ChatterBank28 mins ago
Gays don't need the word 'Marriage'.
122 Answers
http://www.telegraph....ried-says-gay-MP.html
There have been many arguments for and against the need for gays to get 'married', but according to this gay MP homosexual marriage is just "pure politics", and they don't need to get married.
/// homosexuals had already won equal rights with the introduction of civil partnerships and had "never needed the word
'marriage' ". ///
There have been many arguments for and against the need for gays to get 'married', but according to this gay MP homosexual marriage is just "pure politics", and they don't need to get married.
/// homosexuals had already won equal rights with the introduction of civil partnerships and had "never needed the word
'marriage' ". ///
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.
Something of an 'aside' but if Gay Marriage does become legal what are the 2 participants going to be called ? Not ' Bride and Groom' or 'husband and wife' as these are gender specific.
So What will the priest say?
'Do you John take Robert as your lawfully wedded ****** ?'
Or
'Do you Jane take Mary as your lawfully wedded *******?'
What words do we suggest ? The obvious choice is 'Partner' but is that not defeating the objective ? Perhaps we need a new word ? Suggestions ?
Feel free to criticize I have a very thick skin and will not take offence.
But then I am a man and have been married 36 years to the same woman and have NEVER been unfaithfull despite many offers from both sexes !
So What will the priest say?
'Do you John take Robert as your lawfully wedded ****** ?'
Or
'Do you Jane take Mary as your lawfully wedded *******?'
What words do we suggest ? The obvious choice is 'Partner' but is that not defeating the objective ? Perhaps we need a new word ? Suggestions ?
Feel free to criticize I have a very thick skin and will not take offence.
But then I am a man and have been married 36 years to the same woman and have NEVER been unfaithfull despite many offers from both sexes !
I have expressed my thoughts in other posts on the subject, but I am with Jack, Nox, Kromo on this. Marriage to me means a joining together (dictionary definition). I can see so reason why people who love each other can't be joined together in Marriage. I am not religious - I am married (possibly not in the eyes of the Catholic Church though).
How gays being able to get married is offensive to people I simply don't understand. How on earth is it going to affect anybody at all? It won't hurt anybody - but it will please a significant number of people who are gay and love each other.
How gays being able to get married is offensive to people I simply don't understand. How on earth is it going to affect anybody at all? It won't hurt anybody - but it will please a significant number of people who are gay and love each other.
EDDIE. There are many hetrosexual couples who don't feel the need to marry. It's up to the couples concerned. Surely same sex couples should be treated as equal. If the couples you know don't feel the need for marriage then that is just fine, but at least they have the choice. Why should gay couples be treated any differently?
Eddie, AOG etc, there are issues of equality in marriage that need addressing for same sex couples and long-term partners outside wedlock and these concern inheritance rights and "benefits" when con sidered as "married" - my sister has been partnered for over 28 years and doesnt have the rights technically of somebody married one day. That isn't right - why should gays be also penalised becuase some antiquated concept doesn't allow them.
Very wrong and unfair.
Very wrong and unfair.
ladybirder
/// To try and change attitudes according to their website. Still a lot of nastiness from people living in the stone ages. ///
I would think that by classing everyone who has a particular opposing view as 'living in the stone age', is insulting enough not to change those persons attitude.
/// To try and change attitudes according to their website. Still a lot of nastiness from people living in the stone ages. ///
I would think that by classing everyone who has a particular opposing view as 'living in the stone age', is insulting enough not to change those persons attitude.
naomi24
/// Any chance of anyone who objects giving us a reason, and telling us how it would affect their own lives? I've lost track of the number of times I've asked this without response. ///
It is not a matter of it changing our lives or even having a particular effect on them.
It is all a matter of some of our institutions which have served us well for thousands of years, who's meaning now suddenly has to change for some minority groups who demand the right to high-jack them, it is on par to some who wish to get rid of the royalty, religion etc.
The law has been changed to accommodate the legal aspects of gay relationships i.e. civil partnerships, so I equally ask, why is their need to use the words 'Marry' 'Married' or 'Marriage'.
And before some come down on me and label me 'Homophobic' I am not in the least, it is just the fact that some homosexual hard-liners just cannot get on with their lives, just the same as heterosexuals.
Heterosexual don't find the need to shout their sexuality from the roof tops, hold special rallies, or place banners on buses, then why do homosexuals.
/// Any chance of anyone who objects giving us a reason, and telling us how it would affect their own lives? I've lost track of the number of times I've asked this without response. ///
It is not a matter of it changing our lives or even having a particular effect on them.
It is all a matter of some of our institutions which have served us well for thousands of years, who's meaning now suddenly has to change for some minority groups who demand the right to high-jack them, it is on par to some who wish to get rid of the royalty, religion etc.
The law has been changed to accommodate the legal aspects of gay relationships i.e. civil partnerships, so I equally ask, why is their need to use the words 'Marry' 'Married' or 'Marriage'.
And before some come down on me and label me 'Homophobic' I am not in the least, it is just the fact that some homosexual hard-liners just cannot get on with their lives, just the same as heterosexuals.
Heterosexual don't find the need to shout their sexuality from the roof tops, hold special rallies, or place banners on buses, then why do homosexuals.
AOG, you speak as though a change in the rules would somehow affect other people. It wouldn’t. It would merely serve to enable more of the population to participate in one of those institutions that have served the rest of us well for thousands of years. What’s wrong with that?
And by the way, I don’t like gay rallies either.
And by the way, I don’t like gay rallies either.
AOG
"It is all a matter of some of our institutions which have served us well for thousands of years, who's meaning now suddenly has to change for some minority groups who demand the right to high-jack them"
I'd like to remind you that gay people are born into English culture just as much as you are. The reason they want to participate in marriage is because it's an important celebration of romance in our culture. The institutions you're referring to are based on definitions that predate a time when homosexual relationships were thought of as acceptable - or even when the concept of a homosexual existed, really.
You've said it yourself - you're not homophobic. You view gay relationships as perfectly valid and equal, right? Well, if you accept that, you have to accept that is a very different cultural attitude than the one which prevailed at the time these institutions were defined. And as such, it has implications for them. Marriage is a celebration of love - and the definition of marriage as exclusively heterosexual is only such because that was the only form of relationship deemed acceptable at the time. If you view homosexual relationships as acceptable, then it makes perfect sense to incorporate them into the definition of marriage.
Further, there seems no convincing evidence that many people actually fervently object to this - most heterosexual couples seem either apathetic or supportive. Why not change? Why will it threaten the institution of marriage? What exactly is dangerous about this change?
"It is all a matter of some of our institutions which have served us well for thousands of years, who's meaning now suddenly has to change for some minority groups who demand the right to high-jack them"
I'd like to remind you that gay people are born into English culture just as much as you are. The reason they want to participate in marriage is because it's an important celebration of romance in our culture. The institutions you're referring to are based on definitions that predate a time when homosexual relationships were thought of as acceptable - or even when the concept of a homosexual existed, really.
You've said it yourself - you're not homophobic. You view gay relationships as perfectly valid and equal, right? Well, if you accept that, you have to accept that is a very different cultural attitude than the one which prevailed at the time these institutions were defined. And as such, it has implications for them. Marriage is a celebration of love - and the definition of marriage as exclusively heterosexual is only such because that was the only form of relationship deemed acceptable at the time. If you view homosexual relationships as acceptable, then it makes perfect sense to incorporate them into the definition of marriage.
Further, there seems no convincing evidence that many people actually fervently object to this - most heterosexual couples seem either apathetic or supportive. Why not change? Why will it threaten the institution of marriage? What exactly is dangerous about this change?
"Heterosexual don't find the need to shout their sexuality from the roof tops, hold special rallies, or place banners on buses, then why do homosexuals."
Well, that's a very different question to the one of why gay marriage is justified, but I'll try to address it. I should probably say, I don't have much to do with it personally, but I'll try anyway.
The reason you have Pride rallies and things is largely historic/cultural. As you know, gay activism started in the 1960s in a campaign to correct various injustices and to attack homophobia generally. As you know, homosexuality was once illegal, and discrimination and homophobia used to be pretty rife. The gay community launched a campaign to correct those various injustices. The success of that campaign is something the gay community is very proud of, it forms an important part of the history and the culture which the LGBT community has in common, and all they really want to do is celebrate that. And you don't have to be gay to celebrate it - in the Pride parades I've been to, in each of the marches there were a huge number of heterosexuals who were equally interested in celebrating that history. The general attitude of these parades, if you've ever been to one, is one of inclusiveness and diversity. Everyone is welcome, and the unifying theme is the celebration of the shared history I've been talking about.
That's one reason you have Pride marches. The other reason is that gay rights organizations are extremely keen to raise awareness of parts of the world where those achievements haven't been made - particularly the Middle East. If you go to a Pride parade, there's often a huge amount of awareness raising about the plight of LGBT people abroad who are persecuted.
The reason for campaigns like the bus banners, I have to say, I hold less truck with - but again the idea behind it is awareness-raising. There are still homophobes/gay-bashers around in this country, and all those campaigns are there to do is challenge them and raise awareness that they still exist.
Well, that's a very different question to the one of why gay marriage is justified, but I'll try to address it. I should probably say, I don't have much to do with it personally, but I'll try anyway.
The reason you have Pride rallies and things is largely historic/cultural. As you know, gay activism started in the 1960s in a campaign to correct various injustices and to attack homophobia generally. As you know, homosexuality was once illegal, and discrimination and homophobia used to be pretty rife. The gay community launched a campaign to correct those various injustices. The success of that campaign is something the gay community is very proud of, it forms an important part of the history and the culture which the LGBT community has in common, and all they really want to do is celebrate that. And you don't have to be gay to celebrate it - in the Pride parades I've been to, in each of the marches there were a huge number of heterosexuals who were equally interested in celebrating that history. The general attitude of these parades, if you've ever been to one, is one of inclusiveness and diversity. Everyone is welcome, and the unifying theme is the celebration of the shared history I've been talking about.
That's one reason you have Pride marches. The other reason is that gay rights organizations are extremely keen to raise awareness of parts of the world where those achievements haven't been made - particularly the Middle East. If you go to a Pride parade, there's often a huge amount of awareness raising about the plight of LGBT people abroad who are persecuted.
The reason for campaigns like the bus banners, I have to say, I hold less truck with - but again the idea behind it is awareness-raising. There are still homophobes/gay-bashers around in this country, and all those campaigns are there to do is challenge them and raise awareness that they still exist.
anotheoldgit always argues it is wrong for minorities to be treated differently from that of the majority, yet in this instance he thinks it is correct. I wonder if he thinks that those who marry other than in a church service are any different from those who do?
With regard to marriage being something that has been done for thousands of years, how many folk actually went through a formal service rather than lived in a partnership? The first Marriage Act in England was not introduced until the 18th Century so a formal marriage ceremony is hardly an institution stretching back millennia.
With regard to marriage being something that has been done for thousands of years, how many folk actually went through a formal service rather than lived in a partnership? The first Marriage Act in England was not introduced until the 18th Century so a formal marriage ceremony is hardly an institution stretching back millennia.
bundleone >>How long before all those imprisoned in my young days for being in a homosexual relationship are claiming compensation for
'wrongful imprisonment'<< How could they do that, they broke the law of that time and paid the price. Fortunately the laws have now changed. The law was extremely unfair in those days but that was the law.
Personally I think they should be compensated but in the eyes of the law it will never happen as they broke the law!
'wrongful imprisonment'<< How could they do that, they broke the law of that time and paid the price. Fortunately the laws have now changed. The law was extremely unfair in those days but that was the law.
Personally I think they should be compensated but in the eyes of the law it will never happen as they broke the law!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank35 mins ago
It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank42 mins ago
Crosswords44 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
I Post This Video Every Year . . .
ChatterBank52 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.