Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst

[JuniorD]

Justayellowbadge said:

JuniorD said:

Me and a few mates were once refused entry to a nightclub, do I have grounds to sue someone?

You ain't coming in in trainers. Not 2 left ones, anyway.

Excuse me?! You cruel bd! They're my orthopaedic trainers. Now what's you name and where's your manager?

[anonymous-user]

[Bill]

TallbutBuxomly said:

I would ask again if someone could explain how not allowing the word marriage to encompass same sex couples is not equal.

Again?

Gay people can have a civil partnership, it's exactly like a marriage but isn't a marriage because they're gay.

Oddly enough many gay people find that insulting.

[stackmonkey]

Ozzie Osmond said:

The point I was making is at F1 races they generally have a line of pretty girls,
etc

If that was really your point, you made it very badly, and i covered the main options in my earlier reply..

Besides, there are different rules for advertising etc. They are allowed to specify skin colour, ethnicity, height, weight, regional accent, hair, muscle tone etc

[standards]

2 questions:

What(apart from the label& availability to hetero/homosexual) is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?

If a marriage/partnership is between 2 consenting adults why does society restrict it to 'one at a time'?

[TallbutBuxomly]

So why not simply give their union a specific title of its own different to marriage rather than change the definition of marriage entirely?

In fact I would bet that if offered their very own title in line with marriage but not actually marriage which would differentiate their sexual orientation they would refuse on the grounds its unfair and insulting when in fact all it does is give same sex couples their own "special" title and it also gives lgbt couples their own "special" title.

Both parties then have their very own definition of their union neither being of any greater status than the other, other than by those wishing to perceive themselves as being lesser than a straight or lgbt couple.

On top of this as I stated a little while ago all this is detracting from the real important issue of gays not being able to have their ceremony pretty much wherever they want.

[IainT]

TallbutBuxomly said:

change the definition of marriage entirely?

What universal and timelessly stable definition of marriage are you referring to?

[Bill]

TallbutBuxomly said:

So why not simply give their union a specific title of its own different to marriage rather than change the definition of marriage entirely?

In fact I would bet that if offered their very own title in line with marriage but not actually marriage which would differentiate their sexual orientation they would refuse on the grounds its unfair and insulting when in fact all it does is give same sex couples their own "special" title and it also gives lgbt couples their own "special" title.

Both parties then have their very own definition of their union neither being of any greater status than the other, other than by those wishing to perceive themselves as being lesser than a straight or lgbt couple.

On top of this as I stated a little while ago all this is detracting from the real important issue of gays not being able to have their ceremony pretty much wherever they want.

So why not call it marriage, since that is what it is...

[TallbutBuxomly]

Bill said:

TallbutBuxomly said:

So why not simply give their union a specific title of its own different to marriage rather than change the definition of marriage entirely?

In fact I would bet that if offered their very own title in line with marriage but not actually marriage which would differentiate their sexual orientation they would refuse on the grounds its unfair and insulting when in fact all it does is give same sex couples their own "special" title and it also gives lgbt couples their own "special" title.

Both parties then have their very own definition of their union neither being of any greater status than the other, other than by those wishing to perceive themselves as being lesser than a straight or lgbt couple.

On top of this as I stated a little while ago all this is detracting from the real important issue of gays not being able to have their ceremony pretty much wherever they want.

So why not call it marriage, since that is what it is...

A perfectly reasonable argument. In principle it could be argued there is no reason not to as marriage is by definition used to describe union between two objects. There is reasons to and not to. In effect a grey area where legislation will not cover and it will create negativity and resentment towards the lgbt community and its members.

How big the impact is the big unknown question.

I am a firm believer in education over legislation. For example my local police force are one of the best in the country for roads policing as that is their exact policy.
As an example they have pulled me twice for speeding but rather than give me a ticket they explained why my speed was inappropriate and I have adjusted my driving accordingly.
I attribute my clean and safe record in part to them teaching me. If they had simply given me a lecture about speed being bad and a ticket I would have resented them and ignored pretty much any "message" they were trying to get across.

That is my concern with legislation and changing the meaning of the word marriage. It does not educate its a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In this so called "modern" society it seems a case of he who shouts loudest gets what they want like a parent giving a fat kid lying on the floor of a supermarket screaming and shouting the sweety they want to shut them up instead of letting them carry on as the sweet may taste nice but its not good for them.

[Sticks.]

Bill said:

Again?

Gay people can have a civil partnership, it's exactly like a marriage but isn't a marriage because they're gay.

Oddly enough many gay people find that insulting.

Given the 'B&B case' judgement, as far as I can see, said the Christian couple in denying them the room becuase they weren't married were wrong, because they were efectively the same as a married couple, is the difference no more than what it's called?

[anonymous-user]

If the gay couple at the B and B had been married (if the law had changed already), I do not suppose that the owners would have let them stay. It was pretty plain what they objected to, and I doubt that they had been asking to inspect marriage certificates for straight couples.

[Sticks.]

I dare say. But didn't the judge make it clear that in every way they should be considered the same as married?

[anonymous-user]

From memory, I think he did.

[Bill]

Sticks. said:

Given the 'B&B case' judgement, as far as I can see, said the Christian couple in denying them the room becuase they weren't married were wrong, because they were efectively the same as a married couple, is the difference no more than what it's called?

I'm no expert, but afaik that's correct.

[Sticks.]

It was posted a couple of pages back, if it helps.

So if there are equal rights for married couple and partners, is it just the name of it?

[TallbutBuxomly]

Sticks. said:

It was posted a couple of pages back, if it helps.

So if there are equal rights for married couple and partners, is it just the name of it?

No and yes. It stems from the fact that lgbt couples are very restricted in where they can have a civil ceremony compared to straight couples due to it not being a marriage ceremony if I understand it correctly. There is also the aspect that lgbt couples feel its unfair they cannot describe their union as marriage as in essence that is what it is.

If they could get married it would mean that anywhere that a straight couple can have a marriage ceremony a gay couple could too.

[Bill]

Sticks. said:

It was posted a couple of pages back, if it helps.

So if there are equal rights for married couple and partners, is it just the name of it?

Yep. It makes the objections seem even more daft, doesn't it?

[JonRB]

TallbutBuxomly said:

No and yes. It stems from the fact that lgbt couples are very restricted in where they can have a civil ceremony compared to straight couples due to it not being a marriage ceremony if I understand it correctly. There is also the aspect that lgbt couples feel its unfair they cannot describe their union as marriage as in essence that is what it is.

If they could get married it would mean that anywhere that a straight couple can have a marriage ceremony a gay couple could too.

And this would be bad?

[Bill]

TallbutBuxomly said:

A perfectly reasonable argument. In principle it could be argued there is no reason not to as marriage is by definition used to describe union between two objects. There is reasons to and not to. In effect a grey area where legislation will not cover and it will create negativity and resentment towards the lgbt community and its members.

How big the impact is the big unknown question.

I am a firm believer in education over legislation. For example my local police force are one of the best in the country for roads policing as that is their exact policy.
As an example they have pulled me twice for speeding but rather than give me a ticket they explained why my speed was inappropriate and I have adjusted my driving accordingly.
I attribute my clean and safe record in part to them teaching me. If they had simply given me a lecture about speed being bad and a ticket I would have resented them and ignored pretty much any "message" they were trying to get across.

That is my concern with legislation and changing the meaning of the word marriage. It does not educate its a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In this so called "modern" society it seems a case of he who shouts loudest gets what they want like a parent giving a fat kid lying on the floor of a supermarket screaming and shouting the sweety they want to shut them up instead of letting them carry on as the sweet may taste nice but its not good for them.

Your objections get ever more nebulous.

[TallbutBuxomly]

JonRB said:

TallbutBuxomly said:

No and yes. It stems from the fact that lgbt couples are very restricted in where they can have a civil ceremony compared to straight couples due to it not being a marriage ceremony if I understand it correctly. There is also the aspect that lgbt couples feel its unfair they cannot describe their union as marriage as in essence that is what it is.

If they could get married it would mean that anywhere that a straight couple can have a marriage ceremony a gay couple could too.

And this would be bad?

Jon not trying to be rude but not covering the same ground. To find that answer read my comments on this issue on previous pages.