Gay Marriage Set to Unhinge Tories?
Discussion
ATG said:
98elise said:
Whats the difference between marriage and a civil ceremony? I honestly don't know what difference is, and what is being denied to Gay people.
Is there some sort of legal distinction? Is it the church thing?
Think you might be confusing a civil wedding ceremony and a civil partnership. Civil wedding and a church wedding both lead to a marriage. A civil partnership is not a marriage.Is there some sort of legal distinction? Is it the church thing?
What I don't get is are people in a civil partnership legally any different, or dis-advantaged in any way? If that's the case then there is cause for change.
If its just that the dictionary definition defines it as a "man and woman", then I can't see why that's a problem. Its simply a description of a particular type of relationship, it doesn't reduce the status of the other.
If it really is just the dictionary definition, then gay people in civil partnerships should just start referring to themselves as "Married". Once it becomes common practice then the dictionary definitions will be changed to suit.
I'm not married, but that doesn't stop me referring to my partner as my "Wife", or us being "Married" (which we do for simplicity), and so far the Marriage Police haven't been around to stop us.
Edited by 98elise on Tuesday 21st May 19:35
Zod said:
but none of the antis actually dares come out and say that the truth is that they just don't like gays because they unsettle them.
I think you will find that it is in fact due to the righteous who will set about them with their pitchforks as they are evil ne'er-do-wells who hold a potentially opposing view.Quite frankly It would be a bit like a black guy turning up to a KKK meeting.
98elise said:
Whats the difference between marriage and a civil ceremony? I honestly don't know what difference is, and what is being denied to Gay people.
Is there some sort of legal distinction? Is it the church thing?
Mainly the church thing. Also civil partners of male peers don't get a courtesy title.Is there some sort of legal distinction? Is it the church thing?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-ma...
The main point to this is that civil partnerships are not marriage; there's a distinction in law between what straight and gay people do, and that's not fair. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we shouldn't have to call it a goose because of sky fairies.
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Zod said:
but none of the antis actually dares come out and say that the truth is that they just don't like gays because they unsettle them.
I think you will find that it is in fact due to the righteous who will set about them with their pitchforks as they are evil ne'er-do-wells who hold a potentially opposing view.Quite frankly It would be a bit like a black guy turning up to a KKK meeting.
You seem to be attempting to make an argument that those who support equality are the intolerant ones, as intolerant as the Ku Klux Klan in fact, while those who want to entrench discrimination are the oppressed. This is an inversion of reality worthy of Lewis Carroll.
rohrl said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Zod said:
but none of the antis actually dares come out and say that the truth is that they just don't like gays because they unsettle them.
I think you will find that it is in fact due to the righteous who will set about them with their pitchforks as they are evil ne'er-do-wells who hold a potentially opposing view.Quite frankly It would be a bit like a black guy turning up to a KKK meeting.
You seem to be attempting to make an argument that those who support equality are the intolerant ones, as intolerant as the Ku Klux Klan in fact, while those who want to entrench discrimination are the oppressed. This is an inversion of reality worthy of Lewis Carroll.
Its a fairly common theme when someone expresses a view the righteous dislike. Note how everyone is now terrified of saying anything that could be perceived as racist,sexist etc. Fear of sanction by law is nothing compared to fear of sanction and shunning by the braying righteous.
I have a friend who is staunchly a leftie. Believes fervently in equality fairness etc etc etc. I can present solid facts/evidence to dispel a belief of his and he will still argue blind I am wrong. He happens to be a teacher.
There appears to be a desperate need from people these days to support a cause, to feel sorry for and insulted on behalf of others.
Your complaint then tbb is that you no longer feel as free as you used to be to express views others perceive to be racist or sexist because more people nowadays will pick you up for doing so. Is this a bad thing? If you're not being racist and sexist you'll be able to explain why and if you are then it's not really a complaint worth making.
Why would others perceive your statements to be racist or sexist anyway? It's one of two reasons: either they are racist/sexist or you're not expressing yourself and your opinions satisfactorily clearly.
By "be offended on behalf of others" I'm going to take it to mean that a white person might be offended by anti-black racism or that a man might object to misogyny. If I'm wrong in my interpretation please correct me. Again, is this a bad thing?
Why would others perceive your statements to be racist or sexist anyway? It's one of two reasons: either they are racist/sexist or you're not expressing yourself and your opinions satisfactorily clearly.
By "be offended on behalf of others" I'm going to take it to mean that a white person might be offended by anti-black racism or that a man might object to misogyny. If I'm wrong in my interpretation please correct me. Again, is this a bad thing?
chrisw666 said:
It doesn't change the value of heterosexual marriage to allow single sex marriage and it doesn't make the country any better or worse. Nobody is going to be forced to marry a gay person if this legislation is passed.
This is the thing that baffles me about those shouting the loudest that the institution of marriage is being somehow devalued because of this. I very much doubt straight couples are suddenly going to stop getting married now that same sex couples can (assuming it gets through the Lords). The whole "redefining the meaning of marriage" argument conveniently manages to omit the word "current", thus giving the impression it's always had a static definition both legally and culturally.rohrl said:
Your complaint then tbb is that you no longer feel as free as you used to be to express views others perceive to be racist or sexist because more people nowadays will pick you up for doing so. Is this a bad thing? If you're not being racist and sexist you'll be able to explain why and if you are then it's not really a complaint worth making.
Why would others perceive your statements to be racist or sexist anyway? It's one of two reasons: either they are racist/sexist or you're not expressing yourself and your opinions satisfactorily clearly.
By "be offended on behalf of others" I'm going to take it to mean that a white person might be offended by anti-black racism or that a man might object to misogyny. If I'm wrong in my interpretation please correct me. Again, is this a bad thing?
Very much so. I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and freedom of belief. I may disagree with someones opinion or belief but I still grant him the courtesy of being allowed to express it without fear. Why would others perceive your statements to be racist or sexist anyway? It's one of two reasons: either they are racist/sexist or you're not expressing yourself and your opinions satisfactorily clearly.
By "be offended on behalf of others" I'm going to take it to mean that a white person might be offended by anti-black racism or that a man might object to misogyny. If I'm wrong in my interpretation please correct me. Again, is this a bad thing?
In this so called modern society however a person has to watch absolutely everything they say for fear of being labelled and abused for holding a view someone else may disagree with.
Racism sexism etc is very much in the eye of the beholder.
What to one person is a racist slur is to another of the same race merely a word. What to one woman is a sexist slur is to another a compliment.
Where do we draw the line on offensiveness and freedom of speech and opinion?
To me describing someone as Asian is not offensive however there are those who would have you believe someone like me (white) describing someone as such is offensive, a racial slur.
mattnunn said:
If you don't want people to think y. 're racist or sexist you simply have to prefix anything you say with "I'm not racist or sexist but I read in the Daily Mail that...."
Seems to work for most of the racist and sexist people I know.
The best example of that in this thread was when someone trotted out their black candidate. ..Seems to work for most of the racist and sexist people I know.
"I'm not racist because I've got darkie mates"
See!
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Very much so. I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and freedom of belief. I may disagree with someones opinion or belief but I still grant him the courtesy of being allowed to express it without fear.
In this so called modern society however a person has to watch absolutely everything they say for fear of being labelled and abused for holding a view someone else may disagree with.
Racism sexism etc is very much in the eye of the beholder.
What to one person is a racist slur is to another of the same race merely a word. What to one woman is a sexist slur is to another a compliment.
Where do we draw the line on offensiveness and freedom of speech and opinion?
To me describing someone as Asian is not offensive however there are those who would have you believe someone like me (white) describing someone as such is offensive, a racial slur.
So, freedom of speech is that you are allowed the freedom to say whatever you like, but others are not allowed to react by labelling you or picking you up on what you say?In this so called modern society however a person has to watch absolutely everything they say for fear of being labelled and abused for holding a view someone else may disagree with.
Racism sexism etc is very much in the eye of the beholder.
What to one person is a racist slur is to another of the same race merely a word. What to one woman is a sexist slur is to another a compliment.
Where do we draw the line on offensiveness and freedom of speech and opinion?
To me describing someone as Asian is not offensive however there are those who would have you believe someone like me (white) describing someone as such is offensive, a racial slur.
rohrl said:
Your complaint then tbb is that you no longer feel as free as you used to be to express views others perceive to be racist or sexist because more people nowadays will pick you up for doing so. Is this a bad thing? If you're not being racist and sexist you'll be able to explain why and if you are then it's not really a complaint worth making.
That's freedom of speech, you see; say whatever you like, but don't expect anyone to agree with you. aizvara said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Very much so. I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and freedom of belief. I may disagree with someones opinion or belief but I still grant him the courtesy of being allowed to express it without fear.
In this so called modern society however a person has to watch absolutely everything they say for fear of being labelled and abused for holding a view someone else may disagree with.
Racism sexism etc is very much in the eye of the beholder.
What to one person is a racist slur is to another of the same race merely a word. What to one woman is a sexist slur is to another a compliment.
Where do we draw the line on offensiveness and freedom of speech and opinion?
To me describing someone as Asian is not offensive however there are those who would have you believe someone like me (white) describing someone as such is offensive, a racial slur.
So, freedom of speech is that you are allowed the freedom to say whatever you like, but others are not allowed to react by labelling you or picking you up on what you say?In this so called modern society however a person has to watch absolutely everything they say for fear of being labelled and abused for holding a view someone else may disagree with.
Racism sexism etc is very much in the eye of the beholder.
What to one person is a racist slur is to another of the same race merely a word. What to one woman is a sexist slur is to another a compliment.
Where do we draw the line on offensiveness and freedom of speech and opinion?
To me describing someone as Asian is not offensive however there are those who would have you believe someone like me (white) describing someone as such is offensive, a racial slur.
I welcome peoples opposing views. I may not agree with them but I am happy to discuss their view with them as we both may learn something or be persuaded to change our opinion.
We should not be forced to do so through fear which seems to be the modern modus operandi.
A better example of what I perceive to be racist versus not.
If I was walking down the street and some random black guy I have never met shouts at me filthy slave master that IMHO would be racist. Would I go getting upset about it? Of course not. I would consider him to be ignorant and naive. For want of a better word I would feel sorry for him that he holds that view.
However if I was having a chat with a mate who happens to be black and he says to me that he has concerns that whites still see black people as slaves I would be in no way offended.
He is not racially targeting me personally he is merely expressing a personal view/opinion or fear and I take it as my responsibility to try to allay his concern and change his beliefs through calm discussion.
If in the end he still feels that way that's fair enough its his opinion I am not going to try force him to change his belief nor will I think any less of him. He will change his beliefs in his own time if he so chooses.
There is a very simple answer to all of this - have it in a referendum or as part of the next general election.
Practically every other civillised country in the world manages to hold elections with multiple topics and not make a total hash of it. This should be no different.
Whichever way the voting goes, it'll be the people having their say directly.
They can have an EU membership vote and anything else that may crop up in the meantime.
You either believe in democracy or you don't, this is the ultimate in democracy.
Practically every other civillised country in the world manages to hold elections with multiple topics and not make a total hash of it. This should be no different.
Whichever way the voting goes, it'll be the people having their say directly.
They can have an EU membership vote and anything else that may crop up in the meantime.
You either believe in democracy or you don't, this is the ultimate in democracy.
GavinPearson said:
There is a very simple answer to all of this - have it in a referendum or as part of the next general election.
Practically every other civillised country in the world manages to hold elections with multiple topics and not make a total hash of it. This should be no different.
Whichever way the voting goes, it'll be the people having their say directly.
They can have an EU membership vote and anything else that may crop up in the meantime.
You either believe in democracy or you don't, this is the ultimate in democracy.
Read up on "The tyranny of the majority".Practically every other civillised country in the world manages to hold elections with multiple topics and not make a total hash of it. This should be no different.
Whichever way the voting goes, it'll be the people having their say directly.
They can have an EU membership vote and anything else that may crop up in the meantime.
You either believe in democracy or you don't, this is the ultimate in democracy.
If we'd exercised "the ultimate in democracy" we'd probably still have slavery and no votes for women.
JonRB said:
Don't encourage him. He always trolls threads like these with his 'bigotry dressed up in the clothes of reasonableness'.
What a shame you are incapable of debate, accusing anyone who disagrees with you of bigotry. A sign of insecurity perhaps.As someone said earlier in this thread - was it Tallbutbuxomly - the inability of some to recognise that there is more than one genuine point of view is regrettably seen in more and more threads.
Just agree to disagree.
Ozzie Osmond said:
What a shame you are incapable of debate, accusing anyone who disagrees with you of bigotry. A sign of insecurity perhaps.
As someone said earlier in this thread - was it Tallbutbuxomly - the inability of some to recognise that there is more than one genuine point of view is regrettably seen in more and more threads.
Just agree to disagree.
Maybe you should take your own advice once in a while. As someone said earlier in this thread - was it Tallbutbuxomly - the inability of some to recognise that there is more than one genuine point of view is regrettably seen in more and more threads.
Just agree to disagree.
king duck!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff