the Evangelical Alliance in Ireland). Unfortunately I've been labelled, on this forum, as a 'homophobe' for advocating such an approach.

Penn · 12-12-2012 04:08PM

Personally (though I'm straight), I wouldn't be comfortable with there being a different term for same-sex marriages, because it's not equal. I'm sure there are many gay people who wouldn't care what it's called, but for me, how can it be equal if it's a case where straight couples have one legal term for their unions and gay couples have another?

If there are no legal or social differences between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple in unions, then there is no reason why there should be a separate name for each of them.

As evident by civil marriages, marriage can exist outside of God and religion, and as such, all people should be treated equally. If I can get married, everyone should be able to get married. Giving it a different name just smacks of unnecessarily pandering to the opponents of same-sex marriage rather than doing what is right; Giving each member of the State equal rights, without discrimination based on sexuality.

Let the "more semantic among us" toss and turn all night if they want. That's their problem. Equality is not equality if there are differences based on sexuality and gender.

Aurongroove · 12-12-2012 04:14PM

In response to your own post PDN. yes, people are very quick to shout "homophobe" and proceed to hit the metaphorical 'ejection seat' and away they go, either on a rampage or a retreat.

I fear it's because of those misunderstandings I talked about previous, they sort of boil down to:
Man A: "I believe marriage should be one man one woman"

Man B: "How are you comfortable denying gay people equal social rights to everyone else unless you're homophobic?"

but each party is assuming the other party means something slightly different to what they mean; That if either side knew what to ask for, and what was being asked for, there would be no issue, or at least a much smaller issue which only minor and extremist opposition from either side.

I am quite disappointed about this being tossed into the middle of a 'megathread' filled with such ghastly rubbish as I've been reading.

What I wrote will now, I fear, never clearly be read by anyone other then those already locked into the shouting matches amid which this post has been tossed. nor I fear will any of the question I've put forward be seriously addressed by anyone, since anyone one dredging though 105 pages general gay nonsense is surly only looking for fighting material, daft in the head or studious reader of forum material to the point of madness.

In a sense I empathise and understand, but in another sense I'm disappointed. Like the action betrays poorer judgement then the finer judgement I was hoping for.
I finely craft a post, genuinely looking for information and it gets flung in with the rest of the "big massive gay thread" which no one in their right mind will ever read through or participate in seriously.

Gumbi · 12-12-2012 04:20PM

I would almost argue that perhaps homophobe isn't thrown around enough. It's almost par for course to discriminate against gay people (based on their sexuality), and for me, that's stepping into homophobic territory.

PDN, what I understand of your position - you want to keep your definition of marriage yourself. Why? Why should you have a monopoly on the meaning of marriage?

Benny_Cake · 12-12-2012 04:24PM

Aurongroove wrote: »

In response to your own post PDN. yes, people are very quick to shout "homophobe" and proceed to hit the metaphorical 'ejection seat' and away they go, either on a rampage or a retreat.

I fear it's because of those misunderstandings I talked about previous, they sort of boil down to:
Man A: "I believe marriage should be one man one woman"

Man B: "How are you comfortable denying gay people equal social rights to everyone else unless you're homophobic?"

but each party is assuming the other party means something slightly different to what they mean; That if either side knew what to ask for, and what was being asked for, there would be no issue, or at least a much smaller issue which only minor and extremist opposition from either side.

I am quite disappointed about this being tossed into the middle of a 'megathread' filled with such ghastly rubbish as I've been reading.

What I wrote will now, I fear, never clearly be read by anyone other then those already locked into the shouting matches amid which this post has been tossed. nor I fear will any of the question I've put forward be seriously addressed by anyone, since anyone one dredging though 105 pages general gay nonsense is surly only looking for fighting material, daft in the head or studious reader of forum material to the point of madness.

In a sense I empathise and understand, but in another sense I'm disappointed. Like the action betrays poorer judgement then the finer judgement I was hoping for.
I finely craft a post, genuinely looking for information and it gets flung in with the rest of the "big massive gay thread" which no one in their right mind will ever read through or participate in seriously.

Welcome to the forum. This megathread was set up because many threads, including those completely unrelated to homosexuality were being hijacked by a small group of people who were obsessed with the issue to say the least - and that includes Christians and non-Christians. I appreciate that a lot of users dislike the megathreads, however at the time it was considered a better alternative than the entire forum becoming a shouting match regarding homosexuality. Please feel free to send me a PM if you have any issues regarding moderation.

By the way, it was a very good post, and will hopefully raise the tone of the debate.

doctoremma · 12-12-2012 04:45PM

Aurongroove wrote: »

nor I fear will any of the question I've put forward be seriously addressed by anyone

I'll have a pop at it but it's going to be the same as Penn's reply above.

"Separate but equal" is not acceptable in a modern society. If you are comfortable with retaining "civil partnership" to refer to a same-sex union, fair enough. But there are a lot of people who have objections to that.

12-12-2012 05:00PM

Personally, I think the legislation should just move away from the word "marriage" totally. It's got far too much baggage. Let religions call their sacraments whatever they want. The legislation should just define "civil union" for everyone and be done with it

Aurongroove · 12-12-2012 05:03PM

Penn wrote: »

Personally (though I'm straight), I wouldn't be comfortable with there being a different term for same-sex marriages, because it's not equal. I'm sure there are many gay people who wouldn't care what it's called, but for me, how can it be equal if it's a case where straight couples have one legal term for their unions and gay couples have another?

well, for instance Marriage could be "X legal term for a one man, one woman, legally and socially binding ceremony for two adult humans as recognized by the state *(and a religious term for same)"
and Civil Union can be "X legal term for LGBT couple legally and socially binding ceremony for two adult humans as recognized by the state *(with no religious significance, just like athiest weddings)"

If there are no legal or social differences between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple in unions, then there is no reason why there should be a separate name for each of them.

yes, but why be so stubborn yourself? let semantics stop thousands of people from their civil rights?

i.e., yes one could argue there is no reason there should be a seperate name for each of them, and historically there wasn't one but there's these big bunch of lads going around who say "marriage should be one man one woman" and those lads are doing every thing they can to make sure gay couples can't "marry" now marriage to them has connotation into their spiritual beliefs and it turn out that's why marriage needs to stay one man one woman. the reason 'the gays' want marriage has nothing to do with the other guys spiritual beliefs. so let the guys for whom marriage has a spiritual meaning as well as a social, civil and legal one, and say: right keep you're "Marriage" we just want the civil, social and legal bit, not the name and the spiritual attachment. so lets call it something else so long as the equal rights are being upheld.

As evident by civil marriages, marriage can exist outside of God and religion, and as such, all people should be treated equally. If I can get married, everyone should be able to get married. Giving it a different name just smacks of unnecessarily pandering to the opponents of same-sex marriage rather than doing what is right; Giving each member of the State equal rights, without discrimination based on sexuality.

'should' and 'can' are two different things though. yes giving it a different name smack a bit of pandering, but some devouts might claim even suffering Gay culture is them pandering to mislead political correctness and that if they didnt need to satify the rest of society but live by God they would have long since sent everyone to be cured of gay or die trying.

If a law was passed tomorrow saying Civil unions are to bestow identical rights to that of a marriage, but same sex couples must still call the ceremony a Civil Ceremony, then I largely suspect there wouldn't be enough extremists on either end, to hold up the issue any more:
Any spiritualists who still have a problem would just be being petty and unaccommodating for a group going out of their way to avoid treading on their beliefs or using words sacred to their faith (like "marriage") and the LGBT saying "No, unless it's called marriage then no deal" would be being spiteful and short sighted.

Let the "more semantic among us" toss and turn all night if they want. That's their problem. Equality is not equality if there are differences based on sexuality and gender.

but like a government composed of one or two big parties then a spattering of Independents, it's these semantics that are both helping keep the door closed on equal rights, (and unnecessarily so by both party's admission) and turning the core issues of the divide opaque.

sorry for the long post.

Aurongroove · 12-12-2012 05:11PM

also moderators:
no harm, I think I was initially over cautious but the responses (to the post) and reasoning for your moderating both seem organised and justifiable.

Penn · 12-12-2012 05:52PM

In a way, I wouldn't mind if the term "marriage" was only used for religious ceremonies and not for civil ones, same sex or otherwise. It's all about equality (in the eyes of the State rather than religion) for me, and if it's one or the other, for all or no-one, then that's fine.

On the other hand though, "marriage" is not exclusive to religion, nor was it created by it. Opponents to same sex marriage talk about how you can't change the definition of the word, and yet only allowing the term "marriage" to be used in a religious sense would be an even bigger change of the definition of the word than changing "man and woman" to "two people".

If a religious person was upset that their marriage was treated equally to that of a same-sex non-religious marriage... That's on them. That's their own perceived notion, not anything relating to any human right. It's their decision based on their own feelings and lifestyle. But it doesn't mean it's a valid enough reason to treat it as having any more weight than the feelings of anyone else on any other topic. What is important are human rights.

Aurongroove · 12-12-2012 07:22PM

Penn wrote: »

In a way, I wouldn't mind if the term "marriage" was only used for religious ceremonies and not for civil ones, same sex or otherwise. It's all about equality (in the eyes of the State rather than religion) for me, and if it's one or the other, for all or no-one, then that's fine.

yes but why does the word marriage matter so much to anyone except the religious? at least the church has an excuse for the word mattering (i.e., that they do in fact marry people).

On the other hand though, "marriage" is not exclusive to religion, nor was it created by it. Opponents to same sex marriage talk about how you can't change the definition of the word, and yet only allowing the term "marriage" to be used in a religious sense would be an even bigger change of the definition of the word than changing "man and woman" to "two people".

If it weren't for major religions, the concept of marriage as a social ceremony may not have even taken off in western culture. that is to say in almost any world culture it is the spiritual leaders who in some way keep and have shaped the nature of marriage for that culture. I'm sure the church (and rightly so, you might say) feel that they have become the custodians and keepers of marriage in the modern sense of the word(rhetorical pun). They ought to feel by now that they have a right to define it as they will. Yet for any given LGBT couple this 'ceremony of marriage' is only partially attached to the actual "prize" as it were, of equal social rights (which is essentially a state affair, nothing to do with a major religion)

Why isn't it then reasonable to take semantics out of it if it's getting in the way so badly?
equal right is what LGBT want, Sanctity of marriage is what the church want.
It is only the word 'marriage' and the church's traditional ceremony of the same name that is knocking against each other for these two aims to other wise be separate and exclusive. The state can essentially call anything whatever it likes; it already refers to cars, trucks, vans and motorbikes as "Mechanically propelled vehicles"
who cares what name the bureaucrats give whatever civil affair LGBT are given to satisfy their social inequalities? (perhaps only the pedantic)

If a religious person was upset that their marriage was treated equally to that of a same-sex non-religious marriage... That's on them. That's their own perceived notion, not anything relating to any human right. It's their decision based on their own feelings and lifestyle. But it doesn't mean it's a valid enough reason to treat it as having any more weight than the feelings of anyone else on any other topic. What is important are human rights.

you're entire argument is agreeable for the case of LGBT equal rights, but it doesn't have a fair enough amount of give, for the other side to agree to it. it feels like you're saying "this is my statement and that's that!" and rigidity always yields resistance, even when right (and of course especially when wrong). you say whats important is human rights, but you seem to be pushing more for wanting to pry the term 'marriage' from the church and share it, then getting every an fair equivalent. i.e., Athiest couples have a fair and legal equivalent which also happens to be called "marraige", but who cares if the legal equivalent for LGBT couple also happens to be called marriage or a Civil Union? (answer: only the church do, so why not let them have their way?)

Why not have LGBT jettison the word 'marriage' and in agreement the church stays of the LGBT battle for equal rights. Progress would come swiftly and unhindered and all the gays can ride their "horse propelled vehicles" to the hotel function room and manually propel then selves down the down the areas between the seats for which religious sensitivity cannot be called an isle, and get 'unioned' just like Atheist couples do, and walk away with the same legal recognition and civil rights.

tommy2bad · 12-12-2012 07:50PM

Why not have LGBT jettison the word 'marriage' and in agreement the church stays of the LGBT battle for equal rights. Progress would come swiftly and unhindered and all the gays can ride their "horse propelled vehicles" to the hotel function room and manually propel then selves down the down the areas between the seats for which religious sensitivity cannot be called an isle, and get 'unioned' just like Atheist couples do, and walk away with the same legal recognition and civil rights.

Aurongrove, I wish it was so simple.
Your missing the point, it's more than just legal equality thats at stake, it's equal access to culture and society.
If we reserve words for something that is in all respects identical for the participants (like say a driving license into gender descriptive names. Gay drivers get a , I duno, a vehicular transport license and straight people get the old driving license, lets keep that one pink for irony,) then their is no equality.

12-12-2012 07:57PM

When have the LGBT community ever been offered true equality in "civil unions"? LGBT people are wary of civil unions because the only legitimate reason for having a separate term at state level is to be able to apply separate legislation to the same groups

wonderfulname · 12-12-2012 07:59PM

Aurongroove wrote: »

...and get 'unioned' just like Atheist couples do, and walk away with the same legal recognition and civil rights.

Atheists can already get married by the state, and you'll find they will be able to by other bodies in the near future as secular bodies have been looking for their own equality in marriage as well, it just isn't deemed as newsworthy. I find it odd you would suggest LGBT people put up with an inequality just because you believe they are not the only ones who currently have to.

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/12/07/bill-for-secular-marriages-passes-in-irish-senate-but-it-needs-to-be-amended-to-treat-all-religious-and-secular-bodies-equally/

jill_valentine · 12-12-2012 08:50PM

Aurongroove wrote: »

Why not have LGBT jettison the word 'marriage' and in agreement the church stays of the LGBT battle for equal rights.

I doubt it. In countries where fully equal civil unions became an option, the churches who prated on about how they were simply trying to preserve something they thought was "theirs" turned right around and opposed those too. The marriage thing is a smokescreen, because it almost sounds rational, but I guarantee you that they'd find some reason to whinge about functionally equal civil unions too.

Aurongroove · 12-12-2012 10:38PM

@wonderful: it's clear you didn't even read my post properly if you think I thought Athiests couldn't be married by the state.

@28064: it's clear you didn't even read my post properly if you think I thought Civil unions were equal to marriages.

I know these posts are long but sheesh, stop taking random lines out of context, it makes me not take you seriously. It's also quite frustrating going over stuff as basic as establishing that yes I do realize the basic elements of CUs and Atheist civil ceremonies.

@ tommy; I see your point but you're really just rehashing what Peer said a few posts back, basically weddings now, or nothing at all, but this is hurting progress, by all means feel free to disagree, but don't assume I'm missing the point: progress which would be (by the looks of things) very easy to achieve and have little opposition is my point

@ jill: if that were true, then it would still be progress, if you take away an excuse then you gain that many people who's main crux was the excuse you just removed.

this basically goes over everything:
My point is in vulgar basic terms, get the legal equality first;

Try to get "Civil unions" identical to, in state recognition and law an atheist Civil ceremony wedding, and call think whatever you need to call them to achieve that. becasue there is less people who oppose this and an even greater less who think this is already the case. I'm not saying then dust your hands, I'm saying do this first.

The reason I recommend this tactic is because currently a lot of people who don't know about the subject already think CU is a legal equivalent to a Civil Wedding and anyone I've ever talked to about gay marriage who thought CU's were legally equal to 'marriage' have always been shocked, appalled and most importantly suddenly understanding, like a Eureka moment, when they were enlightened.

Second;
It would be an easy foothold to gain because there wouldn't be enough opposition to stop it from happening; since once you leave out the word "marriage" half the people who care about gay marriage, stop caring as much. People care slightly less about it since it no longer means the reshaping or redefinition of a perceived spiritual tradition (wither it is or not objectively a spiritual tradition is not what matters, the point is it is perceived as such).
I mean, what has the church or anyone who thinks "marriages should forever more be one man, one woman" done to stop Civil Unions? clearly not enough since there are Civil Unions.

Currently, "Civil Unions" are not legally equal to an "Athiest Civil Ceremony wedding", yet almost everyone you ask on the matter either says "Oh, I thought they were" or stare at you wide eyed and you can see the gears shifting in their head when they realize "OMG, it's not the church that needs to act, it's the state" when you tell them a CU doesn't offer the same Legal rights or social status as a one man, one woman Civil ceremony wedding.

Coupled with this the church appears not to mind what the state does with Civil Unions, it only cares about what the state does to 'marriages'

So the state is free and able (informed populace willing) to grant CU's identical legal and social status to that of a one man, one woman Athiest civil ceremony wedding (@ jill, or at least appears to be);
so why hasn't that happened then? surely thr answer isn't becasue LBGT don't want it/aren't bothered with equal legal wedding status status only under a different ceremony name.

While there is uproar and anger and opinions flying around to stop "gay people being married"
Hardly any bystanders in the debate (all of whom have opinions, make up the social fabric and most importantly vote on referendums) seems to either be unaware that Civil Unions are not legally or officially equal to Civil Ceremonies for straight athiest couples, or, wouldn't care if they were legally equal so long as their belief of what 'marriage' is, is preserved.

doctoremma · 12-12-2012 11:10PM

I guess you could say that here in the UK, we had a similar approach to that you describe, although I wouldn't be convinced that it was such a purposeful strategy. Regardless, we had the first civil partnerships in 2005 and will shortly be seeing same sex marriages (well, where shortly is "in the next couple of years"). However, I wouldn't say that the interim 8 years or so have softened the blow for the sections of the population opposed to it. This opposition is still fierce, no less so (in my opinion) than it would have been in 2005; in the past few days, it's become practically apoplectic.

Would you really think it a foot in the door?

Benny_Cake · 13-12-2012 12:17AM

Campaigners for same-sex marriage can see the tide of public opinion turning in their favour. There is every chance that civil marriage will be available to same-sex couples by the end of this women anyway so why would they settle for something that they see as second-best?

JimiTime · 13-12-2012 02:46AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What IS the issue with the word being used. I don't think I've heard any of the Christians here give any tangible reasons as to why they'd object to the word being used. I really would like to hear some tangible reasons why its an issue. Or at least an attempt at the reasoning behind the objection other than 'by definition its not what marriage means' etc. I've been wondering is it because people don't actually have any reasons, or they are afraid to voice them.

So I'll repeat to my Christian brethren, what are the tangible issues? Are there any?

Aurongroove · 13-12-2012 03:01AM

doctoremma wrote: »

I guess you could say that here in the UK, we had a similar approach to that you describe, although I wouldn't be convinced that it was such a purposeful strategy. Regardless, we had the first civil partnerships in 2005 and will shortly be seeing same sex marriages (well, where shortly is "in the next couple of years"). However, I wouldn't say that the interim 8 years or so have softened the blow for the sections of the population opposed to it. This opposition is still fierce, no less so (in my opinion) than it would have been in 2005; in the past few days, it's become practically apoplectic.

Would you really think it a foot in the door?

yes, you see that's my thinking too. Progress isn't really progress unless it is mutual, not when it's "ground gained in a war"

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments