tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241242812688767390.post4828947672414315549..comments2023-08-28T20:47:38.757+12:00Comments on LYNNE JAMNECK: An Open Letter To Rex Ahdar Lynne Jamneckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09970372960602480125noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241242812688767390.post-70174471961233824422013-04-10T17:32:05.504+12:002013-04-10T17:32:05.504+12:00Like I say, I see the can/can't as an irreleva...Like I say, I see the can/can't as an irrelevance to the real argument.<br /><br />Otherwise, sure, I can definitely see the benefits of tightly controlled language, and am not in any way advocating bigotry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241242812688767390.post-61237977462241765592013-04-10T17:13:59.930+12:002013-04-10T17:13:59.930+12:00But gay parents CAN have biological children.
Als...But gay parents CAN have biological children.<br /><br />Also, I was primarily addressing the way he framed his argument as an academic; my main argument was not about marriage equality.<br /><br />Additionally, as I do more research into language, it has become ever more evident how badly people misuse language on a semantic level, and I think they do so mostly on an unconscious level. However, this has the potential for instilling language, particular words or phrases, with meaning/s they never had. <br /><br />So indeed, this concerns me. <br /><br />And I don't like the idea of bigots teaching at universities.Lynne Jamneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09970372960602480125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241242812688767390.post-57046233643622207172013-04-10T17:04:08.659+12:002013-04-10T17:04:08.659+12:00Loathe as I am to get too involved in this discuss...Loathe as I am to get too involved in this discussion, I tend to think that most if not all of the things you and he are drawing into the debate here are simply irrelevant.<br /><br />Your perspective on his representational strategy seems valid... but if his arguments were strong then they shouldn't be rejected in the basis of a flawed presentation. If I argued that the Sun was vital for life because it made me feel happy, you'd be right in saying that my feelings were not important... but that wouldn't change the fact of the sun being vital for life. So to an extent you're engaging in semantics and representational clashes here rather than addressing his core concerns.<br /><br />To respond to his question about reproductive capabilities in terms of "hell yeah we can" is to allow him to frame the terms of the argument with that as a valid question to ask about marriage. That's where I'd focus my energies. Which is what I mean by things being simply irrelevant. The arguments against the relevance of child-bearing for marriage are not complex, but are persuasive.<br /><br />I guess my underlying response to almost all of his so-called objections is more of a "so what?" than your annoyance on the semantic level. Gay parents can't have a biological child... so what? Ancient societies wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman... so what? <br /><br />I guess I feel like neither of you really talks about the issues at the core of this debate, which is partially about "equality" as such, but mostly at a semantic level. The debate is really about a more fundamental reorganization of society around individual choice compared to societal pressures. I think there's a really great argument to be made that the LGBT issues are really a subset of issues relating to a post-scarcity economic model. [Just in time for a "corrective" due to Peak Oil, but nevermind] They're probably the pointy edge of the wedge in terms of everyday life, but they're drawing on the same kinds of destabilization as other problems such as corporations-as-people... YMMV, but my fear is that if we continue to frame these discussions in familiar rhetorical terms (and that applies either way) then we're in danger of missing the more fundamental paradigm changes that are going on in a wider and more pervasive way, but below radar.<br /><br />On the other hand... I think that certainly his argument was not a good one and an opposite POV needed to be put. On the third hand, I'd like to think there wasn't too much sympathy remaiing for his stance in NZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com