User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 91

  1. #21
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Okay, I have a question for gay people and people who know gay people:

    Why is the term always "partner"? How come a gay guy never has a "boyfriend" and a gay girl never has a "girlfriend" or in the rare states where gay marriage is legal "husband" or "wife" but always a "partner"?

    I have seen heterosexual couples refer to each other as "partners", but only very rarely and never in the casual way a homosexual has a "partner". Is that how they prefer to be called, or is it a veiled euphemism?
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  2. #22
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    If I were to guess, it would have to do with the connotations of temporariness that "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" have.

  3. #23
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    You guys are lame. I never said all SJs are conservative and against gay marriage. I just meant to imply that most conservatives against gay marriage are SJs.
    Well, yes and no. I think, as Sim also said, there's a generalized trend for SJs to be conservatives frightened by any sort of significant social change (isn't that pretty much dom or auxillary Si at work?) including - but not limited to - gay marriage.

    On the other hand, being politically conservative transcends type, to be sure. There are different kinds of conservatives, at that. The person who wrote that article seems to be approaching it from a Te (logical, practical, this works to keep society functioning) perspective which of course applies to lots of other types besides the SJs.

    I, for one, have a tendency to look at marriage as serving very necessary, practical purposes and often think that people who completely discount the institution of marriage for legal and practical reasons are illogical (the whole mentality that marriage is outdated or just living together is better "it's just a piece of paper")...and I am not conservative, nor SJ. It's actually the largest reason why I am for gay marriage myself, so they can have the legal and practical benefits.

  4. #24
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Okay, I have a question for gay people and people who know gay people:

    Why is the term always "partner"? How come a gay guy never has a "boyfriend" and a gay girl never has a "girlfriend" or in the rare states where gay marriage is legal "husband" or "wife" but always a "partner"?

    I have seen heterosexual couples refer to each other as "partners", but only very rarely and never in the casual way a homosexual has a "partner". Is that how they prefer to be called, or is it a veiled euphemism?
    So, I definitely hear the term "boyfriend" used for gay men who are boyfriends. Definitely the term I hear most by couples in that category.

    I think "partner" exists because gay people can't get married most places, so "husband" isn't legally valid. Also, it's a nod to the sensibilities of those who believe marriage as a term should be reserved for straight people. I think it's become less used over time for gay couples.

    I do hear partner used by straight people to refer to their spouses, now and again (seems to be more of a West Coast thing here in the U.S.). It sometimes throws me because I go through "Are they gay? Are they referring to a business partner? What do they mean?" Gives me sympathy for how straight folks feel who haven't figured out I'm gay yet and try to puzzle out what I mean by "my partner."

    For legally married gay and lesbian couples, I hear the term husband/wife used most often. Also, there is a trend for long term committed couples to use those terms in areas were they can't marry, since they see their relationship as equivalent.

    That's all more recent trend within the last 15 years, I'd guess.

    On a side note, I'm always amused when a get a telemarketing call for my partner, and then when he's available they ask for his wife by asking "Is Mrs. Jones available?" (Well, not literally "Jones," but you get the idea.) I'm always tempted to reply "this is he," just to see how flummoxed they'd be. I never do, though.

  5. #25
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Actually, I was hoping you would post more since you're usually well-read and have a better understanding of classical politics than I do.

    Could/Would you explain a bit more on how you think a true conservative would approach this issue, versus the classical liberalism that was addressed in the article?
    I could, but with the all too common hassles these discussions often bring with it, I sincerely question whether it's even worth it. Not least of which because of the various different elements I would have to explain in the first place; and lately I've been trying to take it easy so as to avoid anymore mental collapses.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I dont believe its arbitrary, its the english language and I dont appreciate people changing words to suit their politics, Orwell wrote an appendix to 1984 about that called Newspeak.

    If you've ever seen a TV show called Little Britain you'll know the unreal sense of grievance I'm talking about, it wont make sense to a lot of Americans and its something that pretty much could only be indicated satirically because of the sensitivity surrounding it.

    Elton John in the quote I mentioned made a point which to me illustrated that not all homosexuals felt as aggrieved by this issue as was being made out, infact it made me think it was a minority of a minority, which I think sums up how I think about a lot of the movement which seeks to profile and promote homosexuality. Its also baffled me how vociferous some of the heterosexual fellow travellers are too, although I dont pretend to fully understand the US culture wars, no middle ground and to me that's weird.

    If the positions were reversed it wouldnt bother me, I dont attach any value judgement per se and I dont attach any stigma or shame to "civil partnership" as opposed to marriage so it makes no difference to me.

    I'm not demeaning anyone and I'm not suggesting anyone "suffer in silence", I would suggest that some serious questions be asked about what's causing the suffering though, if you're being persecuted, victimised or brutalised I can understand it, this is the essential difference between black civil rights and the modern gay rights movement, at least so far as I understand each movement.

    I know there are states in the US which still prohibit sodomy or sexual behaviour that effects homosexuals more than others but how are they enforced? Is it really like the integration of little rock or the freedom riders? Really? I know there are a lot of veterans of those struggles who cant stand that comparison and not because they are homophobic, although they are often labelled that way.

    Much of the "suffering" experienced by homosexuals is a consequence of seeking especial recognition or approval from others, when its not forth coming the idea is that the state can legislate it into existence, I dont think that's a role for government at all, its prohibitively expensive, not to mention intrusive, coercive and a good case of over reach by the authorities. Sometimes its transference because they were rejected by family or others, sometimes its an even more general thing. Sometimes, and I'm NOT suggesting for a moment it is in every case, nor even the majority of cases but in some cases the sexual behaviour and identity is some sort of trauma playing out.

    Legislating social attitudes has been tried in the UK for a long time were the state is massively paternalistic, check it out and see if its any better or if people simply cant speak freely without being afraid of being labelled bigots or haters.

    My concern about profiling and promoting homosexuality per se, not specifically the topic of changing the meaning of the word marriage, is that it eschews what I believe is the proper sphere of government, equally it creates sort of crazy expectations of others, normalising other directedness of that kind cant be healthy. I cant ever, ever buy that one.

    Now as a heterosexual in full possession of the facts, the statistical hard facts about homosexuality and heterosexuality, even allowing wide margins for those who do not self-report their orientation and counting people who are ambivalent or bisexual as homosexual the heterosexual orientation remains the majority.

    That's consistent over time and place, its not a result of cultural context, therefore to oppose "heteronormative" society simply does not make any sense to me what so ever, its liable to create the sorts of psychological stress, distress, duress and conflicts which homosexuals have struggled with but generalise it to every single individual in the population.

    Now I say all this without for an instance harbouring any secret malice of thought or contempt or anything else for people I've never met or am unlikely to meet or anything else. I'm willing to clarify any of this but please dont teams of people unleash their politics or a vendetta or whatever.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I didnt say seperate but equal, I said equal but different. I dont come from the school of thought that uniformity or homogenising is egalitarian, infact those are the mainstay of anti-egalitarian arguments.

    I can understand the wariness some people have about it because difference has been used as an argument against equality and implied a lack of parity in the past but I dont see it that way. Seperate but equal was apartheid wasnt it? I think it was also part of the US segregationists argument, I dont hold with that really but there are, in my experience, a lot of homosexual people who do, they prefer same sex clubs and venues, I can understand why and I'm not bothered by that.

    I agree the term "marriage" brings along a lot of religious baggage and does get people's dander up who might otherwise be sympathetic.
    Its not even a matter of sympathy or support, people who dont care are mobilised by conservatives because they feel threatened, I'm not talking about full blown homophobia but people who are genuinely pissed at the insistence that they have to have a view, that they must be in one camp or the other and can not be apathetic. That's poking a sleeping tiger stuff there.

    Now I've known or spoken with homosexuals who had pretty derogatory views about heterosexuals, describing them as "breeders" and displaying attitudes which ranged from dismissive to hostile. I've also met with the opinion stated over and over that no one is heterosexual, that its not natural and that everyone is either homosexual or bisexual or the confusion of sexual behaviour with sexual orientation, for instance if any straight man would simply try gay sex they would be gay. The sort of talk that were it in reverse, a heterosexual saying there's no such thing as homosexual etc. it would be considered bigoted or phobic.

    Now I DO challenge that when I hear it expressed, it doesnt make me popular a lot of the time because most of the time the people talking like that are used to being given a "fools pardon" by liberal minded heterosexual friends who want to show solidarity or excuse it as people letting off steam as a result of notional oppression (again, to be clear, I'm not saying that homosexuals are not oppressed but that these individuals I'm speaking off cant claim that, they travel in the same circles as me and are not any less or more discretionary about their orientation).

    This is a difficult topic, made difficult by how incendiary its become, lots of people import their own experience or arguments with others into debates like this and I've got to say I appreciate your level headness about it all Seymour. Cheers.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    I don't think that Governments should be in the business of "marrying" people. I believe that anyone with six toes, four penis's and two vagina's should be able to form a legal contract with any single celled organ even if it is absent of sex organs if it so chooses.

    If there are religious traditions, people should be able to honor and practice those freely.

    If there isn't a religious tradition, people should feel free to make one of their own up...just like the other group did.

    Otherwise, under the law the living and social arrangement should be treated as a legal contract. A "business" partnership so that people can participate on a legal basis as partners in society and reap the benefits other "parterships" are granted under the law.

    That's all a government should do, issue a legal "partnership" license.

    The context of that relationship should be societally determined by the groups and institutions the legal partners choose to participate in.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    You know I read about someone who married their horse in some US state back in the days of the wild west, dont know why he did but anyway.

    People shouldnt marry close family.

  10. #30
    Senior Member sofmarhof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm opposed to same sex "marriage", simply because marriage is a bond between two people of the opposite sex.
    Here's the problem with your argument. You are basically saying "I am opposed to same-sex marriage because I am opposed to same-sex marriage," or "Marriage should be between two people of the opposite sex because marriage should be between two people of the opposite sex."

    (People have already commented on this, but please, I couldn't not chime in.)

Similar Threads

  1. Make the Case for Your God(s)
    By Passacaglia in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-27-2016, 07:27 PM
  2. The Case for Reparations
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-09-2014, 09:58 PM
  3. The Case for Gamma
    By Kierva in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-15-2014, 10:14 AM
  4. The issue of gay marriage
    By Torai in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 318
    Last Post: 04-19-2011, 10:45 PM
  5. So what's really the big deal about Gay marriage?
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 12:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO