Thursday, 4 June 2015

Misleading, subtle, or downright confusing language

There is absolutely NO DOUBT that the marriage equality discussion is duplicitous.
You might note that I, and others,  always strive to us the expression
MARRIAGE EQUALITY
rather than
Gay Marriage
or Same Sex Marriage.
There is quite a lot of philosophical differences that are contained in these terminologies
It might well be  added that those who oppose marriage equality, consistently and deliberately use the terminology Gay Marriage or slightly less controversially Same Sex Marriage .  Make no mistake, this is deliberate.
There is an insidious side to this, because what it is doing is appealing to homophobia.
No one, presumably objects to "equality" but people do object to Gay don't they?
Pay attention to who uses what terminology!

I was likewise aware that the so called  Islamic State...ISIS, was using the word "State" to give itself an authenticity that clearly it lacks.....but deeply desires.
It is not a State, by any reckoning of the International law. But it took the world a while to wake up that it should stop calling it "Islamic State"
The ever-heavy-handed PM of Australia insisted on referring to it as "A Death Cult". I am inclined to think that by so doing he gave it an authenticity that we could well have done without. He seems to have stopped doing it!
(Might I say I have "linked" A Abbott, above, in a way that also demonstrates how words are not neutral! Perhaps rather to make the point)
Most people don't get the import of Semiotics....the use of pictures, words and signs.  The average sociologist would suggest  it is a damn sight more important than we imagine. We believe what we read, see, and hear....sometimes in a most irrational way

4 comments:

Peter Yeats said...

Actually, my opposition to the term 'Marriage Equality' is not based on homophobia but is based on the fact that it is not equality! Whole groups of people are left out; just one other group is lifted up into the ranks of the oppressor! if we truly want Marriage Equality then let's go the whole hog; equality for any consenting adults!

stephen clark said...

Not sure I quite understand the comment Peter.
My "logical" position is that everyone should be allowed to marry....hence 'equality'.....however not everyone wants to marry a person of an opposite gender.
I am in no way convinced that children need two opposite sex parents, but I do think that children should have (if they can) TWO parents.
You missed a great Mass last night, just by the way! Next year at Moore Street.

Peter Yeats said...

I suppose what I mean is that for true marriage equality any consenting adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult. What right has the state got to dictate number or relationship if it has no right to dictate gender? I'm not sure that children really come into the marriage issue any more; they can be brought up as easily, and as well, outside of marriage as within it. I would even question why the state should get involved in marriage at all. maybe it is time that the Marriage Act was completely revoked and 'marriage' left to the religions as a religious function rather than a legal.

Sorry I missed last night; I heard that it was very good.

stephen clark said...

Yes it was good ...can I book you to preach next year?

It was great to have Yvonne present. Numbers have spoken to me of her quiet gentle ministry, as a chaplain....and also a vestment maker!

I would be pleased to repeat a penitential liturgy with you both next year. I thought what we did this year was worthwhile

I think I have got the force of your argument about marriage. My impression is that the State is involved in "marriage" because 95% of non-business law that passes through the Parliaments is about marriage!
Having been through a divorce let me assure you it needs to be done 'decently and in good order!" You also need to have a good lawyer on your side, mine was gentle, kind and understanding.....Above all she was thorough...and could detect BS.