[Ansteorra] Same-Gender Consort Proposal

[Tim McDaniel]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85 at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Tim McDaniel" <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:
> > "I am reminded of the argument that prohibitions on same-sex
> > marriage is not in the slightest bit discriminatory, because it
> > doesn't bar any homosexual from getting married."
>
> I would posit that you are reminded such because you are looking to
> be outraged and offended to justify and fuel tour position. ...
>
> My point is that I see many people saying things -- inflamitory
> things like your statement -- which ate just not true and try to
> weasle the argument into a broader scope than it really has.

I do not remember writing anything inflammatory -- I do not think that
my writing above, or my writing "strongly oppose" or "strong opinion",
are inflammatory.  In fact, I think I have been far into the stuffy,
pedantic, and scholarly zone in my writing on this topic.

As for my statement above, people can decide whether my statement

> > "I am reminded of the argument that prohibitions on same-sex
> > marriage is not in the slightest bit discriminatory, because it
> > doesn't bar any homosexual from getting married."

is analogous to your message that I was replying to (a copy is at
http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/ansteorra-ansteorra.org/2012-July/079228.html )

> Wait a moment! How do we *not *allow them to fight for crown? Do we
> also not allow those who are not in romantic relationships to fight
> in crown or become monarchs?
>
> How is saying: "our tradition holds that ruling monarchs need to be
> king/queen" discriminatory? Certainly it favors those who are in
> heteronormative romantic relationships, however I am sure that there
> are any number of competitors who are not: those who are gay, those
> who aren't romantically inclined to anyone at the time, those who's
> significant others don't/can't play...
>
> Certainly it is *nice* to be able to fight for "the one who
> inspires" you; however such a luxury is not available to everyone;
> and I doubt that most period nobles (much less, monarchs) had the
> luxury of representing "their inspiration".

Danielis de Lindo
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com