Fannie's Room
Fannie,
I share your disdain for hyper political correctness, but in my view, calling people by the name (or label, if you must) that they prefer, really has nothing to do with political correctness. When one, referring to the original peoples of America, for example, uses the term Native American as opposed to Indian, one is not being political correct, but politically polite.
Now, within my own little circle, I see two kinds of people who use the term homosexual where gay would be the more appropriate term. The first are outright bigots, who take extreme umbrage at the very word "gay". These people see homosexuality in sexual terms terms only and utterly reject the whole idea of gay relationship being about anything else.
The second though, are just plain ignorant. A very good friend of mine, when discussing gay rights, would always use that word, even as a noun. I corrected him, and he has only occasionally slipped up since, and those slip-ups were just the unintentional force of habit.
I am somewhat confused as to when it is appropriate to refer to lesbians as gay. I don't understand the distinction.
Regarding the "lesbians as gay" issue.... I think it really just depends on the person- I, for instance, don't have a problem in being called a "gay person" or a "lesbian." But I know that some women don't like being called "gay" because the term is often used to refer only to men.
Similarly, some gay people like to be called "queer" while others loathe the term. Some embrace "fag" or "dyke" while others are deeply offended.
It would all certainly be less confusing and frustrating if there was one universal and non-offensive word to apply to all non-heterosexual people.
I think another potential theory is that the word 'homosexual' really emphasizes the SEXUAL part of what it means to be gay. Thus, if you are trying in earnest to make the point that gay people are just gay because of the SEX, then that term would work perfectly for you. It doesn't allow then for anyone to think that being 'gay' means more than just having sex with someone of the same sex.
oh, and i realize now, that John basically said the exact same thing above, as I said, but he said it muc better
i was going to say what vieve said. the religious right is against sexuality (other than husband-wife missionary position coitus) in general. so they choose to use the word that a) most reminds their allies of sex (which is bad), and b) was a mental illness diagnosis for many, many years.
That's a good point about the word "homosexual" being overly-focused on the "sexual" part of being gay. By definition, the word reminds one that gay people have sex with people of the same sex. It ignores all of the ways that gay people are similar to heterosexual people, and empahsizes one way that we are different...
"the religious right is against sexuality (other than husband-wife missionary position coitus) in general"
The Catholics take that one step further and require that intercourse be "open to the possible of new life".
Have you ever thought of how insulting that is to a disabled person?
John,
Of course... can't forget that procreation aspect of sex. Can you imagine a world where people only had sex with the intent of producing babies?
Me neither.
" Can you imagine a world where people only had sex with the intent of producing babies?"
I think there would be a lot more grumpy-ass people walking around if this were the case.
A-whaaaat?
You mean, people have sex for more than procreative purposes?!
The nerve.
Wow - a thread that's managed to stay clear of crazy people! Excellent!
(Who the hell is John Howard, by the way, and why is he such an arse?)
Also, I realise I have been sinning terribly..... Dear God, forgive me my sins of the past and my sins still to come (tee hee!), all of them incredibly enjoyable and not in any way within wedlock or with the intention of spawning!
(Ps. Forgive my boyfriend's sins too. He only did it 'cos I seduced him. Honest!)
Just remember the prayer of that great Catholic theologian:
"God, grant me chastity and continence, but not yet."
Saint Augustine
I'm queer, just not in a homo or gay way.
Enjoy.
on the issue of the catholic church... the catholic church can actually refuse to marry two people at all if it is known that they will not be able to procreate. marrying them would be giving them permission to have sex and the church doesn't believe that two people who cannot conceive should be given that right. so a man and a woman could be happily engaged and set to be married in a catholic church and a week before the wedding one of them could get sick, be in an accident, or get upsetting health news and the church could (and some believe would have to) refuse to marry them.
fyslexickuck,
I don't think you are quite accurate as to your interpretation of Canon Law 1084.
The Holy See makes a huge distinction between sterile and impotent. Sterile couples can marry, impotent, no.
Wikipedia's article is pretty close:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Can...nts_to_marriage
"While a couple need not be fertile, both parties must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates "true semen" into the woman's vagina. (See [1] for details.) To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[17] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[18] “In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”
Not that that is much better.
Well, if I get married, it certainly wouldn't be in the Catholic Church anyway....
It just so happens that I debate the Roman Catholic Church's (RCC) theology almost every day, and just yesterday I had a long conversation with a devout Catholic regarding this Canon Law.
Ultimately, the RCC's position in based on its concept of Natural Law. (Jose like to talk about the RCC's Natural Law).
The RCC's Natural Law, as it pertain to sexuality is a very ugly doctrine.
I intend to write about it soon.
They aren't prohibited from marrying or forced to end the marriage if there is impotence, it just means that if it wasn't consummated, due to impotence or refusal, there has been no marriage. Those bonds can be anulled, so the parties can find someone else to marry. But they don't have to be, if they want to stay married.
Impotent people are NOT permitted to marry under Canon Law.
http://www.disabilityworld.org/0...s/
wedding.shtml
Interesting. Well, I guess if the impossibility of consummating the marriage is publicly known in advance, the Church can't assume that the marriage will be consummated, so they can't go through with the marriage. In most cases that isn't known and the couple can keep it secret if they want to. That interview mentions that Ultra-Orthodox Jews have to have a child within ten years or the marriage will be invalidated, but again I bet that is usually the couple's choice in practice. Anyhow, it is only the Church's position on whether the couple should marry or stay married, it doesn't effect the legality of the marriage.
But under English law (as I understand it), a religious marriage is a *ceremony*, and has no legal significance if the couple has not also registered their marriage in a registry office.
So it wouldn't matter in those cases what their religious leaders had to say about their marriage, it would still be recognised legally until they got a divorce through the court system....
Yay for English courts!!
john,
thanks for correcting me on the impotence versus inability to procreate distinction. either way it again shows the hypocrisy of a church whose own savior was born of virgin birth and not the "traditional" way (perhaps i will start a rumor that joseph was impotent). as to the legality, no it would not be affected. however catholic guilt knows no law.
Ah, fyslexicduck, the hypocrisy is just beginning.
Note that the RCC REQUIRES intercourse for a marriage to be valid, and yet they maintain, against their own law and abundant evidence to the contrary that Mary was a virgin throughout her life.
well since mary hadn't been married in the (nonexistent) catholic church it would have been wrong for her to have sex, and because she is full of grace and free from all sin (including original sin) she of course would never have even considered disobeying canon law that would not be written until long after her assumption into heaven. therefore, even though we have no real proof, she was the Ever-Virgin Mother of God (although she may or may not have had sex at some point in her life). i mean, when you think about it that way it all makes perfect sense
fyslexicduck,
You sound like a recovering Catholic.
I'm shocked and disappointed that Huckabee would take money from struggling, hard-working Americans in order to fund his campaign. He said in his drop-out speech that it was..."the sacrifices of a truck driver in Michigan, of a housewife who sold her wedding ring on eBay and gave the contribution to the campaign, a janitor in Alabama who has a wife in a wheelchair who gave $20, not out of his abundance, but out of his poverty, so that our campaign could stay on the track." In a bad economy, why would someone running for President take their money to fund a campaign that was clearly going to be fruitless? What would become of the economy if selfish Huckabee were President?
Jos76
www.jos76.wordpress.com
Jos76,
Wow, I didn't heard about that. That's really sad. Huckabee had no chance.
Commenting by HaloScan
