Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[Beef Oven!]

I can assure you that my marriage is NOT "gender-neutral" at all
(or wasn't the last time I looked anyway .............)
the religionists can go and have their own thing if they want and feel so strongly about it
THAT'S fine by me
but what's not fine is for them to dictate to the rest of us , or assume that they somehow have the right to

It's got nothing to do with religion. Is Woolworths doing a special on straw men or something!!???

[ahinton]

The bit that you don't seem to be getting your head around, is that the legislation destroys conjugal, procreative marriage and leaves us with a gender-neutral partnership. It's not marriage.

Now if that's fine by you, great, it's a free country. But don't expect everybody to agree with you

It absolutely ISN'T fine by me - or rather wouldn't be if it were the case - but although I have yet to read the entire lengthy document to which you kindly provided a link, I have to say in advance of so doing that, if it makes claims such as you do that "the legislation destroys conjugal, procreative marriage and leaves us with a gender-neutral partnership", it wouldn't be worth reading as it would be plainly false and indefensible. I have asked to you provide evidence that the legislation has done what you say and you have not provided it, preferring instead, it would seem, to try to hide behind and depend upon the content of this document, which is simply not good enough. You are referring to what you perceive to be the direct adverse effects of legislation upon a large swathe of British people so, in order to cement your argument, you would need to cite not a document such as this one but clauses in the legislation itself in order to demolish them one by one and thereby illustrate precisely how they have damaged marriage between heterosexual couples. I have to say that, had this law done just that, the hue and cry from such hetersexual couples would be deafening and such would have been the extent of protest that a General Election would likely have been called by now in order to rid Britain of the government that passed this law.

[ahinton]

The bit that you don't seem to be getting your head around, is that the legislation destroys conjugal, procreative marriage and leaves us with a gender-neutral partnership. It's not marriage.

Now if that's fine by you, great, it's a free country. But don't expect everybody to agree with you

If you still don't understand, read the bloody reader I posted!

Repetition! You believe that the legislation representes deviation, but you should perhaps have indulged in a little hesitation before doing so!

[Beef Oven!]

It absolutely ISN'T fine by me - or rather wouldn't be if it were the case - but although I have yet to read the entire lengthy document to which you kindly provided a link, I have to say in advance of so doing that, if it makes claims such as you do that "the legislation destroys conjugal, procreative marriage and leaves us with a gender-neutral partnership", it wouldn't be worth reading as it would be plainly false and indefensible.

Well don't take my word for it and read the reader!

[ahinton]

It's got nothing to do with religion.

No, it doesn't - at least you are correct about that, as it's far more wide ranging than it would be were it to be confined to those who subscribe to a religion - but that does not make what you write correct!

[ahinton]

Well don't take my word for it and read the reader!

I don't take your word for it but why should I take the reader's word for it if what's written is demonstrably untrue? I and others have simply asked to you detail how this legislation's had the effect that you claim for it and you've declined so far to do so; as the law does not provide for reduced or otherwise altered entitlements for heterosexual couples, what's to argue about?

Oh and, by the way, the music's disappeared from this thread yet again, which is rather shamefully embarrassing given the name of this forum, wouldn't you agree?

[Beef Oven!]

No, it doesn't - at least you are correct about that, as it's far more wide ranging than it would be were it to be confined to those who subscribe to a religion - but that does not make what you write correct!

It's not about correct. It's about viewpoint.

Now, just because a number of countries that represent a very small proportion of the people on this planet have come up with this new idea, it doesn't mean that the rest of us agree.

[carol_fodor]

I can see only one semicolon, but so what; your point about the actual subject matter is...?...

Your original posting did indeed have 2 semicolons, as follows:
1) "immediately; that said"
and 2) "thereafter; laws are"

but clearly the 2nd one was edited subsequently so that there was a full stop between 'thereafter' and 'laws'.
of course, that immediately improved the clarity and comprehensibility of your very long sentence.
You asked - what was my point?
It was simply that IMV an argument is made much stronger and more 'potent' by CONCISION and 'pithiness', and conversely it is weakened by impenetrable verbosity.
That's it!

[ahinton]

It's not about correct. It's about viewpoint.

Now, just because a number of countries that represent a very small proportion of the people on this planet have come up with this new idea, it doesn't mean that the rest of us agree.

If by this you mean that those countries that have passed legislation enabling same sex marriage (which do not represent quite so small a proportion of the entire world population as you appear to assume and, each time that another country does this, that proportion obviously increases in any case) cannot force everyone to agree with it, then yes, of course that's the case, but this was not the point that you raised, which was the adverse consequences that it has visited upon heterosexual couples, so it's seems that you're now trying to deflect the issue away from this assertion of your own making, which does not help your argument one jot. You still haven't said why you believe that this legislation has had such an adverse effect and accordingly damages the human rights of heterosexual couples and, to do soconvincingly, you would need, as I said, to cite specific clauses from that legislation as illustrations to back up your assertion.

[ahinton]

Your original posting did indeed have 2 semicolons, as follows:
1) "immediately; that said"
and 2) "thereafter; laws are"

but clearly the 2nd one was edited subsequently so that there was a full stop between 'thereafter' and 'laws'.
of course, that immediately improved the clarity and comprehensibility of your very long sentence.
You asked - what was my point?
It was simply that IMV an argument is made much stronger and more 'potent' by CONCISION and 'pithiness', and conversely it is weakened by impenetrable verbosity.
That's it!

Well, you're entitled to your view, of course but, as you will see, I have, for example, been trying to persuade one member here to demonstrate how the same sex marriage legislation has directly damaged the human rights of heterosexual couples and it seems that it would matter not one jot whether this was done succinctly or otherwise because such demonstration remains unforthcoming!

I've also more than once tried to divert the focus here back to embrace music, since that's part of the thread topic but, once again, to no avail and it would likewise seem to matter little how many or few words might be used in such an attempt if it remains unsuccessful nevertheless!

[Resurrection Man]

Your original posting did indeed have 2 semicolons, as follows:
1) "immediately; that said"
and 2) "thereafter; laws are"

but clearly the 2nd one was edited subsequently so that there was a full stop between 'thereafter' and 'laws'.
of course, that immediately improved the clarity and comprehensibility of your very long sentence.
You asked - what was my point?
It was simply that IMV an argument is made much stronger and more 'potent' by CONCISION and 'pithiness', and conversely it is weakened by impenetrable verbosity.
That's it!

Carol...you make a very valid point. I can no longer be bothered to wade through AH's endless and unpunctuated prose as there are not enough hours in the day. Many of his points are valid but lost in the verbage.

[Bryn]

Carol...you make a very valid point. I can no longer be bothered to wade through AH's endless and unpunctuated prose as there are not enough hours in the day. Many of his points are valid but lost in the verbage.

Hmm, the term "cop out" springs to mind.

[Mr Pee]

the religionists can go and have their own thing if they want and feel so strongly about it
THAT'S fine by me
but what's not fine is for them to dictate to the rest of us , or assume that they somehow have the right to

For a minute there I thought you were referring to the Gay "community."

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

IMV an argument is made much stronger and more 'potent' by CONCISION and 'pithiness', and conversely it is weakened by impenetrable verbosity.

I find the sentiments here rather depressing. The arguments in this Thread are complex and demand serious analysis if the "argument" is to be given the respect it deserves. Concision and pithiness in this case can lead to oversimplifications and poorly thought-out, glib assertions. ahinton's posts have the advantage of expressing his considerations with clarity; there is none of the ambiguity that can lead others to say "but you haven't thought of ,,, ": the caveats and parentheses of his comments are already there; thought-out and clearly presented. The frequent attacks on ahinton's considered prose (most frequent from those whose pithy statements revel in oversimplistic lack of insight) suggest the malign influence of the "soundbite" culture, in which a glib aphorism is given greater credit than a carefully composed argument - a very sad state of affairs.

[ahinton]

I can no longer be bothered to wade through AH's endless and unpunctuated prose

One counts the semicolons and the other alleges inability to find any - that seems to speak for itself - but what you can or cannot be bothered to do is up to you.

Many of his points are valid but lost in the verbage.

If they are indeed lost there, how would you know that they're valid? Anyway, it was verbiage when last I looked...

Topic, anyone?