Hypocrite? Homophobe?

[trekkiedane]

The pictures are from a colouring book based on the writings of Josh Lanyon. Josh writes murder mysteries where the protagonists are gay men.

In the book that that picture is based on, the hero used that bear (which is a bookend) to successfully defend himself against a murderer.

I would like to read some of her writing, but I wouldn't know where to begin... could you perhaps recommend a place to get started? -Please.

 

[DimesDan]

Yes, both of those are examples of homophobia. I don't know if the first woman is a hypocrite or just evasive.

I also oppose marriage in principle (the whole history of human bondage thing bugs me, and one of my biggest pet peeves is women changing their names), but to outlaw it would be compromising people's rights, not protecting them. When I support marriage equality, it's the equality part I care about, not the marriage part.

Well if you found someone who would marry you, you yourself could change your surname or he or she could keep their surname. I did almost change my surname, but my wife has spent the entirety of her life spelling her surname out and mine is a lot simpler and she won out in that decision.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Seriously... there's not a thing wrong with either picture, and FB is staffed by idiots.

People don't understand the purpose of FB. It isn't FOR *us*. And it really isn't even to sell our eyeballs for marketing revenue, although if they can do that while serving their actual purpose, I'm sure they don't mind. Facebook is an intelligence gathering utility set up by DARPA (part of the CIA) and it continues to be run by them. (This isn't a crazy conspiracy theory - it's all public if someone is actually looking for the information.)

I believe this to be one reason that they don't do anything about some of the horrible organization pages on their site - like the pedophile groups that the BBC has been reporting on. They don't want to kick those people off and force them to go elsewhere - they want to monitor them, right where they are now.

So take heart, @Miss Chicken: If they catered to her complaint about your images at the risk of annoying you, it means that they care more about keeping her on FB than they do keeping you there. Or put another way, they think they have more of a need to WATCH her than they do you.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I would like to read some of her writing, but I wouldn't know where to begin... could you perhaps recommend a place to get started? -Please.

Her most acclaimed series is the Adrien English series. Adrien owns a bookstore that specialises in murder mysteries and Adrien has a knack of getting himself involves in real life murders.

I also like some of her stand alone novels especially

The Ghost Who Yellow Socks
Murder in Pastel
Stranger on the Shore

 

[trekkiedane]

Thank you, Miss Chicken.

I looked all over the reading thread before remembering where I'd only moments before read you writing about these

Started on that series. Well, I have plenty of open books at the moment, so if I don't get started tonight, it'll be as soon as I finish somethng else...

 

[Avro Arrow]

And from what I understand, in the province of Quebec it's actually frowned on for a woman to change her last name upon marriage.

My understanding is that it's not just "frowned upon"; it's actually illegal. As far as I understand it, Quebec provincial law forbids it.

 

[Timewalker]

My understanding is that it's not just "frowned upon"; it's actually illegal. As far as I understand it, Quebec provincial law forbids it.

And yet Sophie Gregoire took her husband's name at some point last year, before the election. I don't remember - were Justin and Sophie married in Quebec or Ontario? His riding, Papineau, is in Quebec.

Maybe it's easier to hyphenate it than completely change it?

Seems simpler here in this part of the country, where women can do whatever they want - keep their own name, take their husband's name, hyphenate them... I know of one couple that decided that both of them would hyphenate with the other's name.

 

[Avro Arrow]

And yet Sophie Gregoire took her husband's name at some point last year, before the election. I don't remember - were Justin and Sophie married in Quebec or Ontario? His riding, Papineau, is in Quebec.

Maybe it's easier to hyphenate it than completely change it?

I'm not really that familiar with Quebec law, but I did some Googling, and apparently there's been instances of her going by Grégoire-Trudeau as far back as 2007, when Justin first got into politics. It sounds like it just got used a lot more last year in the run-up to the election. From what I've read, the prevailing opinion is that it was a political move designed to play to English Canada. But she apparently took a fair bit of criticism for it in Quebec.

Apparently they were married in Montréal in 2005.

Seems simpler here in this part of the country, where women can do whatever they want - keep their own name, take their husband's name, hyphenate them... I know of one couple that decided that both of them would hyphenate with the other's name.

That's pretty much how it is here, too. I've seen all of those, including the "both hyphenating" option. I've even seen a husband just take his wife's name, without hyphenating, because he liked her's better than his own.

 

[Amaris]

I would have no problem taking my partner's name (whomever it might be).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

My understanding is that it's not just "frowned upon"; it's actually illegal. As far as I understand it, Quebec provincial law forbids it.

Any particular reason?

 

[Timewalker]

I'm not really that familiar with Quebec law, but I did some Googling, and apparently there's been instances of her going by Grégoire-Trudeau as far back as 2007, when Justin first got into politics. It sounds like it just got used a lot more last year in the run-up to the election. From what I've read, the prevailing opinion is that it was a political move designed to play to English Canada. But she apparently took a fair bit of criticism for it in Quebec.

Apparently they were married in Montréal in 2005.



That's pretty much how it is here, too. I've seen all of those, including the "both hyphenating" option. I've even seen a husband just take his wife's name, without hyphenating, because he liked her's better than his own.

Ah, okay. I hadn't realized she'd done it that long ago. But it makes sense, given that once Justin decided to go into politics, where else would he aim but for office of Prime Minister? And of course he would have remembered - even as a child - hearing what a fuss people made about Maureen McTeer's refusal to change her name to Maureen Clark. I heard a lot of tsking from people who figured that either Joe Clark was so awful that his own wife didn't love him enough to take his name, or that she just plain didn't respect men - even her own husband. Logically, it seems like a really stupid reason not to vote for someone, but that's how some voters think - "His own wife doesn't respect him enough to take his name, so there must be something wrong with him."

And this was in the late '70s. Women's equality is still, in some ways, being dragged kicking and screaming onto the Hill. I remember the segment of Patrick Watson's documentary series Struggle for Democracy, in which he interviewed women who insisted on women's rights being part of the Constitution, and how they were able to move around in Parliament to lobby MPs once they got inside. None of the men questioned their presence, as they figured that pretty much any woman there who wasn't an MP must be somebody's secretary, right?

 

[Avro Arrow]

Any particular reason?

Again, not an expert in Quebec provincial law, and I don't live there. But from what I've read, the law was brought into effect in 1981 in order to promote the principles of gender equality as set out in the 1975 Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

As FYI, here's the section regarding names on the Marriage page of the Justice Québec website:

Spouses' names

Both spouses keep their birth names after marriage and continue to exercise their civil rights under that name, i.e. they must use their birth name in contracts, on credit cards, on their driver’s licence, etc.

This rule applies to all spouses domiciled in Québec, even if they were married outside Québec.

However, women married before April 2, 1981 who were already using their husband’s surname before that date may continue to exercise their civil rights under their married name.

(Source)

Ah, okay. I hadn't realized she'd done it that long ago. But it makes sense, given that once Justin decided to go into politics, where else would he aim but for office of Prime Minister? And of course he would have remembered - even as a child - hearing what a fuss people made about Maureen McTeer's refusal to change her name to Maureen Clark. I heard a lot of tsking from people who figured that either Joe Clark was so awful that his own wife didn't love him enough to take his name, or that she just plain didn't respect men - even her own husband. Logically, it seems like a really stupid reason not to vote for someone, but that's how some voters think - "His own wife doesn't respect him enough to take his name, so there must be something wrong with him."

Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't surprise me much anymore to hear how some voters think.

And this was in the late '70s. Women's equality is still, in some ways, being dragged kicking and screaming onto the Hill. I remember the segment of Patrick Watson's documentary series Struggle for Democracy, in which he interviewed women who insisted on women's rights being part of the Constitution, and how they were able to move around in Parliament to lobby MPs once they got inside. None of the men questioned their presence, as they figured that pretty much any woman there who wasn't an MP must be somebody's secretary, right?

I don't think I've heard of that documentary before, but it sounds interesting. I'll have to take a look and see if I can find it online.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Well, women don't have to change their names anymore, at least not in this part of the world. And from what I understand, in the province of Quebec it's actually frowned on for a woman to change her last name upon marriage.

It happens more and more that women keep their real name, or hyphenate it, and we did have patients once where both spouses hyphenated their names, as you mentioned in a later post, but it's still considered the norm for women to give up their name. The origin of that custom is that women were once considered property, so I don't look upon it as a very benign custom.

Well if you found someone who would marry you, you yourself could change your surname or he or she could keep their surname. I did almost change my surname, but my wife has spent the entirety of her life spelling her surname out and mine is a lot simpler and she won out in that decision.

Well, I would not want to change my name and therefore would not expect my partner to. Also, I don't believe in marriage at all-- if I meet somebody and we want to live together, we'll live together.

My understanding is that it's not just "frowned upon"; it's actually illegal. As far as I understand it, Quebec provincial law forbids it.

Now that I cannot agree with. People should be able to legally change their name to pretty much whatever they want, for any reason.

 

[suarezguy]

It's a common yet unwieldy idea that you shouldn't take any stand unless you try to affect all related areas at the same time (i.e. don't boycott X if you're not also boycotting against GHIJMRS). Given current attitudes generally, I assume also in Australia, ending marriage is so impractical that actively campaigning to end it also is. But if the woman is against marriage she should urge people to avoid it rather than have the government deny it to people on a discriminatory basis.

As for the pictures the second is certainly pretty suggestive but neither is disturbing, let alone disturbing enough to be removed from Facebook which has a lot of diverse content.

I cannot understand why to oppose other people formalizing their relationships, having tax benefits etc.

A lot of political activism arises from thinking other people pay too low taxes and their taxes shouldn't or should be lowered.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

A thought about having personal beliefs... if you believe strongly that something should be against the law, why shouldn't you campaign to make it happen? I'm not saying people who do that are right all the time, but if we talk things out, we can more easily help others see a better way.
ETA: It might take a while, but it can work. There are undoubtedly religious groups that still do not perform marriages between different ethnic groups, but forcing it won't change minds and hearts. It is the generations that change things.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

A thought about having personal beliefs... if you believe strongly that something should be against the law, why shouldn't you campaign to make it happen?

Again though, that's another strawman argument, because who is taking away anyone's right to campaign or suggesting doing anything of the sort? I'm so tired of this conservative meme where they cry foul about imaginary infringements on their rights, while at the same time campaigning and passing legislation to take actual rights away from gays, women, minorities, and others. Being criticized for having bigoted stances does not magically translate into your rights being taken away, it is in fact just an example of using the same right to freedom of speech you have (general you).

It might take a while, but it can work. There are undoubtedly religious groups that still do not perform marriages between different ethnic groups, but forcing it won't change minds and hearts. It is the generations that change things.

Your own statement contradicts itself. If there are religious groups that still don't perform marriages between different ethnic groups, then they obviously aren't being forced to do anything, are they? And yet they still haven't changed their ways decades after laws banning such marriages have been struck down, so obviously the "wait and see" method was ineffective.

But all of this is a moot point anyway, since no one (in the US at least) is forcing churches to perform wedding ceremonies that they object to, because that is protected under the Constitution. The only thing you might be forced to do is not discriminate against gay couples if you want to operate a business, or to issue marriage licenses to gay couples if you're a government employee. That's not infringing on your rights because when you took those jobs it was conditional, and done with the understanding that you can't just pick and choose who you're going to serve, but that you have to make your services available to everyone.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

It wasn't intended to be a strawman, Locutus. Merely saying that letting them talk and then offering a different point of view is a good thing. I also pointed out that it is generations that change things. It subjectively wasn't all that long ago that "mixing of the races" was a pretty widespread thing. Laws changed, but people took their time in how they felt about it. My point is that it takes time before things take hold.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

That's nice and all, but some people would like to live their lives in peace now without having to wait fifty years for Ma and Pa Kettle to realize they were kinda being assholes about that whole gay marriage thing. It's not incumbent upon the world to wait for every last straggler to catch up with reality.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

But you can't force them to think the way you do, Locutus. You can change a law, but you're still going to have people that believe that gay marriage is morally unacceptable. The world doesn't have to wait, but it should recognize that it's not going to change them and saying they're "assholes" isn't going to change that. It's the way it is and we all move the way we must.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

But you can't force them to think the way you do, Locutus. You can change a law, but you're still going to have people that believe that gay marriage is morally unacceptable. The world doesn't have to wait, but it should recognize that it's not going to change them and saying they're "assholes" isn't going to change that. It's the way it is and we all move the way we must.

Your complete lack of paying attention to what is being said while continuing to repeat the same mantra and a bunch of insufferable Hallmark Card platitudes is incredibly frustrating. One more time for the people in the cheap seats:

The only ones forcing their beliefs on others are the ones who propose and vote for laws that restrict the rights of same sex couples to marry. Gays being married does not affect their own lives in the slightest.

So whining about how you can't force an old dog to learn new tricks is irrelevant, since no one is forcing them or is capable of forcing them to do a damn thing, since the Jedi Mind Trick is not something that actually exists, although weak-minded people being brainwashed by dogma, politicians, and right wing media sure do their best to convince us otherwise. But don't sit here and tell me how they also have to be treated with kid gloves while they're actively trying to disrupt basic human rights and dignity based on their personal bigotry.

There are a host of benefits that come along with official state recognition of your marriage here, as I'm sure there are in Australia. People who deny same sex couples those benefits and rights just because of their own petty hangups or religious beliefs are assholes, and I'm not going to pat them on the head and tell them it's OK to treat other people like second class citizens just so they can feel better about themselves.