posted
#3 and #7 are funny in an objective sense, I think. I think it's probably true that there's more material to work with in the other direction because people arguing AGAINST something like gay marriage cut across a broader swath of the population and thus are likely provide a broader range of ideas that could be lampooned (along with a mix of things that aren't easily lampooned, of course).
I was sitting here trying to come up with some other funnies, and it was tough. I might, for instance, have thrown in a:
#) Because we want it.
But, you know, it's just not all that funny. I mean, I know that there are homosexual couples who simply assert the bald-faced "we should be allowed to be married, period" argument, and, to an extent I agree with them. I see the fairness issue inherent in this. But it's tough to lampoon it.
I thought of maybe trying to improve on some of Chris' ideas, and I really couldn't come up with anything better. In part because Chris IS funny already. But also because even the ones I didn't find all that funny are funnier than the things I thought of as changes.
Then there are the types of things I think Chris was avoiding, and many people probably wouldn't have.
Like:
#) I'd look fabulous in a tiara.
I mean, it's silly and I've heard gay men say things like this in jest, but it's not really an argument that one hears a lot in favor of homosexual marriage. Plus it's more a wedding joke, not a marriage joke.
Oh well. At some point, it just gets analyzed into dust.
I have to face it, there are at least several things at play here:
1) Top ten lists are inherently not that funny 2) It's not as easy lampooning ideas one has sympathy with 3) There's more material to work with from the "anti" side of practically ANY issue, but especially ones involving morality in the US, but that could just be because it's the majority viewpoint and thus has a broader spectrum of ideas from which to pick (from the sublime to the utterly whacky).
Thanks Chris! That was pretty interesting!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's not even attacking a belief, it's attacking a bunch of dumb, easily refutable statements. It's mocking statements that, to me, deserve to be mocked, but it doesn't mock a group of people or even a belief. I don't see the basis for making that claim.
It is not mocking easily refutable statments -- it is mocking people with a certain belief by putting those dumb, easily refutable statments in their mouths.
Considering I've heard those same dumb, easily refutable statments come out of innumberable peoples mouths...
That's probably why I found it more sad than amusing; because people around here (meaning South Carolina) make those same statments, or statements very similar to them all the time.
It did still garner a chuckle. Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read the whole thread, nor even past the first page. But I have to say this. People were responding to the total destruction of those arguments as if they were personally insulted. I saw someone mention that to insult someones believes is far worse than insulting anything physical.
Look at the arguments being refuted. If you actually believe those, if you actually feel insulted by that then maybe you need to SERIOUSLY reconsider your beliefs. LOOK at the points its making. If your belief closely enough matches one of those arguments that you feel insulted then you should seriously consider the fact that your belief makes no sense which is what that little thing is pointing out.
I've seen it time and time again and always just sort of chuckled at it. It isn't really making fun of anyone or anything. Its taking some arguments are that commonely used to try and provide support for why gay marrige should be illegal and pointing out in a sarcastic and humorous way that they make no sense.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still say you can't teach someone who isn't willing to listen and learn.
Exactly. And a great way to make sure that they won't listen to you is to mock and belittle them.
edit: It doesn't do any good to claim "but I wasn't mocking them -- I was mocking their beliefs." If people feel like they've been mocked, the chance of them listening to you is almost zero.
It's not that I have those beliefs, I'm not even on that side of the argument...
it's in the way those beliefs were portrayed... when you put words in someone else's mouth, you are on dangerous ground and doing it in such a manner as to make your opponent seem malicious is near guaranteed to provoke. Chris said he was going for "oblivious" rather than "mean", and I think that did a lot to make his lists less objectionable. His lists come off like someone saying "you goofball!", the original list comes off as someone saying "you b@$t@rd!".
Galileo probably would not have seen one bit of persecution if he hadn't published a play wherein the Pope's character was named "fool." Sarcasm is only useful for scoring points with the choir and closing the minds of everyone else.
Edit: I'm suddenly taken with the idea that it was a series of political cartoons, rather than a play... details escaping... mind going...
posted
Honestly? Chris's second list did make me feel uncomfortable in parts. Because there are things in it that I don't support, and which embarrass the heck out of me when I hear about them.
So I can understand why some people felt uncomfortable with the original list and Chris's first list.
The difference is that I'm vocal about rejecting the things in Chris's list that I find gross. Whereas I've seen people on this forum actually making many of the arguments that were mocked in the first two lists.
And... I mean, what about this:
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote: You! Sissy boy! Get a football, you want your kid to grow up weak? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was definitely some audible laughter with this one.
I don't think that concept is as wholly laughable as some people might. i believe there is some merit to the idea that it would do some people some good to toughen up a little. And the effects of being a certain way (too tough or too weak) would definitely trickle down to one's children.
Is there some way to respond to this without just laughing? I'm sorry if that offends you, odouls268, but you need to get over the gender stereotypes you find comfortable. People are people, and it's the tough men who've waged almost all the wars in history. We need more of that like we need herpes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That presupposes that war is never necessary. It was also tough guys who fought against conquerers and despots to defend their loved ones and their countries.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beg to differ. No tough guy am I, and I make a wonderfully tender chicken. Plan on cooking a couple later today, in fact.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: when you put words in someone else's mouth, you are on dangerous ground and doing it in such a manner as to make your opponent seem malicious is near guaranteed to provoke.
One more time....these aren't straw men, and no one else put these into idiots mouths. They ARE being used as arguments against SSM, I have even heard politicians use the "marry your dog" argument on national TV, for Christ's sake!
My point was that people like that aren't seriously considering the issue, and will not be swayed by logical discussions of the issue.
I know Jim-me, Dag, mph, and others have serious issues with SSM, and I even understand some of the problems they have with it, because I use to feel the same way myself. That doesn't mean that I ever agreed with any of the arguments posted in that list though, so I was not offended by it at all.
quote:edit: It doesn't do any good to claim "but I wasn't mocking them -- I was mocking their beliefs." If people feel like they've been mocked, the chance of them listening to you is almost zero.
I don't care about that segment of the population, or what they think, to be honest. I don't believe that they are open to any discussion of the issue, for the most part.
I do think that it is interesting that people keep claiming that these arguments are made up arguments though, considering how often they actually come up in this type of conversation, though. I have not seen anyone claim that they were the ONLY arguments against it, or that sarcasm is the only refutation of them...
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know Jim-me, Dag, mph, and others have serious issues with SSM
For the record, I support equal civil marriage rights for homosexual couples, although I prefer the whole thing be renamed "civil union" for both mixed and same sex couples. But my support for the former is not conditioned on the latter.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It doesn't do any good to claim "but I wasn't mocking them -- I was mocking their beliefs." If people feel like they've been mocked, the chance of them listening to you is almost zero.
I don't care about that segment of the population, or what they think, to be honest. I don't believe that they are open to any discussion of the issue, for the most part.
Are you saying that people that felt that the first list was mocking them (as I did -- I think the purpose of it is to mock all people who are aginast SSM) are people that you don't care about, because we are not open to any discussion of the issue?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Kwea meant was the portion of the population who actually believe those particular arguments and use them. Not everyone against SSM.
(I'm prettty sure that's right, Kwea?)
edit: to clarify
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: it also takes a tough guy to turn the other cheek
I'm not talking about tough in the sense of strong moral fiber (not that I think turning the other cheek is a positive thing, but just for the sake of argument). I'm talking about macho men who encourage their kids to play with guns and fight and be one more in a chain of macho nightmares.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, that's a good way of stating my opinion, too, I think. Assuming I understood you correctly .
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'll be blunt here... my issue with starlisa's comments, as well as with the first list, is that they are prejudiced and stereotypical. Now, several people have defended the list as not being prejudiced because people are really like that... but my whole point is that the list exists to cast all people against SSM as being like that. This is just as prejudicial as lisa's statement above or as characterizing abortion opponents as clinic bombers who are out to chain all women to their stoves, barefoot and pregnant.
You may be able to find people like that, but berating them in a public arena is very likely to offend those who might have been ready to listen to you.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For the record, I support equal civil marriage rights for homosexual couples, although I prefer the whole thing be renamed "civil union" for both mixed and same sex couples. But my support for the former is not conditioned on the latter.
Yeah, we've discussed this before, and I'd have no problem with removing the word "marriage" from laws -- indeed, unless my hypothetical future fiancee has strong feelings otherwise, I would prefer to be married by a Justice of the Peace in a place that is not a church. The trouble is that there is so much social inertia behind the use of the term "marriage" in the civil context that if the word were removed people with civil unions would still call themselves "married." If there was a convenient, non-cumbersome alternate term, that might be workable, but there isn't one. Couples who make this committment are used to calling it a marriage.
I know you know that, because you've said so yourself in the past [added: and that's why I think it's a good idea not to make support for same-sex marriage conditional on that particular change] -- I guess I'm just talking to no one in particular. Postcount++ or something.
Added: I think the LDS have a good way of making that distinction -- "married" versus "sealed."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Couples who make this committment are used to calling it a marriage.
I have no problem with couples calling themselves married. What I want is the idea of marriage to become totally self-defined in a legal sense, while civil unions adopt the requirements, benefits, and obligations of legal marriage now.
of course, in a social sense, self-definition will probably group together by religious and philosophical views. That's great.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not quite sure I fully understand your second sentence. Are you saying that people should be free to call their relationship what they want (self-define) but that it should have a specific name that is not "marriage" for the purposes of drafting legal documents?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying that people should be free to call their relationship what they want (self-define) but that it should have a specific name that is not "marriage" for the purposes of drafting legal documents?
Yes. Exactly. No legal document drafted after this point would contain the words "married" or "marriage" or any derivatives.
quote:What should couples in a civil union call themselves, if not married?
I think they would call themselves married.
In the other thread we've been discussing feedback from the legal definition to the cultural definition. I'd like to attempt to sever that link by removing the word from the legal domain.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Of course removing marriage from the legal sense would probably make few on either side happy so is probably a very good compromise.
Posts: 68 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, not at all! I thought I had gone out of my way to specifically mention some people I didn't lump in with the other group, you in specific...
I am saying that the list was aimed at the segment of the population who really uses those particular arguments as a valid basis for refuting SSM. Other people, yourself included, may have felt it was mocking them as well, but I didn't see that....what I saw was a list that make fun of those specific arguments, and those that believe them and use them in their decision-making process.
Dag, I thought you were in favor for something like that, but I wasn't sure....I stand corrected. I just remembered that you didn't want it called marriage....a position that I completely understand myself.
As long as it has all the same benefits and drawbacks as marriage, I think that is the best solution, IMO.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have often suggested here completely replacing marriages with civil unions, for precisely this reason. Oddly, the people who are loudest about the defense of marriage still oppose this, so I've come to the conclusion that what they're really opposing is not the use of the term "marriage" in legal documents but the potential acceptance of monogamous, long-term homosexual relationships.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure how that would affect my hypothetical Justice of the Peace wedding; the Justice wouldn't be able to say "Okay, you two are married now." Alternative phrasings could be found, but removing "marriage" from law does make it more awkward for couples who want to get "married" civilly.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't say "You two are married now" anyway, they say "I now pronounce you man and wife." Then there's usually something about kissin'. Anyway, not an issue.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, "I now pronounce you man and wife" is what ministers traditionally say when presiding over religious marriages. I think it would be at least somewhat awkward to have a secular wedding without mentioning the word "marriage." Could the presiding authority even refer to the ceremony as a "wedding?"
This is part of why my actual position is different from Dagonee's: I think that if someone's going to give up the word "marriage" and use something else, it should be the religious institutions, since I think their claim to exclusivity over it is less legitimate than the government's. Since neither has a strong claim for exclusivity, though I'm not terribly hung up on this point... which is why I said I'd be fine with marriageless laws.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:mph, not at all! I thought I had gone out of my way to specifically mention some people I didn't lump in with the other group, you in specific...
I am saying that the list was aimed at the segment of the population who really uses those particular arguments as a valid basis for refuting SSM. Other people, yourself included, may have felt it was mocking them as well, but I didn't see that....what I saw was a list that make fun of those specific arguments, and those that believe them and use them in their decision-making process.
Thanks for clarifying.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's actually the phrase used in all secular weddings I've been to. And they are referred to as weddings. And it's the phrase I've used in the three weddings I've performed as a licensed officiant in the State of Minnesota.
("By the power vested in me by the State of Minnesota I now pronounce you man and wife, you may now kiss the groom." as opposed to "By the power vested in me by the State of Minnesota, and the insert religious institution here, I now. . ." The people I have married are legally married only, not religiously married, as I do not have the endorsement of any church to perform religious sacraments.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since neither has a strong claim for exclusivity, though I'm not terribly hung up on this point... which is why I said I'd be fine with marriageless laws.
That's pretty much how I feel, just reverse. I do not make my support for equal civil marriage rights contingent on removing the word "marriage" - it's just a preference. And I prefer keeping "marriage" for both than having "civil union" for one and "marriage" for the other.
Of course, I disagree with you about who has the stronger claim, but we're getting along so nicely right now we can let it slide. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. I've only been to one wedding, and it was secular. However, I was maybe sixteen or seventeen at the time, and have no recollection of the phrase the Justice of the Peace used. Under Dagonee's system, the presiding authority wouldn't be allowed to say "marriage," but everyone else would.
Edit: Dagonee just posted. Yes, our positions are quite similar except for that one reversal.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that's true. The "marriage" certificate would no longer be called a marriage certificate, but the presiding authority could still say pretty much whatever they/the couple wanted. Here, at least, in order for a marriage to be legal there are two questions that have to be answered in the affirmative by both parties in front of witnesses, and then the witnesses and the officiant sign the certificate. All the rest is window dressing, and doesn't have to be phrased in any particular way. You don't even have to say the pronouncement part, it's just tradition. That's why people can write their own vows. . . the substance of that doesn't matter, they just have to say yes twice. So it could still be called marriage in the ceremony, even if legally it was a civil union for religious and secular ceremonies. Just the certificate would say "Certificate of Civil Union" or some such instead of 'Certificate of Marriage." 'Cause the government would be out of the marriage business.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whereas in all the weddings I've officiated I've said:
"Now that [Name] and [Name] have given themselves to each other by solemn vows, with the joining of hands, and the giving and receiving of rings, I announce to you that they are husband and wife; in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
So I agree that the "pronounce" thing is not primarily a religious formula. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the secular wedding I attended, I didn't see anyone sign a certificate. Maybe they did it before or after the wedding, or spirited the Justice away sometime during the ceremony, but the wedding wasn't anything like going down to the marriage office and signing the relevant document. It was a lot like the traditional conception of a church wedding, except without religion. I think they did this because the bride came from a mixed-religion home (Christian mother, Muslim father).
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: So it could still be called marriage in the ceremony, even if legally it was a civil union for religious and secular ceremonies.
This really doesn't make sense to me, which is why my ideal outcome is what happened here in Canada -- the gender specificity was removed from the legal definition of "marriage." What you're saying is indeed what would happen in practice if "marriage" were removed from laws, but from (as usual) a pragmatic standpoint it makes a lot more sense to stick with the word everyone's already using.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: So I agree that the "pronounce" thing is not primarily a religious formula.
Well, it certainly comes from Christian tradition, and I imagine it's still used in plenty of religious marriages. Whether it's "standard" in both religious and secular marriages I have no idea. So I suppose it depends on how you mean "primarily" (common usage, or descent).
quote:Originally posted by JT: You've only been to one wedding?
Yup. For a while I thought I'd never been to a wedding at all, but then I remembered that one. As to why I haven't been to more... I'm an only child, and don't have much extended family on this continent. None of my close friends are married. In my wider circle of friends, none are married but some are engaged.
*shrug*
I never thought much of it, really, but people seem surprised when the subject comes up. Then again, I don't think about marriage much, except in the context of discussions like this one.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd rather be in your shoes than mine. Weddings are fun and all, but I only have one suit and I'm starting to learn all the waitstaff's names at the local reception site.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would very rarely see the certificate as a guest at a church wedding either. It's usually signed either right before or right after the ceremony.
Either that or you get a panicky call at your hotel from your father who is also the minister telling you not to go upstairs because he forgot to have you sign the certificate and you're not really married. That happened to a friend of mine.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. You say "I do" and/or "I will" during the ceremony, and then do the signings sometime between the wedding and the reception. In Minnesota, the people getting married don't even sign the certificate, just the witnesses and the person performing the wedding. But I know that's different in other states.
(I think we should stick with the word "marriage," too. Just saying if the legal word became something else, that would not stop the word being used in weddings of either sort.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yep. You say "I do" and/or "I will" during the ceremony, and then do the signings sometime between the wedding and the reception. In Minnesota, the people getting married don't even sign the certificate, just the witnesses and the person performing the wedding. But I know that's different in other states.
We signed before the wedding day, gave it to the priest, and he signed it after the wedding and mailed it in for us.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, rivka. I should have said, in Minnesota, the couple must each answer in the affirmative to two seperate questions of intent. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, you're missing my point. In a Jewish ceremony, there are no affirmative responses (not verbal ones, at least). In fact, the bride doesn't speak at all. (And I am pretty sure such a ceremony is still legal in Minnesota.)
I believe there are other religions/cultures in this country that also have marriage ceremonies that do not involve "affirmative responses."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter what the presiding official doing the ceremony calls it, or how the law defines it. The couple and everyone else is going to call it 'married'.
posted
As I said, no verbal affirmation. But if she doesn't extend her hand to accept the ring, or if she were to refuse to accept the ketubah (marriage contract), the wedding would stop immediately (and not be valid).
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It doesn't matter what the presiding official doing the ceremony calls it, or how the law defines it. The couple and everyone else is going to call it 'married'.
"Yeah, Stan and I just got civilly-unioned."
I don't think so.
Actually, I know a lot of gay people who refer to it as a "commitment ceremony" as in committing to spend a lifetime with one partner. They often refer to it as such both before and after the fact.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
There was definitely some audible laughter with this one. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Wow. That's one of the most offensive things I've seen said here in ages. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
