From: parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr)
Subject: Re: the same-sex and pentacles threads
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 18:53:55 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <BuMox5.H6s@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (A.J.S. Nusbacher) writes:
>In article <92Sep14.204045.27824@acs.ucalgary.ca> parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr) writes:
>
>>As for same sex consorts? This is more difficult. I suggest
>>that you find a fighter with a good chance at the crown,
>>sympathetic to your cause, and willing to raise a big fuss.
>>
>>When he or she wins, have him or her say "I am putting this
>>person (who is same sex) on the throne, then sit back and
>>watch the fur fly. My guess is that the poor fighter will
>>at minimum be banished. If a knight, probably disgraced.
>>However a very large and noisy protest will have been made,
>>keep doing that for long enough, and perhaps you can force
>>a referendum on the subject.
>
>A few points.  First, if a fighter stood up and said he wanted to fight
>for another man, or that she wanted to fight for another woman, the worst
>that is likely to happen IMHO is that the kingdom authorities would say
>no, you can't, sorry.  Banished?  Disgraced?  Not likely.  Can you think
>of _any_ SCA rule that is enforced that rigorously?

      No, what you suggest would not work. The crown would simply
      "find the aspirant unacceptable to their
      majesties"...Remember, no matter whether it is enforced or
      not, all entries into crown tourney are supposedly
      "invited".

      I suggest that the sex of the consort be intentionally 
      concealed, and revealed only after victory. This would
      constitute a direct violation of the rules of the list,
      which would almost certainly bring about a court of
      chivalry. I have no doubt that the findings and verdict
      of this court would be quite unpleasant for our crusading
      fighter and his gay companion.
  
>Second, the SCA hasn't done things by referendum in the last fifteen to
>twenty years or so, except for creating geographical groups and confirming
>barons.  I would be very surprised if this issue were put to referendum.
>I do think that the Directors would respond to enough pressure by allowing
>same-sex consorts because 1. they would be too embarassed not to and 2. not
>too many people would fight for same-sex consorts anyhow.

      I suggest that this issue is sufficiently contentious
     that only referendum would be acceptable. I support the
     idea of allowing same-sex consorts, and *I* would not
     accept a rule change unless convinced that most of the
     society wanted a rules change.

>Third, a tinkers dam is a part for repairing pots, and has nothing to do
>with damnation, so it isn't spelled with an "n" on the end.


     Fascinating...I never knew that, I always figured it was
     a veiled slur on the social position of Tinkers.

     BTW, I think only "gay" persons should be permitted a
     same-sex consort...

Regards, Carolus Malvoix
         Montengarde An Tir
-- 
Within the span of the last few weeks I have heard elements of
separate threads which, in that they have been conjoined in time,
struck together to form a new chord within my hollow and echoing
gourd. --Unknown net.person