(no subject)

[dampscribbler]

Courtesy of kebbo, here's a thoughtful piece by a Linguistics professor for those of us confounded by the concept of gay marriage being threatening. Or for those of you who can't imagine not being threatened by it.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/02/20_lakoff.shtml

Comments

[orangeophelia.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I don't find that all that informative. I hadn't fully thought through the difference between the phrase "gay marriage and "same-sex marriage", although it had occurred to me that there is a significant difference, when one considers bisexuals, like myself. I often feel swallowed up by the terms "gay" and "lesbian" which any awake and aware American can remember, and has an opinion on. If I were to marry a woman, my marriage would be a "gay marriage", even though I'm not gay.

Aside from that, I found it odd that Berkeley, supposedly known for it's liberal tendencies, would have a right-leaning professor like that. But I don't find that a bad thing. My "radical arts" college could use something like that, for contrast. It becomes far too easy to accept our beliefs as inherently true here, with no other examples around.

Re:

[hhw]

I didn't read him as right-leaning; more like a translator of right-think for those of us on the left of center.

The point he made that was useful to me was that conservatives often have the "strict father" model of family, which is incompatible with anything other than a heterosexual marriage. I'd been assuming the "nuturing parent" model which is more easily adapted to any combination of genders. not to mention any number of parents.

I also tend to think of marriage as an entirely separate issue from being a parent, but many conservatives don't, and it was useful to me to be reminded of that. In my view, the gender of the parents (and their marital status) is mostly irrelevant, but for folks who have a "strict father" view of family, marriage and parenting and gender are strictly defined in relation to each other.