----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 9:46 AM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
> > From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Tom Beck wrote: > > >It's the word "marriage" that appears to have some mystical, > > >totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded > > >credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). > > > > But the idea of calling it "marriage" does make me uncomfortable on some > vague level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, I suppose. > If it makes me a dolt that 36 years of being told that marriage is between a > man and a woman isn't easy to just shrug off, so be it. > > > > > You say you can't explain why you feel that way... then doesn't that lend > you to think that your belief is likely an irrational one. Whoa!! Lets not jump the gun here. An admission that someone is unsure why they feel the way they feel about a subject is not automaticly an admission of irrationality. Jim says he is vaguely uncomfortable with calling a gay union "marriage". Why should that be reason to criticise? I think his honesty is to be praised. And I also think his comments are a good starting point for discussion, but not cause to lay even moderate criticism. Why do I say this? Well this is a paradigm breaking shift in its own way. We are asking people to view "marriage" in a way they are not used to. And not everyone is going to adopt the meme at the same rate, especially when there are many reactionary types making great effort to reinforce opposing memes. (Frex: Michael Savage claiming Gay Marriage is a communist plot to destroy America and the family) At worst Jim is proposing denying Gays the use of a word, and I do not in any way think that is how Jim feels considering what he wrote. In any case I see no evidence that Jim will feel "vaguely uncomfortable" for any great length of time. Indeed, I think we all should know Jim better and should have a bit more faith in someone we have good reason to trust. > No offense intended I'm sure you intended no offense. But I can also see where what has been written to day by several people, who write with good intention, could be seen as shaming, and I think that is not where most of you wanted to go. That sort of shaming is often accidental, and in some ways incidental, but should be avoided anyway. > but should we bend towards an irrational belief simply to make > holders of that irrational belief feel more comfortable or should we stand > firm in the belief that everyone should be treated equally? > I think your criticism would be more appropriately pointed elsewhere. Not that I don't agree with what you are saying, but there are people much more deserving of such commentary, but none of them have popped up on Brin-L as of yet. xponent Just An Observation Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
