gaudior: (utena/anthy)
Please answer "yes" only if this is a genuine preference-- you like it better than any of the options offered in the previous poll.

[Poll #1453077]
gaudior: (utena/anthy)
I was talking to a (moderate, politics-wise) friend this evening about gay marriage. He advanced the idea that everyone, straight and gay, should have civil unions, which include all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, but don't use the word. Instead, the word "marriage" should be reserved for religious institutions, which can then decide for themselves whether they will perform same-sex marriages.

This is not a new idea. This is, in fact, an idea which I myself advanced early in the debate, and someone told me, "No, that's a bad idea-- no-one will vote for it."

But it just keeps coming up. I've heard the idea proposed half-a-dozen times over the last few years, always by relatively moderate people, all of whom seem to think that they've come up with it on their own.

And I do know a number of arguments as to why people want to insist on actual legalized gay marriage (not the least of which is that it seems entirely likely to happen, and soon)(and all the difficulties involved in things like, say, Catholic hospitals not wanting to allow unionized queer couples visitation and adoption on their premises). But I find myself curious about the numbers.

So, o my (admittedly biased) sample:

[Poll #1452891]

And this raises the question-- if it turned out that a majority did favor this plan, should same-sex marriage advocates change tactics? Or not?



(Upon request, I have added the following questions, for people who like the status quo in New Jersey, here. That's, civil unions for queers, legal marriages for straight people. Unfortunately, lj will not allow me to revise a poll, or add another poll to a pre-existing entry-- otherwise, I would edit this into the original.)

ETA: Okay, so, on further reflection, I clearly did not think this entry through very thoroughly at all. It is, as many people have pointed out, a bad poll, poorly worded, and unlikely to get results which are in any way representative of the general population. If I were being a real social scientist, this would have been my test-run, in which I found out all the things wrong with the poll before revising it, running it by another test pool, and then taking it to a large, anonymous, randomized sample, preferably with multiple methods of reaching participants of a good range of demographics.

Which was clearly not my intent. Honestly, I just wanted an ideas-check-- "Hey, I've heard this idea from a bunch of people, but I don't see any moves towards it-- howcome? Is it a bad idea, and if so, why, so that the next half-dozen times someone proposes it to me, I'll have ideas about what to say?" Or it might have been possible that it was a good idea, which for some reason no-one had proposed, in which case, I might have wanted to take more action. But I didn't have a real agenda besides finding out what people thought, and looking for more ideas.

So, my apologies for taking so long to respond to people's interesting and insightful comments-- I was somewhat overwhelmed by just how many responses I got! But. Onwards.

gaudior: (Default)
Now Rowling is being lauded by some ‘mos for her bravery—a gay character in Harry Potter! Who knew?! No one, of course, because Rowling didn’t see fit to mention Dumbledore’s sexuality in any of the seven HP books. Why not? Well, I guess Rowling couldn’t fit it in, seeing as she was working under such a strict word limits. Ahem.

And I rather agree. I mean, I can see how Harry really wasn't interested in Dumbledore's sexual orientation, and since he's the viewpoint character, even if Rowling had thought of Dumbledore as gay, Harry wouldn't care, and we wouldn't know. So, sure, fine, don't mention it. On the other hand, it's true that if Rowling had wanted to make a political statement that Queer People Are Okay, she needed to put it in the book.

What she did is, in my opinion, fanfic. I'm all in favor of fanfic. I'm willing to chalk this one up to that, and not think of it as much more significant than that. It's fan candy, really-- not substantial, but fun.

Maybe in her next book (which she says will not be fantasy, which I think is a good decision), she'll have queer characters. Maybe not. We'll have to see.

I am loving some of the icons lately, though. Grin.

Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 02:08 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios