Lesbos, Lesbians, Linguistics and Litigation
For those who did not know, Lesbos are not lesbians.
In a world where people are dying from war, hunger, natural disasters, and pestilence, there are actually people with enough free time and money to file lawsuits involving disputes that trace their origins back to the 7th Century before the common era. Yes, after 2700 years, the lawyers have finally gone too far.
It is one thing when a lady spills hot coffee on herself that she placed between her legs while driving, and then sues McDonalds. It is one thing when a man sues a dry cleaners place for 50 million dollars over one pair of pants. It is one thing when a student gets drunk, breaks into a university gymnasium, jumps on a trampoline, lands awkwardly, becomes a paraplegic, and sues the university.
Although it was completely fictional, it was one thing when a comic strip portrayed a paparazzi taking pictures of Sean Penn. Sean Penn punches the paparazzi, who sues the Minolta Camera Company for 10 million dollars.
It is one thing when the World Wildlife Fund sues the Worldwide Wrestling Federation over the initials WWF. Environmental conservationists have nothing to do with awkwardly dressed pugilists. Unless Jesse “The Body” Ventura killed the bird that was used to put the feather boa in his hair, there should be no conflict of interest between these groups. The wrestlers went from WWF to WWE. There is no news yet on how the World Wide Florists feel about this matter.
Nevertheless, the line of litigaton lunacy has finally been crossed. For the sake of alliteration, legal sanity has been leapfrogged.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/30/greece.lesbos.ap/
For those too lazy to click on the link, much less read it, a brief synopsis is in order.
“ATHENS, Greece (AP) — A Greek court has been asked to draw the line between gay women and the natives of the Aegean Sea island of Lesbos.
Three islanders from Lesbos — home of the ancient poet Sappho, who praised love between women — have taken a gay rights group to court for using the word lesbian in its name.”
Yes folks, I am fighting the urge to wipe away hysterical tears of laughter over this one.
I have to side with the lesbians on this one. Not the Lesbians, aka the people of Lesbos, but the lesbians, aka homosexual women.
We could start calling them dykes, but that might be an insult to those that build dams. Also, when water starts to burst, an expression often used is “putting your finger in the dyke” to stop the flow. Therefore, that is a non-starter. Also, dams is short for damsels in distress. No, not really. However, one type of dam is the beaver dam. We could call women beaver dams, but that would be opening up a world of linguistic pain. Then these women might sue the “Beaver Mustard” company for reasons I do not want to even think about. Too late.
The plaintiffs had this to say.
“One of the plaintiffs said Wednesday that the name of the association, Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece, ‘insults the identity’ of the people of Lesbos, who are also known as Lesbians.”
Anyway, the lesbians responded to the Lesbians.
“‘My sister can’t say she is a Lesbian,’ said Dimitris Lambrou. ‘Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos,’ he said.”
The bottom line is that the Lesbians are concerned that because lesbians are gay, everybody will think that Lesbians are also gay.
As for the lesbians, sometimes referred to as lesbian spear chuckers, while I happen to agree that this lawsuit is ridiculous, they cannot understand why anybody would object to being associated with them.
“‘I don’t see how the word can be an insult,’ Evangelia Vlami said.”
Let me explain this to the gay community, as somebody who supports them on some issues. Not everybody is gay. Despite the fact that gay is the new black, and that everybody and anybody on television is gay, there are people in society who are not gay. Despite the fact that every third episode of “Law and Order” involves some character being gay, straight people still exist in this world. Gay people are 10% (they can argue 30%, it does not change my point). That is why they are an “alternative” lifestyle. Straight people are the other 90%. They are “mainstream.”
This is not an insult or a pejorative of any kind. Alternative music by definition is music that is alternative to what is considered “popular” music or “mainstream” music. It has a smaller following, but that does not mean it is of a lower quality (For the sake of ethics, I detest alternative music, and think it is for teenage girls with nose rings and blue hair).
People that are “different” like to use words such as “special,” to make themselves feel better. When everybody is special, nobody is special. Handicapped people are not “handicapable.” They are handicapped. They have some limitations. The shame is not the handicap. The shame is the euphemism in covering it up.
So yes, if somebody were to imply that I was homosexual, I would think they were an idiot, and be offended. When a man whines, he is often told to “stop acting like a woman.” This is not to denigrate an entire gender. Women are more emotional. This is biologically factual.
So while the lawsuit is ridiculous, for gay people to deliberately fail to understand why straight people would not want to be labeled as gay is also ridiculous. Ask any gay person if they would choose to be gay if given the choice at birth (I personally believe people are born gay. They cannot be ‘made’ straight.), and they would say that they would opt for being straight.
The bottom line is that being gay should not be condemned nor should it be celebrated. The point is to get to a point in society where it is simply irrelevant. Some people prefer strawberry pancakes, others prefer blueberry. Neither of those choices mandate angst or balloons.
The Lesbians offered more concerns about female homosexuals, but not the lifestyle itself.
“‘This is not an aggressive act against gay women,’ Lambrou said. ‘Let them visit Lesbos and get married and whatever they like. We just want (the group) to remove the word lesbian from their title.’”
The lesbians pointed out that the people from the island of Lesbos do not have to call themselves Lesbians. They can call themselves “people from the island of Lesbos.”
In all fairness, that does take longer to say. More importantly, others can argue who came first, Lesbians or lesbians.
What makes things even more complex is that another name for lesbians that is not considered a pejorative is to refer to them as “daughters of Sappho.” A daughter of Sappho is a legitimiate term for a female homosexual. Sappho was a poet whose poetry express love for other women. However, Sappho lived on this island of Lesbos! She is from there!
Folks, stupidity is as old as the hills. It will be with us forever. It is how people from the nation of Turkey could organize a boycott against the Dole Pineapple Company in 1996 over anger at comments made by then Presidential candidate Bob Dole. A panicked executive for the company issued an immediate press release stating that their company was apolitical. They did not prefer republicans or democrats. They just wanted people of all stripes worldwide to enjoy delicious tasting pineapples and other fruit.
Speaking of the people of Turkey, labels do matter. It is one reason why they calls themselves Turks, as opposed to Turkeys. The turkey is not considered an intelligent creature.
When all is said and done, short of following Shakespeare’s advice and killing all the lawyers, people need to lighten up. No, that is not a reference to everybody becoming caucasian. Black people can retain their dark pigmentation and still chill out.
There are 250,000 people living on the island of Lesbos. Most of them, in keeping with statistics worldwide, are heterosexual. If they were to come to America and say they were Lesbians, we might giggle at first, but all they would have to say is “from the Island of Lesbos.”
With the exception of the many 14 year old boys that cannot handle such terminology without bursting into laughter, most people would be find with it.
After all, there is a town in Florida called Jupiter. Nobody thinks these people are from a different planet. They are citizens of Earth, and America.
I wonder if there is life on other planets. If so, I hope those other planets do not have lawyers. We might get somebody from Jupiter suing the town in Florida. People from Saturn will be suing the car company of the same name. People from Venus and Mars will be suing the author of the book, “Women are from Venus, men are from Mars.”
Normally I would say that the lesbians need to shut up and be quiet, but in this case, it is the Lesbians that need to take the equivalent of a time out.
As for the island of Lesbos, unless somebody can bring me back evidence that the island is filled with women making out all day while wearing mermaid type outfits, this issue should be put to bed, heterosexual Lesbian style.
If these female romps are occuring, then the Lesbians are liars, and are self hating. Then the only issue would be if they were attractive enough to be worth videotaping for a Girls Gone Wild video.
Ugly people can speak romance languages, and straight people can be Lesbians.
It all does work out in the long run, as long as one accepts that God (nature for atheists) exists, and has one fabulous sense of humor.
If only Lesbians and lesbians appreciated the joke.
Now it is time for dinner. Linguistics with clam sauce…my favorite.
eric
May 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Man, I love linguini and clam sauce. Now I’m hungry. Thanks a lot!
Anyways… I’m surprised I didn’t here read anything about the CSC decision on gay marraige - though it may have been a clever segway… hmmm…
I did a quick study of the California constitution and can’t honestly find any legal basis for disagreement with the court. The fact is - they made the constitutional decision. O’Reilly et al are all over this, calling them activists and such, but if you read the CC, the only possible decision is clear. The writers of these documents just hadn’t predicted this possibility, and therefore it is constitutional. That’s the beauty of constitutions - if it ain’t in there it’s legal, baby! LOL!
Unfortunately, many American “citizens” seem to believe that the constitution somehow addresses every possible contingency in the universe, by selectively deciding whether something is legal because it’s not in it, or illegal for the same reason. Quite hypocritical. No wonder regular conservatives can’t see through the selective “standing” arguments of the Roberts court.
I wonder if they’ll change the California constitution in November. That would be just plain mean.
JMJ
May 18th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Yea, the only problem is that 65% of Californians voted against gay marriage only to be circumvented by 3 of activist judges.
Its apparently clear this wont last because if the same majority is intact next time Californians vote( which is more than likely) it will be to amend their constitution and gays will be right back where they started.
Mean or not, the “PEOPLE” are who needs to be heard.
The other problem is that California already had one of the most liberal cicvil union laws in place , gauranteeing gays almost all the rights and priveledges of hetero married couples.
These schmucks now want to be “married ” in churchs as if God has made an exception to the “abomination”
May 18th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
So then you’re a Democrat, right Micky?
JMJ
May 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Hey,
Very little of that is my personal feelings.
I’m just dealing with the facts here.
I dont see how a majority vote or being in favor of it makes me a democrat.
You like to work for a living ?
Does that make you a republican ?
May 18th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I dont think they even deserve civil unions.
They dont make people and they dont propell the human race.
They cant make babies.
If they want to enter into business relationship, fine.
I dont think they are entitle to the benefits afforded to people who actually raise families and populate the earth, unless they adopt.
And on that subject there is no doubt in my mind that a child is best served by a male and female role model in its upbringing.
Not that gays couldnt do a good job, but two parents of the opposite sex is no doubt the objective behind creation be it scientific or Gods will.
Also, these kind of interpretations leave the door open to other nut jobs who will claim the same “special” status and probably apply for multiple marriages, to marry their family members, or their horse ( step ladder included)
May 18th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Although I tried to read the entire article I could not stay with it…somehow it did not perk my interest as some of your previous posts have…I wasn’t sure of where it was going so I went back to the beginning and snipped the first thing that caught my eye…”before the common era”…
‘nough said…I still prefer BC…’nough said!
May 18th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Personally, I could care less about the issue of gay marriage, I don’t even remember if I voted on that proposition much less how I voted on it. I think you could make a legitimate case on either side of the issue but I am fine with or without it.
However, the California Supreme Court ruling was ludicrous. The California Constitution does not even recognize homosexuals among the groups it prevents discrimination against. If we as a state want to legalize gay marriage the legislature can vote in favor of it or the people can through a proposition. The legislature managed to pass domestic partnerships. If they passed gay marriage most would likely be re-elected as there are other issues on the minds of most Californians. Of course when it went to a vote of the people it lost overwhelmingly. It is not appropriate for the court to make this decision.
What will be interesting is that in California the Supreme Court Judges do get confirmed periodically. Although usually those are rubber stamps Rose Bird and several members of that court were tossed out over the death penalty 25 years ago. I wonder if this will be come a big issue when they are up for confirmation next time (not sure when that is).
May 18th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
The two things that bug me the most about the whole thing is that that gays are not crippled, they are not handicapped.
Whats stopping them from living the life they seek ? California gays already have one of the most liberal same sex union laws to take advantage of.
So why the special treatment ? And where and with what group seeing themselves as deserving will it stop with ?
And then theres the voice of the people being shunned. Whats the purpose of having the people vote when you can just have it circumvented by judges ?
May 19th, 2008 at 3:10 am
The figure of 10 percent of the community (being homosexual) is grossly overstated. They actually constitute around 2 percent according to university studies which were, granted, carried out in Australia. But since Sydney is known all over the world as a gay magnet for the huge gay Mardi Gras held there, I doubt the figure is much higher anywhere else.
You’re talking about a buttload of lobbying and activism for a tiny sector of the community when you see a law like that in California changed against the will of two thirds of the populace. Don’t forget after gay marriage is legalized, it’s far more likely to affect the next generation as children get brought into the equation.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:09 am
So, let’s see here… Micky thinks being alllowed to get married is “special treatment,” Parrothead thinks that because gays are not mentioned in the CC they therefore have no rights, and Aurora is howling ‘think about the children!,’ like Maude Flanders.
Great bunch.
JMJ
May 19th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Yea Jersey.
It is special treatment. Certain entitlements , tax breaks etc that I think couples that actually make more people are entitled to.
People who actually procreate ya know, populate the country, make new citizens !
They should be at the front of the line.
Parrothead never said gays have no rights, I like the way you totally twisted that one so far out of shape it became an absolute lie on your part.
And yea, Aurora has a point.
Kids should be allowed to grow up and not have to have those things explained to them at too young an age
And last but not least. The system as we know it will go to hell in a hand basket if judges are allowed to do this as they see fit.
Nice bunch ?
What should we call you?
You may not agree with our positions, but at least we dont put words in peoples mouths or misquote them or totally refabricate what others said.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:03 am
So people who can’t procrete can’t get married? I have no kids. Probably never will, unless we adopt. Should I be allowed to be married, Micky?
“The system as we know it will go to hell in a hand basket if judges are allowed to do this as they see fit.”
Alright, you conservative geniuses: Exactly where did the CSC stray from the California constitution? I’d love to hear this lied about.
JMJ
May 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
If you adopt, yea. And then if not you still hold the potential, unless by organic misfortune you are unable. But those numbers are still very small.
I really dont care if they get married. if they want some kind of mock ceremony thats there choice. But I see no reason to offer them the benefits of an average married American couple.
If two guys want to enter a business union of sorts and pool there resources , fine.
The lie you are trying to obfuscate from is not the questioning of the CSC interpretation.
It is you taking Parrotheads comment completely out of context and repeating it falsely.
As far as legalities goes.
“In its decision, the court invoked a 1948 California ruling lifting the ban on interracial marriage (one the U.S. Supreme Court did not follow until 1967), as a basis for its ruling (and a republican nominee wrote the majority opinion, declaring the state’s constitution protects “the right of the individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice.”
Unfortunatly we had no idea in those days that men would want to marry men, or women marry women. Today we have a majority in California that has clearly voted against gay marriage. The exact number being 61 %.
If I’m correct, the California Constitution gaurantees the voice of the people which differed tremendously in 1948 as to what the people say today, 60 years later.
Now, why dont you answer me a question for a change.
How is gay marriage beneficial to the community ?
May 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The 1948 decision had the same constitutional basis as this one, Micky. Why do you think the anti-gay crowd is pushing for an amendment this year? Just coincidence? They know that the constitution would have to be changed in order to ban - or “define marraige” - gay marraige. The fact of the matter is that the CC siomply does not address the matter and therefore the court had no choice but to decide the way they did.
You guys just don’t understand constitutional law.
“How is gay marriage beneficial to the community?”
Well, for starters, I don’t give a hoot whether it’s “beneficial” or not as far as constitutionality goes. But I will say this - any institution that upholds and strenthens family ties seems beneficial to me. Also, it would guarentee that the wishes of gay people and their families be as opportune as they are for the rest of us, and that’s just fairness, which is also generally good for society. Also, many gay people have natural children, and marraige as an institution is good for their well-being as well. I just don’t see a downside to this at all. None whatsoever. It’s just hateful, spiteful, insecure little creeps looking for something to bash to make what’s under their cod pieces feel bigger. It’s also a great issue for getting hateful, spiteful, insecure little creeps to the polls at election time.
I saw a poll recently that showed 49% of Californians being agreeable to this. But we all know how polls goes…
JMJ
May 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
JMJ;
“I saw a poll recently that showed 49% of Californians being agreeable to this. But we all know how polls goes…”
Polls ?
Screw the polls, the people alraedy voted on this once and it was 61% negatory bro.
JMJ;
“But I will say this - any institution that upholds and strenthens family ties seems beneficial to me.”
Yes, and gays already have the right to adopt , even as single parents. And the appropraite tax breaks are applied to the dependants.
So marriage is of no consequennce in your fictitious cry for the “family”
No hate, no spite or all that other crap you only wish were true. This is more about an infringment on the voice of the people than anything.
The peole have spoken in California and alreday voted yes on one of the most liberal same sex union laws in the country.
But they reject activist judges who are making law and not interpreting it.
Any constitution takes the voice of the people as precedense to a vote bt judges.
Answer me this.
Why bother having the people vote on this if the judges are allowed to overturn that vote ?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Man, I thought “polls goes” was a funny alliteration! Tough crowd.
“Yes, and gays already have the right to adopt , even as single parents. And the appropraite tax breaks are applied to the dependants.”
Excuse me? Here’s a list of states that allow, disallow, or otherwise restrict, gays to adopt and the generalized conditions: http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm
So much for that “right.”
“So marriage is of no consequennce in your fictitious cry for the “family””
You lost me here. Yes, of course it is! That’s the whole point!!! I want gays to have the same familial opportunities - and rights - as the rest of us. What the guacamole are you talking about???
And I never said you were anti-gay marraige. Actually, I wasn’t quite sure. I thought your argument was with the court decision. And with your position, I disagreed. I don;t see how that court could have ruled otherwise, constitutionally speaking.
“Why bother having the people vote on this if the judges are allowed to overturn that vote?”
If they vote on a constitutional amendment the judges will NOT be able to rule against it. They are CONSTRAINED by the California State Constitution.
JMJ
May 20th, 2008 at 7:57 am
JMJ:
“Yes, and gays already have the right to adopt , even as single parents. And the appropraite tax breaks are applied to the dependants.”
Excuse me? Here’s a list of states that allow, disallow, or otherwise restrict, gays to adopt and the generalized conditions: http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm
So much for that “right.”
You’re so full of sh** its not even funny.
What are you trying to prove?
We are talking about California, not the rest of the country.
And even your own list says this about Californias adoption laws;
“California
Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.”
And then you blab away like you proved something and you say ” so much for that right”
They have the right Einstein ! And you proved it yourself after saying they didnt have it.
Dude, I would be really embaressed and just go away if I were you.
JMJ;
“You lost me here. Yes, of course it is! That’s the whole point!!! I want gays to have the same familial opportunities - and rights - as the rest of us. What the guacamole are you talking about???
Since you yourself just proved they have the right to adopt, why do they need marriage to make a family ?
Plus , they dont really make people, do they ?
I mean, do they add to the population ?
People who make people should get preference in my book. Ya know. The kind where a+b=c.
I see no reason in the world why gays should be treated equaly as a tradintional procreating couple. Because they simply are not.
JMJ:
“If they vote on a constitutional amendment the judges will NOT be able to rule against it. They are CONSTRAINED by the California State Constitution.
That does not answer the question at all.
There is no point in the previous vote where 61% of Californians voted against gay marriage if a few judges are just going to piss on that vote.
So once again.
What was the point in having the people vote in the first place ?
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 am
My family is from Lesvos and I think this article doesnt really give a clear explanation of what’s going on. As far as i understand, nobody on Lesvos is trying to stop people who speak **English** from using the word lesbian to mean homosexual … they really would have no case to make for it, since the name of the island in English is Lesvos and the proper term for someone who’s from there is Lesvian. (Occasionally you also see Lesvosian).
The hassle is over the use of the word Lesbian to mean homosexual even in Greek. Greek already has a word for lesbians, and using Lesbian to mean homosexual is a very new idea imported from English. So to analogize, it’s as if suddenly Americans started using “Texan” as a slang term for gay, and gay organizations began talking about “Texan Pride Festival” etc etc. I choose Texas because its a politically conservative area and so is Lesbos.