[Ansteorra] Questions about crowns and crown tournaments

[Miles Grey]

On 7/20/2012 12:45 AM, Patrick R wrote:
> Who would be hurt if someone with a same sex consort was allowed to compete?

We've already had one Don inform us that he would be.  I've always 
believed that those who are proposing a change should first at least 
show that the change will cause no harm before the change is accepted. 
Clearly, that's not the case for at least one who was actually willing 
to speak up.  Further, by using the word, "hurt," you dismiss anyone who 
objects but for whom the reasons for their objection do not rise to the 
level of "hurt."  Perhaps you have a low threshold for pain, so "hurt" 
seems appropriate, but for the many who have suffered great pain - 
physical or emotional - "hurt" is a very high threshold indeed.

Consider the physical parallel and the big difference between what it 
takes for a novice and a knight to say, "That hurt!"  The same damage 
was done, and for the knight it may well not have hurt, yet the blow was 
still good enough to eliminate him or her from the tournament. 
Similarly, while this proposed change might not "hurt" someone, it might 
be just the blow needed in these trying times to eliminate him or her 
from this game of ours.

> Other than Queen’s champion possibly being renamed for six months what other reason (besides historical) can anyone use to justify not opening the tournament to same sex couples?

Yes.  We *will* lose good people, and not just for six months.  But 
then, it's possible you don't consider them to be "good" people because 
their opinions differ from yours, so that might not matter to you.  But 
it *is* a valid answer to your question.

> I honestly want to learn why people believe what they believe.  I may never change their opinion and they may not change mine but an 
exchange of ideas can lead us to respect the opinions we do not agree with.

It *can* lead to respect, but it doesn't seem likely that it will. 
Things were getting a bit uncomfortable until I pointed out that many 
would not post their views because of the ridicule likely to ensue.  I 
do not say it's intentional, but the very questions you ask and the way 
you ask them indicate that, internally, you trivialize and dismiss the 
opinions that differ from yours on this topic.  "Who would be hurt . . . 
Other than Queen's champion possible being renamed for six months . . . 
"  These are not questions that attempt to show *respect* for views 
other than your own, nor to honestly *learn* why people believe what 
they believe; they seek to *dismiss* those views as invalid before 
they're even spoken.  That's *very* obvious to those who hold those 
views, which discourages them from expressing themselves.  Thus, by the 
very nature of your questions, you're helping *prevent* the exchange of 
ideas you claim to want.

I was made very aware of this in a private exchange, where I was 
informed that, because of my opinion on this issue, I should probably 
just leave the SCA.  You will never hear from many, perhaps most, 
opposing views on this issue for exactly that reason.  Why would anyone 
express an opinion here, when to express that opinion can lead to 
disapprobation?  I've expressed mine, and there are peers who have 
expressed a strongly opposing view.  What if I were seeking elevation to 
the Peerage?  Do you really expect me to believe that my views on this 
would not be held against me?  Or that voicing those opinions would not 
lead me to be excluded in other ways?  Even if the atmosphere had not 
already been somewhat hostile, how many people do you really think are 
willing to take that chance?

   Miles Grey