That was a surprise to me too. It should be addressed both for widowers and gay spouses. It's dated and unfair.
Very, I am unsure as to how those points were allowed to be passed by. Was it a bit of give and take to get the bill though? appeasing those in opposition to it?
Oh shut up. You are boring the life out of me, you made sarcastic personal remarks and are now bitching (while claiming not too) about me, Its there for everyone to see, here you go as you have so quickly forgotten what you've said@
folllowed by:
Oh i think you doth protest too much clearly have an issue, clearly side tracking the thread after i posted ONE line to you i got this tirade in return. I have not mistaken you at all, seems you have a massive grudge going on. Now that really is my last reply out of respect to everyone else trying to enjoy this debate without this personal crap.
Still more? Laughable. Your faux outrage and rampant hypocrisy bore me to tears also.
'Take it to PMs' you say and yet here you are yet again bleating on about it in the thread. I mean come on now. If you're going to dish out 'advice' (especially where it's not required) it might be wise to heed it yourself first. This isn't rocket science.
There is someone who doth protest too much and it certainly isn't me.
I actually understood that in spite of the multi tolerates and do agree to a certain point. I think we have to be careful that freedom to speak does not become freedom to abuse but i do agree putting the spotlight on those who do it helps to fight it.
I think the only time it should be stopped is if you're doing something like encouraging people to break the law. Even though I think plenty of people would be very offended by someone preaching anti gay or racist views for example I think ultimately it has to be allowed and by referencing what they say you can easily expose intolerance for what it is.
I think the only time it should be stopped is if you're doing something like encouraging people to break the law. Even though I think plenty of people would be very offended by someone preaching anti gay or racist views for example I think ultimately it has to be allowed and by referencing what they say you can easily expose intolerance for what it is.
Yes I think if we force the discussions underground we don't see where the problem and the hate is. But by the same token i think people should be able to give back their opinions against the homophobic without being accused of bullying. They can't have it both ways.
No the majority of people don't. The majority of people in the UK support the rights of gay people to get a marriage certificate, as do I.
However they don't genuinely view gay marriage and straight marriage as being equal.
Marriage is just a ceremony followed by a certificate. It's the relationship that counts. And the relationship between a man and a woman is fundamental to the procreation of the human species. If all straight relationships ceased, it would result in the virtual extinction of the human species.
Tiny snagget in your argument. Men and women don't need marriage to procreate. Even Catholics roger away like Rabbits outside of marriage, resulting in kids.
What complete and utter tripe. It's not bigotry because the likes of you chose to scream it at every opportunity.
It's bigotry because attempting to deny a group of people a right that other people enjoy for absolutely no good reason is being bigoted.
It's not difficult. If people don't like that label, then they should justify why gay people should not be allowed to get married.
By that you mean anyone who disagrees with your definition of marriage...
Hmmm, and you can't see the irony of shouting bigotry here
There is no such thing as a fixed definition of anything. Words change their meaning all the time. There is no reason why marriage cannot be redefined. I'm not silencing anyone, I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything, which cannot be said for those on the other side of the fence. No irony here.
It has little to do with equality...
Or are you suggesting that people's civil partnerships are somehow inferior?
It has everything to do with equality. The very fact that two different terms existed for straight people and gay people implies that gay partnerships are somehow inferior. The fact that I am arguing for gay marriage shows that I believe they are exactly as worthwhile as each other. No more, no less.
Do they?
I'm sure they appreciate you speaking on their behalf...
In the absence for a reasonable argument as to how a gay marriage negatively impacts anyone's life whatsoever, that's the only reasonable conclusion to reach. For all the self-pitying moaning of people shouting "I'm not a bigot!" on this thread, it's telling that nobody has attempted to provide such an argument.
Scotland seem to have done much better and have eradicated many of the issues cited here. Of course, here in NI we're still regressive as hell and are run by a party that anyone would struggle to deny is deeply homophobic - the DUP.
.
These are all issues that could and should have been addressed, but none of them require the redefining of marriage and the "Separate is not equal" paragraph was all just rhetoric really... It more or less confirms that it's as much about the name as anything else.
It has everything to do with equality. The very fact that two different terms existed for straight people and gay people implies that gay partnerships are somehow inferior.
Oh that non argument again. We have gender specific terms for hundreds of things it doesn't affect their equality.
Well fortunately people such as you don't get to decide for everyone else what is and isn't a good reason...
Apparently it is for you...
Again, by which you mean a justification acceptable to you...
Well tough luck, that's not how the world works.
Oh that non argument again. We have gender specific terms for hundreds of things it doesn't affect their equality.
Do you ever get bored of being petty?
If you have bigoted views, you can correctly be called a bigot. Don't like being called one? Don't act like one. It really is that simple
Oh that non argument again. We have gender specific terms for hundreds of things it doesn't affect their equality.
It isn't a 'non argument' at all. Marriage does have a meaning beyond the mere word - that's why so many opposed the change, because they don't think gay relationships are of sufficient quality to warrant being described as marriage. People on here have said so and they said so in Parliament during the debate on the legislation.
I was brought up to believe that when you met someone and fell in love you got 'married and lived happily ever after'. Films, TV shows, books etc have the central theme of romance leading to marriage. It is more than just a legal construct - it is a central aspect of human society and gay people were being excluded from it because others thought our relationships were not good enough. Fortunately, due to the tireless work of many people who are able to recognise that gay people's relationships are no different to those of straight people, we now have the right to marry and not just 'CP'.
Others can continue to think less of my relationship because my partner and I happen to both be women, and I will continue to think less of those people because of their view... but what is really important to me is that i will be a married woman thinking less of them.
Funny to see the homophobes crying like babies over the fact same sex marriage is now legal.
Instead of just accepting it and quietly moving on, some of them now try and say "well, you can call it marriage, I won't". Which rather puts me in the mind of a stubborn child who hasn't got his or her own way.
Again, by which you mean a justification acceptable to you...
How about you give me one then, instead of endlessly playing the woe is me card every time I ask?
I'll make it really easy: Just one example of someone's life being made worse now the law has changed will do. That is how the world works - if you have an opinion, you back it up. Otherwise, you look like, well, you know.
If you have bigoted views, you can correctly be called a bigot. Don't like being called one? Don't act like one. It really is that simple
Yes the operative word there is IF and that doesn't get decided by a bunch of people on a crusade trying to suppress the opinions others who don't agree with them.
I'll make it really easy: Just one example of someone's life being made worse now the law has changed will do. That is how the world works - if you have an opinion, you back it up. Otherwise, you look like, well, you know.
What makes you think you have the right to an explanation?
Perhaps hhe same sense of self importance that you think justifies you throwing the word bigotry around like confetti I guess.
I've already stated my belief that marriage is the union between a man and a woman and THAT is the only justification I need. You may not like it but it's far more explanation than you deserve.
Now seeing as you are so keen to throw the word bigot around are you also going to label those gay people who don't support gay marriage as bigots too?
You could just as easily throw the attention seeking card at many of those who seem to cry homophobia at almost any given opportunity to be fair.
To be fair, the whole point of highlighting homophobia would be to draw attention to it...
That being said, personally, I've only described attitudes as homophobic when they have been homophobic.
From what I've seen on DS, this seems to be the case for most other people too.
I can't say that it doesn't get thrown around when it's not warranted, because of course it does.
I've even done it myself in my personal life, because actually, I genuinely thought something was a criminal offence, and it wasn't.
I had a visit from a nice LGBT liaison officer who explained in detail that although the incident I suffered was homophobic, it was classed as a non-crime..
I disagree with you- for me it is exactly the fact that we have come on leaps and bounds that people don't need to cry homophobia or state that they are being oppressed anywhere near the extent that they had to not even that long ago.
And I disagree with you. For me, you can't eliminate discrimination unless you challenge and highlight it at every level.
I used the example of homophobic bullying in schools earlier in the thread, and I think it's a great example of this.
Schools that challenge even the smallest elements of homophobia, and educate, as a result, have less homophobic incidents.
If it's progress and equality we all seek then this is for me detrimental to the cause. I also see a mass of hypocrisy from those preaching tolerance and yet not seeing to have much for those who have a differing opinion.
With all due respect, I think there's a difference between asking me to tolerate someone who describes me as deviant, a threat to society, compares me to a paedophile, and says that due to a supposed 'life choice,' I should have my rights removed, and asking someone to tolerate me because of the fact that I happen to be attracted to the same sex.
There is no equivalence there, and if I respond to insult, by unsurprisingly being upset, it's hardly a shock..surely?
There are many reasoned posters who make some incredibly insightful points regarding genuine issues facing the gay community, but there are also many others who clearly do not.
You seem to think that because I point out clearly daft allegations of 'homophobia', it somehow makes me 'unsympathetic' to gay people. Well, I'm not quite sure what level of pity I should be extending to them but I can assure you that I have supported gay rights for decades, well before it became the fashionable activity that it is now. I disagree with the recent re-definition of marriage but that doesn't make me anti-gay, any more than wanting Crufts to be reserved for dogs, makes me anti-cat. I have no problem with different names for different things; it's kinda how we make sense of the world.
Why do you disagree with the most recent re-definition of marriage?
Did you disagree with the re-definition of marriage after the end of classical civilisation (such as ancient China, Greece and Rome), or did you disagree with the redefinition, or after the counter-reformation, or after the 60s in the states, or any of the number of times it's already been re-defined....if so, why...
If the issue is that this re-definition allows the same sex to be party to marriage, then surely you cannot say you support equal rights?
You can't have a halfway house where some equal rights are okay, but others aren't!
Also, this wouldn't be the first time that a re-definition of marriage allows same-sex marriage.
I do find it vaguely amusing when these allegations of 'homophobia' get onto DS and certain FMs immediately suspend disbelief completely and start the usual circle jerk. Anyone who points out an alternative explanation, given the known facts, is immediately mobbed as a 'homophobe' and, yes, it does seem daft and excessive. Oh and just to reiterate, I am sure that, sadly, there are genuine cases of anti-gay prejudice. I just think that it's really not as widespread as some people's agendas seem to require.
There were a few threads, where I believed the initial story, and was proved wrong, and I criticised what I thought was apparent homophobia.
I also was critical of the treatment of the recent case with the preacher....if it hypothetically transpired that he lied about the what happened, would you criticise me on that too?
Also, as for the bit in bold, homophobic bullying has been rife in schools for years, hence the need for the current Stonewall campaign.
It's been the last acceptable reason to bully someone sadly..
I think that pretty much applies to someone who tries to label others as such just because they dissagree with them. It's the classic cop out for those who can't back their stance. Indeed it makes them little better than radical muslims who would have you executed for expressing an opposing view.
We have a precident that has stood for almost two thousand years that marriage is the uniion between a man and a woman....
If you don't like that then that's one thing, it is NOT however bigoted to hold with that tradition as many people do.
And what about the longer precedent before those two thousand years?
If you wish to restrict the rights of others based solely on their sexuality, then I'm sorry, you hold a bigoted view, and a homophobic view.
It doesn't matter how you dress it up.
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
Could somebody explain the difference between marriage and civil partnership. Do they give different legal entitlements etc or are they basically the same in everything other than name?
The differences mostly pertain to international recognition and pension rights, there is also a difference in the dissolution of a civil partnership too.
It isn't a 'non argument' at all. Marriage does have a meaning beyond the mere word - that's why so many opposed the change, because they don't think gay relationships are of sufficient quality to warrant being described as marriage. People on here have said so and they said so in Parliament during the debate on the legislation.
I was brought up to believe that when you met someone and fell in love you got 'married and lived happily ever after'. Films, TV shows, books etc have the central theme of romance leading to marriage. It is more than just a legal construct - it is a central aspect of human society and gay people were being excluded from it because others thought our relationships were not good enough. Fortunately, due to the tireless work of many people who are able to recognise that gay people's relationships are no different to those of straight people, we now have the right to marry and not just 'CP'.
Others can continue to think less of my relationship because my partner and I happen to both be women, and I will continue to think less of those people because of their view... but what is really important to me is that i will be a married woman thinking less of them.
Others can continue to think less of my relationship because my partner and I happen to both be women, and I will continue to think less of those people because of their view... but what is really important to me is that i will be a married woman thinking less of them.
BIB - Let me be perfectly clear on this, I'm certainly not one of those "others"...
Comments
That was a surprise to me too. It should be addressed both for widowers and gay spouses. It's dated and unfair.
Very, I am unsure as to how those points were allowed to be passed by. Was it a bit of give and take to get the bill though? appeasing those in opposition to it?
Still more? Laughable. Your faux outrage and rampant hypocrisy bore me to tears also.
'Take it to PMs' you say and yet here you are yet again bleating on about it in the thread. I mean come on now. If you're going to dish out 'advice' (especially where it's not required) it might be wise to heed it yourself first. This isn't rocket science.
There is someone who doth protest too much and it certainly isn't me.
I think the only time it should be stopped is if you're doing something like encouraging people to break the law. Even though I think plenty of people would be very offended by someone preaching anti gay or racist views for example I think ultimately it has to be allowed and by referencing what they say you can easily expose intolerance for what it is.
Yes I think if we force the discussions underground we don't see where the problem and the hate is. But by the same token i think people should be able to give back their opinions against the homophobic without being accused of bullying. They can't have it both ways.
Tiny snagget in your argument. Men and women don't need marriage to procreate. Even Catholics roger away like Rabbits outside of marriage, resulting in kids.
Oh. So what were you trying to say then?
It's bigotry because attempting to deny a group of people a right that other people enjoy for absolutely no good reason is being bigoted.
It's not difficult. If people don't like that label, then they should justify why gay people should not be allowed to get married.
There is no such thing as a fixed definition of anything. Words change their meaning all the time. There is no reason why marriage cannot be redefined. I'm not silencing anyone, I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything, which cannot be said for those on the other side of the fence. No irony here.
It has everything to do with equality. The very fact that two different terms existed for straight people and gay people implies that gay partnerships are somehow inferior. The fact that I am arguing for gay marriage shows that I believe they are exactly as worthwhile as each other. No more, no less.
In the absence for a reasonable argument as to how a gay marriage negatively impacts anyone's life whatsoever, that's the only reasonable conclusion to reach. For all the self-pitying moaning of people shouting "I'm not a bigot!" on this thread, it's telling that nobody has attempted to provide such an argument.
Apparently it is for you...
Again, by which you mean a justification acceptable to you...
Well tough luck, that's not how the world works.
Oh that non argument again. We have gender specific terms for hundreds of things it doesn't affect their equality.
Do you ever get bored of being petty?
If you have bigoted views, you can correctly be called a bigot. Don't like being called one? Don't act like one. It really is that simple
It isn't a 'non argument' at all. Marriage does have a meaning beyond the mere word - that's why so many opposed the change, because they don't think gay relationships are of sufficient quality to warrant being described as marriage. People on here have said so and they said so in Parliament during the debate on the legislation.
I was brought up to believe that when you met someone and fell in love you got 'married and lived happily ever after'. Films, TV shows, books etc have the central theme of romance leading to marriage. It is more than just a legal construct - it is a central aspect of human society and gay people were being excluded from it because others thought our relationships were not good enough. Fortunately, due to the tireless work of many people who are able to recognise that gay people's relationships are no different to those of straight people, we now have the right to marry and not just 'CP'.
Others can continue to think less of my relationship because my partner and I happen to both be women, and I will continue to think less of those people because of their view... but what is really important to me is that i will be a married woman thinking less of them.
Instead of just accepting it and quietly moving on, some of them now try and say "well, you can call it marriage, I won't". Which rather puts me in the mind of a stubborn child who hasn't got his or her own way.
How about you give me one then, instead of endlessly playing the woe is me card every time I ask?
I'll make it really easy: Just one example of someone's life being made worse now the law has changed will do. That is how the world works - if you have an opinion, you back it up. Otherwise, you look like, well, you know.
It may come as a shock but KidMoe does not get to decide for the rest of us what is and isn't acceptable.
Yes the operative word there is IF and that doesn't get decided by a bunch of people on a crusade trying to suppress the opinions others who don't agree with them.
Challenging your small minded comments is not playing any card...
What makes you think you have the right to an explanation?
Perhaps hhe same sense of self importance that you think justifies you throwing the word bigotry around like confetti I guess.
I've already stated my belief that marriage is the union between a man and a woman and THAT is the only justification I need. You may not like it but it's far more explanation than you deserve.
Now seeing as you are so keen to throw the word bigot around are you also going to label those gay people who don't support gay marriage as bigots too?
However, IMO marriage is and for the foreseeable future will remain the union between a man and a woman.
Maybe in another 1000 years or so that may have changed but I won't be around to see it.
To be fair, the whole point of highlighting homophobia would be to draw attention to it...
That being said, personally, I've only described attitudes as homophobic when they have been homophobic.
From what I've seen on DS, this seems to be the case for most other people too.
I can't say that it doesn't get thrown around when it's not warranted, because of course it does.
I've even done it myself in my personal life, because actually, I genuinely thought something was a criminal offence, and it wasn't.
I had a visit from a nice LGBT liaison officer who explained in detail that although the incident I suffered was homophobic, it was classed as a non-crime..
We all get things wrong from time to time.
Oh of course. I sometimes post in an manner that's attention seeking myself. Not sure what that had to do with my point though.
Okay.
And I disagree with you. For me, you can't eliminate discrimination unless you challenge and highlight it at every level.
I used the example of homophobic bullying in schools earlier in the thread, and I think it's a great example of this.
Schools that challenge even the smallest elements of homophobia, and educate, as a result, have less homophobic incidents.
With all due respect, I think there's a difference between asking me to tolerate someone who describes me as deviant, a threat to society, compares me to a paedophile, and says that due to a supposed 'life choice,' I should have my rights removed, and asking someone to tolerate me because of the fact that I happen to be attracted to the same sex.
There is no equivalence there, and if I respond to insult, by unsurprisingly being upset, it's hardly a shock..surely?
That could be said of any subject.
Why do you disagree with the most recent re-definition of marriage?
Did you disagree with the re-definition of marriage after the end of classical civilisation (such as ancient China, Greece and Rome), or did you disagree with the redefinition, or after the counter-reformation, or after the 60s in the states, or any of the number of times it's already been re-defined....if so, why...
If the issue is that this re-definition allows the same sex to be party to marriage, then surely you cannot say you support equal rights?
You can't have a halfway house where some equal rights are okay, but others aren't!
Also, this wouldn't be the first time that a re-definition of marriage allows same-sex marriage.
There were a few threads, where I believed the initial story, and was proved wrong, and I criticised what I thought was apparent homophobia.
I also was critical of the treatment of the recent case with the preacher....if it hypothetically transpired that he lied about the what happened, would you criticise me on that too?
Also, as for the bit in bold, homophobic bullying has been rife in schools for years, hence the need for the current Stonewall campaign.
It's been the last acceptable reason to bully someone sadly..
And what about the longer precedent before those two thousand years?
If you wish to restrict the rights of others based solely on their sexuality, then I'm sorry, you hold a bigoted view, and a homophobic view.
It doesn't matter how you dress it up.
There's a handy definition for you, from wiki.
The differences mostly pertain to international recognition and pension rights, there is also a difference in the dissolution of a civil partnership too.
Exactly this in bold!
I don't.
But that's not really answering the question. Why shouldn't, actually more specifically, why can't two men or two women marry?
I'd be interested too to hear whether you think women or gay men should be allowed to become priests, too.
How on earth does two men or two women getting married affect anyone other than the two people getting married?
If you are heterosexual your rights don't count.
So you do think her relationship is of sufficient quality to be called marriage then?
Great, you'll have no problem with the new legislation.
That is for the church to decide not me, personally I see no reason why not...