ChatterBank1 min ago
Same sex wedding reforms.
96 Answers
http://www.dailymail....ficial-documents.html
Here are some of the implications caused by a minority wish.
Why is it never that alterations are never made to fit in with the majority at the expense of the minority?
Here are some of the implications caused by a minority wish.
Why is it never that alterations are never made to fit in with the majority at the expense of the minority?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well said, Andy.
To repeat what I said earlier, the traditional definition of marriage as exclusively heterosexual predates a time when homosexual relationships were seen as a valid or legitimate form of love. It made sense to define it as heterosexual because that was the only form of relationship seen as acceptable. In the past few decades or so, there's been a large change of mind about that - most people (including AOG, I'm assuming) consider homosexual relationships equally legitimate as relationships.
Here's where the point about participation comes in. In accordance with that change, all that gay people are asking is the right to participate in an important and respected part of the culture they're born into, now that their relationships are considered equal. Why? Because, like everyone else who seeks marriage, they see it as important. Most people seem either supportive or at least acquiescent, and the law actively prohibits both gay couples who want to marry and any churches who want to marry them.
To repeat what I said earlier, the traditional definition of marriage as exclusively heterosexual predates a time when homosexual relationships were seen as a valid or legitimate form of love. It made sense to define it as heterosexual because that was the only form of relationship seen as acceptable. In the past few decades or so, there's been a large change of mind about that - most people (including AOG, I'm assuming) consider homosexual relationships equally legitimate as relationships.
Here's where the point about participation comes in. In accordance with that change, all that gay people are asking is the right to participate in an important and respected part of the culture they're born into, now that their relationships are considered equal. Why? Because, like everyone else who seeks marriage, they see it as important. Most people seem either supportive or at least acquiescent, and the law actively prohibits both gay couples who want to marry and any churches who want to marry them.
sp1814
/// Look at the figures - nearly half the population are in favour of gay marriage. ///
/// 45% in favour ///
/// 36% opposed ///
That leaves 19% who have non feeling either way.
But then it all depends how the question was set.
If it was for the equalisation of the marriage laws, then there is no problem, laws should be equal for everyone, but then I thought this was settled by the introduction of civil partnerships why then the need to call them 'marriages'?.
/// Look at the figures - nearly half the population are in favour of gay marriage. ///
/// 45% in favour ///
/// 36% opposed ///
That leaves 19% who have non feeling either way.
But then it all depends how the question was set.
If it was for the equalisation of the marriage laws, then there is no problem, laws should be equal for everyone, but then I thought this was settled by the introduction of civil partnerships why then the need to call them 'marriages'?.
AOG. The Civil Partnership law does not make everyone equal. It is only for gay couples. Hetrosexual partners cannot have a Civil Partnership. Why should there be two civil type ceremonies - no need whatsoever? I thought that the Church preached that we were all equal under the eyes of the Lord, but obviously not.
" why then the need to call them 'marriages'?."
I did explain this when I spoke about participation.
Marriage is an important cultural ritual in this country. The heterosexual definition of it predates a time when homosexual relationships were considered equal or valid relationships - a stance which most people (including you, if I've understood you right), have changed their mind on. In accordance with this, gay people are asking to have the right to participate in an important part of the celebration of romance in modern British culture - because they respect it and see it as important, just like everyone else does.
That's why marriage is important. It's about cultural participation, which is only rational now that we live in a time when gay relationships are considered equal and legitimate forms of love.
I did explain this when I spoke about participation.
Marriage is an important cultural ritual in this country. The heterosexual definition of it predates a time when homosexual relationships were considered equal or valid relationships - a stance which most people (including you, if I've understood you right), have changed their mind on. In accordance with this, gay people are asking to have the right to participate in an important part of the celebration of romance in modern British culture - because they respect it and see it as important, just like everyone else does.
That's why marriage is important. It's about cultural participation, which is only rational now that we live in a time when gay relationships are considered equal and legitimate forms of love.
sp1814
/// Not agreeing with homosexuals is like not agreeing with glass, or the colour green, or Venetian blinds. ///
/// Perhaps we shouldn't use the term 'homophobic' ///
/// Perhaps 'anti-gay' is more accurate? ///
Taking into consideration that you are a self confessed homosexual, you are bound to have a bias view point.
But don't class everyone as homophobic just because they may possess a different view to you on homosexual issues .
It is just the same when some cannot understand why certain words are deemed offensive to blacks but just words to whites, you as a black person will often say, "you don't understand, not being a black person".
Well couldn't the same also be said , "you don't understand, not being a heterosexual"?
/// Not agreeing with homosexuals is like not agreeing with glass, or the colour green, or Venetian blinds. ///
/// Perhaps we shouldn't use the term 'homophobic' ///
/// Perhaps 'anti-gay' is more accurate? ///
Taking into consideration that you are a self confessed homosexual, you are bound to have a bias view point.
But don't class everyone as homophobic just because they may possess a different view to you on homosexual issues .
It is just the same when some cannot understand why certain words are deemed offensive to blacks but just words to whites, you as a black person will often say, "you don't understand, not being a black person".
Well couldn't the same also be said , "you don't understand, not being a heterosexual"?
AOG
You used the term 'self-confessed', rather than openly hay, which in itself is interesting, will come back to that later.
The term 'homophobic' is actually a nice neutral term which takes blame away from the person who has issues with gay people.
As yet, no-one has proffered a reason for their opposition to gay marriage other than the fact that gay people will be able to join an institution that they have been excluded from.
If the only reason behind this is that the person is gay, then anti-gay is a fitting term.
If you owned a company and you would not employ a black person for no other reason than he was black, then it would be fair to say that you were anti black?
You went on to write:
But don't class everyone as homophobic just because they may possess a different view to you on homosexual issues .
I was referring to Brenden who said he does not agree with homosexuality.
I went on to say, 'perhaps we shouldn't use the word homophobic, perhaps anti-gay is more accurate.
That's a true reflection of what I wrote earlier (please re-check if you think I've misrepresented myself.
You also wrote:
Well couldn't the same also be said , "you don't understand, not being a heterosexual"?
Nope...I've never said that - and besides, the 46% who agree with gay marriage can't all be gay.
You used the term 'self-confessed', rather than openly hay, which in itself is interesting, will come back to that later.
The term 'homophobic' is actually a nice neutral term which takes blame away from the person who has issues with gay people.
As yet, no-one has proffered a reason for their opposition to gay marriage other than the fact that gay people will be able to join an institution that they have been excluded from.
If the only reason behind this is that the person is gay, then anti-gay is a fitting term.
If you owned a company and you would not employ a black person for no other reason than he was black, then it would be fair to say that you were anti black?
You went on to write:
But don't class everyone as homophobic just because they may possess a different view to you on homosexual issues .
I was referring to Brenden who said he does not agree with homosexuality.
I went on to say, 'perhaps we shouldn't use the word homophobic, perhaps anti-gay is more accurate.
That's a true reflection of what I wrote earlier (please re-check if you think I've misrepresented myself.
You also wrote:
Well couldn't the same also be said , "you don't understand, not being a heterosexual"?
Nope...I've never said that - and besides, the 46% who agree with gay marriage can't all be gay.
'self-confessed' has connotations of admitting something that one would rather hide, and as such is a perforative term.
Up until fairly recently police used to use the term, "an establishment frequented by homosexuals", when 'gay bar' is what they meant. Stonewall pointed out to them that the archaic language they used was suggestive of criminal behaviour. The only time you use the phrase 'established frequented by...' is when you're talking about criminals.
This is why people now tend to use the phrase 'openly gay, rather than 'self-confessed homosexual' and why newspapers tend to write, 'Actor X has revealed he's gay' rather than 'Actor X has admitted he's gay'.
These may look like tiny semantic details, but they are quite important, becaus English is an incredibly rich language which should used to convey nuance and meaning.
Up until fairly recently police used to use the term, "an establishment frequented by homosexuals", when 'gay bar' is what they meant. Stonewall pointed out to them that the archaic language they used was suggestive of criminal behaviour. The only time you use the phrase 'established frequented by...' is when you're talking about criminals.
This is why people now tend to use the phrase 'openly gay, rather than 'self-confessed homosexual' and why newspapers tend to write, 'Actor X has revealed he's gay' rather than 'Actor X has admitted he's gay'.
These may look like tiny semantic details, but they are quite important, becaus English is an incredibly rich language which should used to convey nuance and meaning.
I’ve asked two questions here without receiving an answer.
1. //AOG, a week or so ago when we spoke about this, you said…..
//No opinion either way myself, just making for a balanced argument.//
http://www.theanswerb...uestion1112123-2.html
… and now you’re claiming the article by Simon Heffer says it all.
Have you changed your mind? //
and …
2. //I honestly can't see what business it is of anyone who isn't involved. How on earth can it affect them? Can someone please tell me?//
1. //AOG, a week or so ago when we spoke about this, you said…..
//No opinion either way myself, just making for a balanced argument.//
http://www.theanswerb...uestion1112123-2.html
… and now you’re claiming the article by Simon Heffer says it all.
Have you changed your mind? //
and …
2. //I honestly can't see what business it is of anyone who isn't involved. How on earth can it affect them? Can someone please tell me?//
sadly this is a situation where reasoned argument just ain't gonna work, and there will be a proportion of honourable members who are going to fall into this category.
so where does your MP stand on this issue? he or she is going to be afforded a free vote - and he or she has been elected to represent YOU in parliament, not to express his or her prejudices.
so where does your MP stand on this issue? he or she is going to be afforded a free vote - and he or she has been elected to represent YOU in parliament, not to express his or her prejudices.
sp1814
Thank you for your explanations, but you have only answered the exact point I was trying to get over.
Your reference to certain words now being offensive to gays (or should I now say homosexuals) I am at a loss?
/// 'self-confessed' has connotations of admitting something that one would rather hide, ///
Once again, how have you come up that 'self-confessed' is admitting you have something you would rather hide? I was merely pointing out that you made no secret of the fact.
/// "an establishment frequented by homosexuals", when 'gay bar' is what they meant. ///
What the heck does it matter, only words once again, perhaps once again they were trading on glass, and thought that an establishment frequented by homosexuals, sounded better than 'Gay Bar'.
/// openly gay, rather than 'self-confessed homosexual' /// ??????
/// Homophobic or anti-gay /// ?????????
/// newspapers tend to write, 'Actor X has revealed he's gay' rather than 'Actor X has admitted he's gay'. /// ?????????
Stop, stop, stop, it gets more and more confusing.
/// These may look like tiny semantic details, but they are quite important, ///
The question has to be asked important to whom? Homosexuals I presume, I would never have thought about them, my heads in a spin.
Finally in reply to this statement of mine,
Well couldn't the same also be said , "you don't understand, not being a heterosexual"?
You said'
/// Nope...I've never said that ///
My answer:
I never said you did, I was just making a comparison of feelings.
Just consider that heterosexuals can also be offended, just as religious people can be, so why aren't their feelings considered also?
Thank you for your explanations, but you have only answered the exact point I was trying to get over.
Your reference to certain words now being offensive to gays (or should I now say homosexuals) I am at a loss?
/// 'self-confessed' has connotations of admitting something that one would rather hide, ///
Once again, how have you come up that 'self-confessed' is admitting you have something you would rather hide? I was merely pointing out that you made no secret of the fact.
/// "an establishment frequented by homosexuals", when 'gay bar' is what they meant. ///
What the heck does it matter, only words once again, perhaps once again they were trading on glass, and thought that an establishment frequented by homosexuals, sounded better than 'Gay Bar'.
/// openly gay, rather than 'self-confessed homosexual' /// ??????
/// Homophobic or anti-gay /// ?????????
/// newspapers tend to write, 'Actor X has revealed he's gay' rather than 'Actor X has admitted he's gay'. /// ?????????
Stop, stop, stop, it gets more and more confusing.
/// These may look like tiny semantic details, but they are quite important, ///
The question has to be asked important to whom? Homosexuals I presume, I would never have thought about them, my heads in a spin.
Finally in reply to this statement of mine,
Well couldn't the same also be said , "you don't understand, not being a heterosexual"?
You said'
/// Nope...I've never said that ///
My answer:
I never said you did, I was just making a comparison of feelings.
Just consider that heterosexuals can also be offended, just as religious people can be, so why aren't their feelings considered also?
I’m not sure if AOG is married or not. If he is I imagine his objection, or the reason for him being offended is that he is disappointed because he thought he had taken part in a convention which was exclusively for heterosexuals (and which indeed has specific provisions solely for those of that disposition) only to find it is to be altered substantially and radically in respect of those eligible to take part. I suppose it is akin to joining the Church of England (and expecting only Christians to join in Holy Communion) to find that those of the Jewish or Muslim faiths are to be allowed to take the bread and wine.
I can understand it is difficult for you to comprehend, Lottie. But that’s the problem with embracing other people’s beliefs and lifestyles. I personally find it hard to understand why the Moslem faith urges its followers to deplore homosexuality almost to the point of violent hatred. But nobody seems to make a big issue about that and few people comment on it. But we have Lynne Featherstone (the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Women and Equalities), suggesting that those opposed to same-sex marriages are guilty of homophobia – a “hate crime”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
People in the UK are constantly implored to understand and accommodate the “diversity” that exists among the population. Yet a very big part of that diversity - the institution of marriage, which for centuries has been, for very good reason, the exclusive preserve of heterosexuals and which many people believe should remain so, now finds itself under threat of radical change which is simply unnecessary.
I can understand it is difficult for you to comprehend, Lottie. But that’s the problem with embracing other people’s beliefs and lifestyles. I personally find it hard to understand why the Moslem faith urges its followers to deplore homosexuality almost to the point of violent hatred. But nobody seems to make a big issue about that and few people comment on it. But we have Lynne Featherstone (the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Women and Equalities), suggesting that those opposed to same-sex marriages are guilty of homophobia – a “hate crime”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
People in the UK are constantly implored to understand and accommodate the “diversity” that exists among the population. Yet a very big part of that diversity - the institution of marriage, which for centuries has been, for very good reason, the exclusive preserve of heterosexuals and which many people believe should remain so, now finds itself under threat of radical change which is simply unnecessary.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
ChatterBank26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.