Even though our names are a core part of our identity, as you say, it is also true that most people do not choose their own names, and whatever name is bestowed upon them becomes part of their identity.  The child who is prevented from being named 4real is not going to grow up feeling deprived of his true identity; he will be quite happy with whatever more conventional name he is given instead of 4real, and he will not suffer from any sense of identity crisis.

Perhaps I need to introduce a more concrete reason why we might have difficulties with a name that includes a numeral as well as letters of the alphabet.  How is such a name going to be alphabetized?  It's not impossible to do, however, most filing systems (whether in hard copy or digital) are designed on the assumption that all names consist only of letters of the alphabet, and do not include numerals.  And if numerals are accepted, how about other symbols?  Can we just invent our own ideograms, as was once famously done by Prince?  Such nomenclature is clearly going to cause problems in all sorts of systems which file or list people's names alphabetically.

As for your lack of appreciation for the value of same-sex marriage, I hesitate to launch into a full explanation.  I happen to know that you have already received the full explanation, in a previous discussion on plastic, and apparently you are not moved.  Perhaps you are one of those people who believe that homosexuals should just get with the program and become heterosexual, to make you happy (and to comply with the commands of an imaginary deity).  The fact that sexual orientation is innate and not something that people choose, apparently doesn't concern you.  

Our world in the 21st century does have more pressing problems than that of gay rights. which is itself a vastly more pressing problem than that of parents who would like to give their children names that are not composed solely of letters of the alphabet.  Terrorism, environmental pollution, global warming, nuclear proliferation, overpopulation, and the various economic and political problems that all of these things create, constitute a grave threat to the continued survival of human civilization and quite possibly of the human race itself.  When the collapse comes, gay rights will not be a crucial issue.  Still, as long as human civilization still exists, we can legitimately aspire to be more civilized and to be more broadly inclusive and less bigoted.  Intolerance of homosexuality makes the world worse.

And really, what do you care how other people have sex?  It isn't really any of your business anyway.  You have the kind of sex you like, I'll have the kind I like, and we'll both be happy.  And similarly, we should each have the opportunity to marry whom we wish.  As long as our names fit into an alphabetical list.  It's not too much to ask.

How is such a name going to be alphabetized?

By whom and for what purpose?

It's not impossible to do, however, most filing systems (whether in hard copy or digital) are designed on the assumption that all names consist only of letters of the alphabet, and do not include numerals.

Fair enough, but also most filing systems are designed on the assumption that all names have a specific character length. Are you proposing a similar limitation on name length as you would for names based in the latin character set?

And if numerals are accepted, how about other symbols?  Can we just invent our own ideograms, as was once famously done by Prince?

Again accepted by whom and for what purpose. Clearly given the example of Prince the answer is that it is perfectly possibly to do just that.

You are starting from an inherent assumption (going back to the subject of my comment) that a persons name must fit in with what is usual to a society. I say bollocks to that and that a person's name can be anything he wants to be called as long as he can get his circle of contacts to agree on that nomenclature. Approval from the government/larger society has nothing to do with it. Whether the government/society can grok it/support it has nothing to do with it.

And really, what do you care how other people have sex?  It isn't really any of your business anyway.  You have the kind of sex you like, I'll have the kind I like, and we'll both be happy.

Absolutely. I completely agree with the above. I don't care one whit how other people have consensual sex -- in fact my views on this matter are quite farther than most 'progressives' subscribe to.

  And similarly, we should each have the opportunity to marry whom we wish.  As long as our names fit into an alphabetical list.  It's not too much to ask.

And the above has nothing to do with the prior issue -- by all means have sex with whoever you like - thats an issue between a person and their partner(s). However when it comes to who has the opportunity to marry, that is an issue which is defined by society because its an issue seeking societal approval. No one (random police home invasion cases aside) is preventing gay/straight/bi/tri/whatever people from boffing each other -- however when such couples/groups come to the state and ask to be acknowledged as being married, the state has the right to say no. Marriage is a social contract with people coming to the state for sanction.

As to why I remain unpersuaded on gay marriage - you are right I've heard the arguments before on plastic. If you want to understand my perspective, this essay covers it nicely.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

There are innumerable situations in which people's names are placed in alphabetical order.  Every organization that has to deal with a large number of people, which includes government agencies (taxation, police, immigration, social security, etc.) as well as hospitals, schools, insurance companies, banks, and large businesses of whatever type, all depend upon alphabetical filing systems to keep track of people (some files are also numerical, i.e., you can create a file based on social security numbers, however, you will still need the alphabetical file of people's names).  Libraries have alphabetical lists of authors.  Philanthropic organizations have alphabetical lists of donors.  And there are endless other examples.

Excessively long names would not really be an obstacle to alphabetization since they can be abbreviated.  If the system is designed to accept up to (let us say) 16 characters, then anything beyond that is just omitted.  Of course, if someone had a 500 letter name, that would create other problems - people would get impatient with it.  We only have so much time that we want to spend uttering or writing people's names, to say nothing of the difficulty of remembering such a lengthy name.

I actually do not think that a person's name is required to fit within the usual social expectations, and I have no objections to unusual names such as Dweezil Zappa, more power to him.  However, there are still limits to the range of unusual names, because names are an important part of human interactions and they must be convenient to use, otherwise there will be problems such as the one I mentioned, with alphabetization.

Prince could get away with his personal ideogram, but even he gave it up eventually and reverted to his previous name, and he said at the time that it was a great relief to do so, which I think is a clue as to the impracticality of such a naming strategy.  And for someone who was not a wealthy celebrity, the difficulties would be even greater.  Prince's high social status gives him options that not everyone has.

The whole gay marriage issue is really extraneous to the official topic of discussion, which is the proposed name 4real and naming parameters in general, but I do find it odd that you claim to be so completely tolerant of homosexuality, yet you also wish to withhold from gay couples the approval of society and the various legal privileges which accompany marriage.  If homosexual sex is as acceptable as heterosexual sex, and if gay people are capable of loving each other just as straight people are, and if gay people are human beings who inherently have the same human rights as straight people, and if gay people can also have children and can provide those children with the same family support structure as straight couples, and if the institution of marriage can serve as a protection against promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease which is equally dangerous for gay or straight people, then I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever why marriage should be denied to same-sex couples who wish to marry.

Alternatively, if the institution of marriage has outlived its usefulness then it should be discontinued for both gay and straight couples.  Marriages fail so frequently (even if they don't end in divorce, they may become unhappy arrangements in which people find themselves trapped) as to suggest that something is fundamentally wrong with the whole idea.  Nonetheless, as long as straight people have the right to marry, then same-sex couples deserve the same right.  Many people shouldn't marry, but that's not the same thing as denying them the right to do so.

 Libraries have alphabetical lists of authors.  Philanthropic organizations have alphabetical lists of donors.  And there are endless other examples.

You are using a very limited (western) view of what it is reasonable for pre-existing infrastructure to support. People's identities are not things designed to be fit inside databases, rather databases are designed to store information about people. If the database is not able to accommodate someone's name, this is a failing of the database not of the person's name.

However, there are still limits to the range of unusual names, because names are an important part of human interactions and they must be convenient to use, otherwise there will be problems such as the one I mentioned, with alphabetization.

Your identified 'problem' with named that are not alphabetized would eliminated many mandarin based names (just as an example). With respect, I don't think you've thought the problem through carefully.

I do find it odd that you claim to be so completely tolerant of homosexuality, yet you also wish to withhold from gay couples the approval of society and the various legal privileges which accompany marriage.

I speak for myself, and very rarely are my values aligned with that of american society. On the issue of marriage I believe that society gets to decide, and I see clearly enough that american society based on its structure, its values and its practices is mostly opposed to gay marriage . This insight is readily available to anyone who attempts to be objective

Alternatively, if the institution of marriage has outlived its usefulness then it should be discontinued for both gay and straight couples.  

An interesting if impractical idea. It seems you are advocating equality at any cost -- something which scares me.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

There is a certain amount of give-and-take in all things, and a certain amount of compromise to make social structures work.  Yes, alphabetical lists should be designed to accept the names that people have, rather than requiring people (in general) to pick names that will more easily fit into alphabetical lists.  However, SOME standard is reasonable in choosing a name, so that it will serve the functions that names are intended to serve.  Social institutions and structures should serve the needs of individuals, but individuals also have to make some effort to fit into the social structures by which they wish to be served.

Your point about Mandarin Chinese is irrelevant because we are talking about a proposed English name, 4real.  Chinese immigrants to English speaking nations use the English alphabet to spell transliterated versions of their original Chinese names, and thus, they too can fit into alphabetical lists.  As for the method by which lists of names are organized in Chinese speaking countries, that is beyond the scope of this discussion.  But no doubt some methodology exists, and people who choose names that do not fit into that methodology would also run into trouble.

You claim to have insight into the fact that the American public in general is hostile to the idea of same-sex marriage.  Wow, what a magnificent insight!  You have the power to see the obvious, congratulations.  And then you argue that since the American public gets to decide, therefore same-sex marriage cannot be.  Of course, the same arguments were used against the abolition of slavery, woman's suffrage, racial integration, and any other form of social progress that requires people to overcome their existing prejudices.  On the other hand, maybe the American public is wrong in their hostility to homosexuals, and we therefore should work toward a more tolerant society in which same-sex marriage would be considered perfectly acceptable (as it is in 4 other countries to date).  Maybe justice is better than injustice, even when the majority of the American public has chosen to support injustice.  That's my insight.

And yes, equality is better than inequality, and I do believe that marriage should be allowed for everyone or for no one.  I wouldn't call that "equality at any cost" as you do.  I haven't, for example, suggested that if same-sex marriage is not accepted then every person in the US should be killed.  That would be too high a cost.  Killing just the Republicans would, however, be very tempting.  

 However, SOME standard is reasonable in choosing a name, so that it will serve the functions that names are intended to serve. Social institutions and structures should serve the needs of individuals, but individuals also have to make some effort to fit into the social structures by which they wish to be served.

Indeed -- and that standard is that the name should be pronouncable by humans. Using this as the standard criteria, all the functions necessary for names become possible.

Your point about Mandarin Chinese is irrelevant because we are talking about a proposed English name, 4real.

To my knowledge 4real is not an english name in the exact same way that Jacque is not an english name. If you meant to say that we are talking about names expressed using the english alphabet, then you run into the same exact issue with Nordic names -- what is your solution to people who to name their child something as simple and inoffensive as Zoé ?

 And then you argue that since the American public gets to decide, therefore same-sex marriage cannot be.

I believe you are misrepresenting what I have said. To reiterate - marriage is a social contract in which the people involved come to society for sanction of the relationship. As such - as in the nature of all contracts - each party has the power to decline -- the people presenting themselves need not do so, and the society doing the sanctioning need not agree.

If the society does not agree AND sanctioning of the relationship by fiat is attempted, I believe more harm than good will result. The history of gay marriage advocacy (to date) has occurred via attempts to seek legislative redresss on both sides. This I oppose. Hearts and minds must be won before new laws (which overturn cultural practices) can be passed to bind people.

Of course, the same arguments were used against the abolition of slavery, woman's suffrage, racial integration, and any other form of social progress that requires people to overcome their existing prejudices.

If you are insistent in the belief that all people who oppose or are skeptical of gay marriage must be prejudiced against gays, its likely I won't be able to change your mind. That said I don't think it is wise to compare gay marriage to the struggle to abolish slavery or achieve racial integration. The ancillary effects of those movements bolsters the points I'm making and not yours.

On the other hand, maybe the American public is wrong in their hostility to homosexuals, and we therefore should work toward a more tolerant society in which same-sex marriage would be considered perfectly acceptable (as it is in 4 other countries to date).  Maybe justice is better than injustice, even when the majority of the American public has chosen to support injustice.  That's my insight

Justice is not the sole-factor or even the most important factor on this issue. Social integrity, cultural beliefs and traditions as well as institutional dependencies all have a stake as well. I've tried to illustrate in my posts and links upthread that there are often hidden costs (especially at the margins) whenever the state extends existing social benefits to previously disenfranchised groups. You have completely failed to address these points.

Why?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

It is very easy to simply omit accents from words that are derived from non-English languages, when you are using a system that is not designed for those accents; in addition, the accent is irrelevant to the process of alphabetization.

I agree that names should be pronouncable by humans, although there are other useful features that names should have, such as being composed of letters of the  alphabet so that they can be written and alphabetized when necessary.  Interestingly, when Prince adopted an ideogram as a name, he did not know how that name could be pronounced, but invited people to send in their suggestions.  No one ever did pronounce that name, so he wound up being awkwardly known as "the artist formerly known as Prince" in the absence of any pronouncable name.  So his ideogram did not even meet your own minimum standard, much less my own more stringent standard.

The injustices that have been and continue to be inflicted upon homosexuals are quite serious, even though you show little concern for them.  Violence against gays , or "gay bashing" as it is frequently called, is quite common, and not only is it often permitted by police forces, it is even committed by police forces in many cases.  Pervasive and deeply institutionalized anti-gay prejudice makes life very difficult for many homosexuals and results in a very high suicide rate for young homosexuals.  Innocent lives are being lost.  This is very serious.  That's why I do compare the issue of gay rights to other issues of human rights which have been historically important, such as slavery or women's suffrage.  

Of course, you are not arguing in favor of gay bashing, you are merely arguing against same-sex marriage.  However, any attempt to deny equal rights to homosexuals will be taken as confirmation that homosexuals are not really human beings and do not have human rights, and thus can be attacked at will.  That is the message that is being sent.  Thus, same-sex marriage (or the denial thereof) has vast consequences entirely beyond the issue of the benefits that some gay couples wish to obtain by way of marriage.

As for the hidden costs of extending social benefits to previously disenfranchised groups, we must be prepared to pay them, because it is simply not acceptable to disenfranchise gays.  Homophobia also has hidden costs, you know, just as any form of prejudice does.  If we do not allow some group of people to fully participate in society as equal citizens, we lose much (or all) of the valuable contributions that they could have made.  How many gay men who were murdered or driven to suicide would otherwise have made valuable contributions to society?  We will never know.  Those are the hidden costs that concern me.

And frankly, the cost of same-sex marriage is minimal.  We can easily see how it is working out in Canada, just across the border from the US, and amazingly enough, it is not causing any problems (although heated debate rages on in the Anglican Church).  

And frankly, the cost of same-sex marriage is minimal.  We can easily see how it is working out in Canada, just across the border from the US, and amazingly enough, it is not causing any problems (although heated debate rages on in the Anglican Church).  

If you want to use Canada as your example, you really should consider whether it supports your case more than it does mine. Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005. However back in 1999 roughly 50% of the population was in favor of allowing same-sex marriages. By 2001, 81% of those in the 18-31 age bracket was in favor. In 2004 54% of the entire population was in favor.

See my point? The culture changed and THEN the law changed. Noone put the horse before the cart in Canada. It is disingenuous for you to then point to Canada and say "hey they aren't have much problems" because frankly they are not the same culture as the USA and as such have a different perspective on the issue.

Would you try to enforce two person hetero-marriage on African states using the same logic?

 Violence against gays , or "gay bashing" as it is frequently called, is quite common, and not only is it often permitted by police forces, it is even committed by police forces in many cases.

This is simply untrue. Certainly violence against anyone for their sexual orientation (or really for any sort of prejudice) is tragic. However it is a myth that gay bashing is 'common' . Gay bashing consistently accounts for less than 20% of all hate crimes. If gay bashing is common then getting beaten  and killed for being black is postively rife in society. Do you think there is an epidemic of black people getting beaten up and killed throughout the USA for being black?

In 2003 there were 9100 victims of hate crime according to FBI records with half of them being incidents of intimidation. Given a 20% ratio that makes out to near 2000 gay people being subject to some form of gay bashing ranging from nasty words to murder. In a population of 300m this by no means can be considered 'common' -- even if you make the argument that the statistics are undermeasuring the data.  Its simply not happening.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

I don't know if you have ever been to Canada (I certainly have) but there are probably no two countries on Earth that resemble each other more closely than Canada and the US do.  Canada has absorbed so much US culture, which flows effortlessly and continually across the border, as to become the equivalent of an American state in most respects.  If you didn't check to see that there is a portrait of Queen Elizabeth on the currency, you would have trouble even noticing that you were not in the US.  (Except in Quebec where the predominance of the French language would give it away.)  So your argument that the success and public acceptance of same-sex marriage in Canada says nothing about the prospects for same-sex marriage in the utterly different culture of the US is quite bizarre.  

I am, since you asked, not trying to enforce anything on African states, although I would certainly APPROVE if African states (or any other states) were to adopt a more enlightened view of marriage and of gay people.  The problems of Africa are different and much more dire than those we currently face in North America.  Civil wars, starvation, and uncontrolled epidemics of disease tend to distract from issues of gay rights.  Nonetheless, homophobia is certainly a problem in Africa as it is pretty much throughout the world.

By citing opinion polls you conclude that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada was driven by public opinion and not by legislation, but that is also not the case.  Same-sex marriage was originally permitted by judicial rulings which found  that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (added to the Canadian constitution in 1980) is applicable to the issue of gay rights and requires that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marry whom they wish to marry.  Eventually, the Canadian government decided that these judicial rulings were well founded, and that it would make for a more coherent and reasonable legal system if the laws were adjusted to be consistent with the judicial rulings.  And the general public was largely capable of understanding the logic of both the judicial rulings and the subsequent legislation.  

Public opinion also changed over time because same-sex marriages were actually happening, and people could observe that these marriages did not corrode the social fabric of the nation or destroy the legitimacy of the more traditional, opposite-sex marriages, and so there was no reason to object to them.  The fears of religious fundamentalist nut-cases proved to be unfounded.  And that's why public opinion changed.

Your lack of concern about homophobic incidents given that they account for only 20% of hate crimes, is extremely callous.  Apparently you find that the number of gays being murdered and the number who suffer from various other, less terminal forms of discrimination, is acceptable to you.  It's not acceptable to me.  And although there has been progress in overcoming the general public antipathy toward homosexuals, it is still true that the most commonly used insult among children and other socially unsophisticated people is "faggot".  People using such an insult implicitly assume, and constantly convey their belief that homosexuality is a terrible and disgusting thing.  There is something deeply wrong in a society in which such attitudes persist.  

The legalization of same-sex marriage is necessary, just as it was necessary, 45 years (or so) previously, to end the practice of "whites only" restaurants and racially segregated bathrooms (etc.).  It's not that African Americans would starve to death if they were not admitted to certain restaurants; there were, after all, other restaurants which did admit black people, and grocery stores where food could be purchased even if you couldn't get into a restaurant.  However, the practice of racial segregation reinforced the belief that there was something wrong with people of African ancestry, that made them unfit to associate with people of European ancestry, and that belief had to be fought.

I'm not sure how high the level of anti-gay hate crimes would have to be in order for you to become concerned about it, but any level above zero is too high for me.  Personally I think that at 20% of hate crimes, the level of homophobia is quite high.  Legalizing same-sex marriage would be an obvious first step in demonstrating that in the view of the government, homosexuals are also human beings and deserve to have the same human rights as anyone else.  It's the right thing to do.

I know it's OT, but I have to know why you don't think gay marriage ought to be allowed? I don't think it's "a basic human right" any more than I think hetero marriage is "a basic human right". I just think that if there are going to be financial incentives for something, then its discriminatory to exclude any particular group.

I'm fine with either (a) marriage is any group of people who want to be legally bound together forever (whatever that even means) or (b) no legal definition of marriage at all. I prefer (b) really, though. If we're going to have a legal definition of marriage it cannot be based upon some whacko religious idea that only men and women are allowed to get married, it must be inclusive.

If you believe that people get married to represent their love for each other and to start families, there's no reason gays should not be able to wed.