From some remarks to a bisexual correspondent

[fpb]

They don't try to reverse or re-engineer anything or anyone, they want to be happy with their partners, to be able to be open about their relationships, and to be respected - which I do believe is their right, no quotation marks...

That sort of talk makes me wonder on what planet you live. I lived in the same house with an openly gay couple for years. There may be some place in the Muslim world where to " want to be happy with their partners, to be able to be open about their relationships, and to be respected" is an issue, but it is not anywhere in the West. I respectfully submit that respect is not what you are talking about. Respect is something that someone gains; I have great respect for you as a highly civilized person and as [an exceptionally talented person in a particular field]. Does that matter to you less than that I should genuflect to your tastes in sex? Frankly, that is the sort of demand that would make me think less of you; because it shows that you find what is between your legs more important than what is in your head. And then there is the issue of satisfaction - which, as the song says, you can't get. You are free to do anything you please, and to practice any trade (except Catholic priest). I am old enough to remember - and I am not very old - the time when homosexual advocates insisted that the notion of "gay marriage" was a smokescreen invented by the opponents of gay rightists to defame them. That, my dear, was less than a generation ago. And no sooner you have got everything you agitated for, than the agitation for "gay marriage" began in earnest. Now history has been rewritten to the extent that you lot speak not only as though this had always been your demand, without which nothing else is worth a thing, but also as though anyone who does anything to withhold it from you is denying something so obvious that only a complete moron could imagine otherwise. Someone had been lying; whether to the public, or to themselves, does not even matter. What you are saying is that unless you are allowed to destroy the very notion of marriage, by applying it to something it simply is not, you will not be happy. And what that tells me is that you will not be happy anyway, because anything you are granted will only generate another request. You really have to consider your own attitudes.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It does not matter what you think something means, what matters is what it has historically meant. If you define a car as having two wheels, you are only fooling yourself. If several million people do so, they are at best fooling each other. Marriage as an expression of love? Do let us be serious. That is so unspecific that it might as well apply to friending on someone's LJ; does that mean that I now am to regard myself as being married to you?

Besides, who says that I am trying to make anyone agree with me? I am not quite so stupid as all that. You should have read what I said about the purpose of argument in the past: http://fpb.livejournal.com/372959.html

[nicked-metal.livejournal.com]

It does not matter what you think something means, what matters is what it has historically meant.

So, I should not claim to have 'given someone the sack' unless I literally give them a sack, and ask them to take their tools from the workplace as they leave? To claim that language does not evolve (or, specifically that the term 'marriage' has had a fixed meaning historically that must not be reconsidered now) is no more rational than asserting two-wheeled cars.

Historically, of course, a 'car' was a component of a train, which was pulled by the engine. Shall we restore the proper meaning of the term, since contemporary and popular usage is irrelevant?

I'm aware that the concept of marriage as an expression of love is only a few hundred years old, but it's a concept that is taken very seriously by a great many people, and this is worth considering when evaluating what the word means in contemporary usage. If you wish only to consider historical usage of the term, I suggest you do so in a historical context, rather than claiming to comment on current events.

I do not regard myself as married to you, and I would be astounded if you regarded yourself as married to me. Let me elaborate on the definition of marriage that I regard as contemporary and true:

"An expression of love and commitment between persons who choose to bind themselves to each other with the sincere intention that they will care for each other until separated by death. This expression takes the form of a formal and legally sanctioned ceremony, in which the state recognizes their union and affords them rights in relation to each other; for example, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of the other when their partner is unable to do so."

Please forgive me for using an abbreviated form of this definition earlier. While I'm at it, I have taken the liberty of removing the restriction on the number of persons from the definition - after all, in historical usage, there have been a great many marriages that involved more than two partners, and there are institutions that recognize such marriages.

I believe that this is a legitimate definition of marriage, although I have no doubt that you will disagree.

Besides, who says that I am trying to make anyone agree with me?

Not me! ;)

It is reasonable to infer from my statement that you were seeking an agreement, and yet this does not require forcing the other party to agree with your views. I projected that you experienced an amount of frustration that you could not arrive at an 'agreement to disagree' with the person you were debating with - that you would have preferred to be able to say "We are both fine and good people, and should have been able to disagree amicably about this topic." That is the agreement that I hoped you were hoping for.

However, since your means are not well suited to arriving at that destination, it is good that your objective is elsewhere.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The redefinition of marriage you describe is not a few centuries, but a few decades old. It did not exist when I was a child, except in the savage satires of Juvenal, who would have been most astonished that anyone, however far in the future, would take them seriously. And it is most unfortunate that you should attempt to pre-date it to the last few centuries, as that tends to associate it far too closely with all the other notorious attempts to redefine human nature in the same period, most of which have ended in slaughter.

My comparison with a car (incidentally, the railway usage is not in the least primary; the word comes originally from Latin terms for an individual wheeled vehicle) was unfortunate; I should have compared it with some feature of the human being and person. For instance, if you redefine sight, or sociability, or sinuses, you are only fooling yourself; sight remains the sense of perception by light, sinuses a part of the nose, and sociability a basic feature of the "political animal" Man.

[nicked-metal.livejournal.com]

'The concept of marriage as an expression of love' dates back at least as far as 1813.

As for the rest of it, to my sincere regret, other commitments call, and I need to attend to the rest of my life. It's been nice seeing you again, and I hope to continue this discussion later.