Gay Marriage Set to Unhinge Tories?
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Also you are not merely changing the descriptive of marriage most likely though as yet unconfirmed you are also changing the feminine and masculine. Will two men be allowed to say their vows thus...
Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
It has been during my lifetime that the word husband has been used in marriage ceremonies in this country in church. It used to be man and wife. So the precedent for change of wording has already been set. Further, if we are onto precedent, JohnRB's post is rather overwhelming.Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
Tallbutbuxomly said:
stackmonkey said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
You really haven't got a clue have you.Know many gay people do you?
Can you clarify with all your experience around people who are gay.
Ever discussed the issue with gay people?
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Yes however yet again as I was arguing. Husband and wife. Man and Woman. Male and female.
So, to reiterate what I said earlier (and you ignored), you'd be totally ok with the marriage of two people who were born male, but one had undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery and was now legally female, so that the couple were legally man and woman? And, also, you would be demanding the divorce of a happily married and loving couple where the male in the marriage had subsequently undergone the same surgery so they were now legally lesbians?
JonRB said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Yes however yet again as I was arguing. Husband and wife. Man and Woman. Male and female.
So, to reiterate what I said earlier (and you ignored), you'd be totally ok with the marriage of two people who were born male, but one had undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery and was now legally female, so that the couple were legally man and woman? Yes as one would be male one would be female
And, also, you would be demanding the divorce of a happily married and loving couple where the male in the marriage had subsequently undergone the same surgery so they were now legally lesbians?
Obviously not. She would no longer be male and would not fit into the gender assignment of Husband. Husband describes male.
Tallbutbuxomly said:
JonRB said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Yes however yet again as I was arguing. Husband and wife. Man and Woman. Male and female.
So, to reiterate what I said earlier (and you ignored), you'd be totally ok with the marriage of two people who were born male, but one had undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery and was now legally female, so that the couple were legally man and woman? Yes as one would be male one would be female
And, also, you would be demanding the divorce of a happily married and loving couple where the male in the marriage had subsequently undergone the same surgery so they were now legally lesbians?
Obviously not. She would no longer be male and would not fit into the gender assignment of Husband. Husband describes male.
Do you not think that this is more than a little f
ked up? For me, marriage is a declaration of love and commitment. What is it for you?JonRB said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
JonRB said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Yes however yet again as I was arguing. Husband and wife. Man and Woman. Male and female.
So, to reiterate what I said earlier (and you ignored), you'd be totally ok with the marriage of two people who were born male, but one had undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery and was now legally female, so that the couple were legally man and woman? Yes as one would be male one would be female
And, also, you would be demanding the divorce of a happily married and loving couple where the male in the marriage had subsequently undergone the same surgery so they were now legally lesbians?
Obviously not. She would no longer be male and would not fit into the gender assignment of Husband. Husband describes male.
No. What I am saying is there is more to marriage than just love. Marriage used to be about money stature and various other things between a man and a woman and love rarely came into it. Over time it has changed to encompass and to be a declaration of love
Do you not think that this is more than a little f
ked up? For me, marriage is a declaration of love and commitment. What is it for you?Long and short most people these days don't properly understand what marriage is much the same as they dont understand what love is. They are words to be used lightly without any thought of their context or meaning.Much the same as it is seen as socially acceptable and almost the done thing these days for girls/woman to get pregnant and just have an abortion as a form of birth control.
Edited by Tallbutbuxomly on Thursday 23 May 19:16
Tallbutbuxomly said:
No. What I am saying is there is more to marriage than just love. Marriage used to be about money stature and various other things between a man and a woman and love rarely came into it. Over time it has changed to encompass and to be a declaration of love
I see. It's ok for marriage to evolve into a declaration of love, so long as the two people who love each other have compatible genitals regardless of the ones they were born with. Ok, I'm following you so far. So if a married soldier has his penis and balls blown off by a landmine, he has to divorce his wife then, right? Or does he only have to divorce her if they are surgically removed and made into the semblance of a vagina?
I'm just trying to understand at what point two people who love each other can and can't be married.
I have to say this is all rather complicated. Why can't we just say that two people who love each other and want to make a commitment can be married? Seems a lot simpler.
JonRB said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
No. What I am saying is there is more to marriage than just love. Marriage used to be about money stature and various other things between a man and a woman and love rarely came into it. Over time it has changed to encompass and to be a declaration of love
I see. It's ok for marriage to evolve into a declaration of love, so long as the two people who love each other have compatible genitals regardless of the ones they were born with. Ok, I'm following you so far. So if a married soldier has his penis and balls blown off by a landmine, he has to divorce his wife then, right? Or does he only have to divorce her if they are surgically removed and made into the semblance of a vagina?
I'm just trying to understand at what point two people who love each other can and can't be married.
I have to say this is all rather complicated. Why can't we just say that two people who love each other and want to make a commitment can be married? Seems a lot simpler.
I don't particularly care if gay people are given the right to get married as it wont change my life or the way I see marriage. I do feel it is unjust, careless, stupid and reckless to simply change it because its perceived to be "unfair" without truly considering all the potential ramifications and the impact it will have on everything and everyone very carefully.
I have now reached the point where I think that we are simply wasting each others time. I realise I am a dinosaur stuck in the past where you don't just declare you love someone you actually consider the words the meaning and the impact on the person to whom you make that declaration and the implications and obligations upon yourself once having said it.
You consider the implications of your declaration on those who care about you and those who care about the person you love.
Consider this. You tell the woman you are dating you love her. She thrilled tells her parents who care about her making them either happy or sad (depending on how they feel about you and your relationship with her). Further once you have declared you love her if you break up with her or hurt her it is her parents to whom she will run crying impacting her parents once more.
Likewise with her friends etc.
It is not merely her you are declaring your love for but her family and friends. That one little word has massive wider repercussions that most people won't ever consider. It's after all "only a word".
Edited by Tallbutbuxomly on Thursday 23 May 20:13
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Jon I could probably waste the rest of my life trying to get yourself and others to understand the fact that words have meaning and context and that for every action their is a reaction which have repercussions both small and large and should not be taken lightly and flippantly as they largely are these days.
Mate, I wasn't taking the piss there. I was really trying to understand your viewpoint. You said that it was ok if one of the guys had Sex Reassignment Surgery as they would then be a man and a woman. And you said that a married couple would have to divorce if the man became a woman. And I then asked about the scenario where the man became "not a man" due to an accident such as a landmine. I genuinely was not trying to be obtuse - I was trying to home in on the borderline / boundary condition. I'm a Software Engineer (or computer programmer, if you prefer) and part of my job is dealing in logic and predicting so-called 'boundary conditions'. However, just as I thought we were getting somewhere you appear to have thrown your hands up in the air and metaphorically stalked off.
Anyway, if nothing else, perhaps I have made you think a little. I would like to hope so.
Be well, fella.
JonRB said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Jon I could probably waste the rest of my life trying to get yourself and others to understand the fact that words have meaning and context and that for every action their is a reaction which have repercussions both small and large and should not be taken lightly and flippantly as they largely are these days.
Mate, I wasn't taking the piss there. I was really trying to understand your viewpoint. You said that it was ok if one of the guys had Sex Reassignment Surgery as they would then be a man and a woman. And you said that a married couple would have to divorce if the man became a woman. And I then asked about the scenario where then man became "not a man" due to an accident such as a landmine. I genuinely was not trying to be obtuse - I was trying to home in on the borderline / boundary condition. I'm a Software Engineer (or computer programmer, if you prefer) and part of my job is dealing in logic and predicting so-called 'boundary conditions'. However, just as I thought we were getting somewhere you appear to have thrown your hands up in the air and metaphorically stalked off.
Anyway, if nothing else, perhaps I have made you think a little. I would like to hope so.
Be well, fella.
I adopt a common sense and logic however clearly mine is different to most of yours. Likewise in your bomb blows off his bits. He is still a man. He has not had gender reassignment surgery. His bits may be missing but he has not had surgery to make his gender female. He is therefore still "husband".
It would be like saying a woman who has her breasts removed for medical reasons is no longer a woman. She very much is. She still has all other attributes and her breasts were not removed because she wanted to be of another gender.
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Jon I have not gone and stalked off I just see circles.
I adopt a common sense and logic however clearly mine is different to most of yours. Likewise in your bomb blows off his bits. He is still a man. He has not had gender reassignment surgery. His bits may be missing but he has not had surgery to make his gender female. He is therefore still "husband".
It would be like saying a woman who has her breasts removed for medical reasons is no longer a woman. She very much is. She still has all other attributes and her breasts were not removed because she wanted to be of another gender.
Ok. So, as I understand it, the desired or presented gender of the person is what is important to you. So long as the presented genders of the couple is male and female then they can marry (or remain married). I adopt a common sense and logic however clearly mine is different to most of yours. Likewise in your bomb blows off his bits. He is still a man. He has not had gender reassignment surgery. His bits may be missing but he has not had surgery to make his gender female. He is therefore still "husband".
It would be like saying a woman who has her breasts removed for medical reasons is no longer a woman. She very much is. She still has all other attributes and her breasts were not removed because she wanted to be of another gender.
But this is such a minefield. Because there are ladyboys or, as they are also known, pre-op transsexuals. Women who live, act and look female but still have a penis.
I promise you I am not being obtuse here. I am just trying to lead you in steps to my viewpoint whilst at the same time trying to understand yours.
I know you won't be able to make the final step here, but all these "what if's" are homing in on the boundary between what, to you, is and isn't acceptable for there to be marriage. And my viewpoint is that there is no boundary. It's the love and commitment that is the important thing.
Edited by JonRB on Thursday 23 May 20:33
catso said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
It is not merely her you are declaring your love for but her family and friends.
Hang on a moment, I love my Wife but not keen on her Family. 
Sorry about the bad news.
JonRB said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Jon I have not gone and stalked off I just see circles.
I adopt a common sense and logic however clearly mine is different to most of yours. Likewise in your bomb blows off his bits. He is still a man. He has not had gender reassignment surgery. His bits may be missing but he has not had surgery to make his gender female. He is therefore still "husband".
It would be like saying a woman who has her breasts removed for medical reasons is no longer a woman. She very much is. She still has all other attributes and her breasts were not removed because she wanted to be of another gender.
Ok. So, as I understand it, the desired or presented gender of the person is what is important to you. So long as the presented genders of the couple is male and female then they can marry (or remain married). I adopt a common sense and logic however clearly mine is different to most of yours. Likewise in your bomb blows off his bits. He is still a man. He has not had gender reassignment surgery. His bits may be missing but he has not had surgery to make his gender female. He is therefore still "husband".
It would be like saying a woman who has her breasts removed for medical reasons is no longer a woman. She very much is. She still has all other attributes and her breasts were not removed because she wanted to be of another gender.
But this is such a minefield. Because there are ladyboys or, as they are also known, pre-op transsexuals. Women who live, act and look female but still have a penis.
I promise you I am not being obtuse here. I am just trying to lead you in steps to my viewpoint whilst at the same time trying to understand yours.
I know you won't be able to make the final step here, but all these "what if's" are homing in on the boundary between what, to you, is and isn't acceptable for there to be marriage. And my viewpoint is that there is no boundary. It's the love and commitment that is the important thing.
Edited by JonRB on Thursday 23 May 20:33
Or are you telling me that on that occasion I dressed up in high heels, fish nets, mini skirt, boob tube, wig and make up I was a a real woman for the night??? 
Why the hell did no one think to tell me it was that easy. I would have been down my local gym like a shot hanging out in the ladies changing room.
Why the hell did no one think to tell me it was that easy. I would have been down my local gym like a shot hanging out in the ladies changing room.
Tallbutbuxomly said:
I see where you are going with this Jon but the fact is they may look like a duck and quack like a duck but if it doesn't have wings its not a duck. A ladyboy is still a man. Just because they look appear to be female does not make them female. I could put on a dress, wig and make up and claim to be female but I wouldn't be as I have a dick.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but genitalia do not define your gender identity. In the same way that a man who has his penis blown off is still a man, a pre-op transsexual who has not yet had her reassignment surgery is still a woman. And that's before we even get into intersex / third sex / transgender people. But we are arguing semantics here now. It is clear that you believe that love and commitment are irrelevant for a marriage; all that is important is that one person has a penis (and presents as a male) and the other has a vagina (and presents as a female).
It's sometimes said that "there's nowt as blind as those that won't see". You see these bizarre semantics as reasonable whereas everyone else finds it incomprehensible.
Live long and prosper, mate. I think my sausages are done here.
Tallbutbuxomly said:
stackmonkey said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
You really haven't got a clue have you.Know many gay people do you?
Can you clarify with all your experience around people who are gay.
Ever discussed the issue with gay people?
Yes, lots.
From the numersous couples that I know, not one of them fall into stereotypical 'masculine and feminine roles'.
Yes, they all think you're talking bollux.
stackmonkey said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
stackmonkey said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
You really haven't got a clue have you.Know many gay people do you?
Can you clarify with all your experience around people who are gay.
Ever discussed the issue with gay people?
Yes, lots.
From the numersous couples that I know, not one of them fall into stereotypical 'masculine and feminine roles'.
Yes, they all think you're talking bollux.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff