|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Feb 11, 2013 12:40:36 GMT
I'm sorry but I don't understand "gay marriage", and why parliament spent time on the issue.
As I understood it, if 6 people went into the registry office today, they could all take part in a civil ceremonies to make themselves into 3 couples, and all three couples would have equal rights in law regarding "next of kin", inheritance etc. regardless of them being in a male/female relationship or male/male relationship or female/female relationship.
If this is the case why the need for a "gay marriage" law?
As I don't understand the issue, it is difficult for me to judge whether it was a good use of parliament's time, when (for me) there are other more important issues for the current government to be dealing with - NHS, immigration, "horse meat" education, the national debt.
Also I don't remember it being on the manifesto of any of the parties, so the electorate didn't have a chance to express their views on the matter through the ballot box.
I understand that for mps it was a "conscience" vote, surely mps are there to represent their constituents views on a matter?
If we have a "gay marriage" law, does that now mean we will have a "heterosexual civil partnership" law?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 11, 2013 12:53:34 GMT
"does that now mean we will have a "heterosexual civil partnership" law?"
No. That particular contradiction will be quietly swept under the carpet.
The homosexual variant of "marriage" will, however, be called "gay marriage" for ever more rather than the heretofore normal "marriage" because people will still continue to distinguish between the real and the fake, SJJ.
The advocates for this change should've stuck with "civil partnership" which no-one objected to because it was the correct term for the particular contract in question.
Now they may be able legally to claim the word "marriage" but it will forever have the suffix prefix "gay" tagged on to it no matter what the PC demand!
Marriage by definition was heterosexual until now. Henceforth there will continue be to normal "marriage" for the vast majority and homosexuals will have "gay marriage". Why? Because people generally like precision in naming things! I don't think this was foreseen.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 11, 2013 13:05:13 GMT
...The homosexual variant will continue to be called "gay marriage" for ever more... Unlikely, since most homosexual people and their friends and relations talk about their being 'married' even now, and that's not likely to change. I would just stop worrying your pretty little head about it, marchesa. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 11, 2013 13:12:14 GMT
You'll be quibbling over the use of the word "normal" next, jean! In fact that is what I was expecting - another attack on the dictionary.
Are you planning to upgrade to "marriage" or has the civil partnership already been put asunder?
Since gay marriage activists seem exceeding keen on *equality* in this universal institution I think they will be a bit surprised that people will continue to acknowledge the difference between the real and the fake by attaching "gay" to the latter. What gay folk call it between themselves is entirely up to themselves as it always has been.
So nothing changes there.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Feb 12, 2013 1:16:27 GMT
Now they may be able legally to claim the word "marriage" but it will forever have the suffix "gay" tagged on to it no matter what the PC demand! Marriage gay, Hooray, hooray, A suffix here, A prefix there, We do not care, We shall not care. Not that I'm gay, of course. As long as that's as clear as day. As clear as day, I cannot say, And if I'm gay, I need a day To find a way, Away, away. |
|
BabelFish
WH Member
what they mean when they say
Posts: 25 
|
Post by BabelFish on Feb 12, 2013 2:02:20 GMT
Since gay marriage activists seem exceeding keen on *equality* in this universal institution I think they will be a bit surprised that people will continue to acknowledge the difference between the real and the fake by attaching "gay" to the latter. What gay folk call it between themselves is entirely up to themselves as it always has been. So nothing changes there. Trans. I am a real person. Real people (like me) get married. That's one of the ways you can tell that we are real. You go letting the gay folk get married then people might start thinking that the gay folk are real too. And not fake. I don't want change. |
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Feb 12, 2013 9:40:58 GMT
Trans. I am a real person. Real people (like me) get married. That's one of the ways you can tell that we are real. You go letting the gay folk get married then people might start thinking that the gay folk are real too. And not fake. I don't want change. trans. i'm only ever here to put the boot in. what a card i am. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 12, 2013 10:02:14 GMT
Trans. I am a real person. Real people (like me) get married. That's one of the ways you can tell that we are real. You go letting the gay folk get married then people might start thinking that the gay folk are real too. And not fake. I don't want change. trans. i'm only ever here to put the boot in. what a card i am. How strange, pippa, that you never see this sort of thing as putting the boot in: You'll be quibbling over the use of the word "normal" next, jean!... Are you planning to upgrade to "marriage" or has the civil partnership already been put asunder?... Nasty stuff. Can you really not see that? |
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Feb 12, 2013 10:03:12 GMT
People will always use terms like "male nurse" as well, though. And "True facts." It's more to do with grammar failure than what you call PC (and having to write F*ck on these boards, rather than the perfectly acceptable if informal full version, is every bit as PC as the stuff that right wingers always enjoy going on about).
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 12, 2013 10:09:34 GMT
In practice, except for discussions like this one, the opportunity for using the word fake hardly exists.
IRL people talk about themselves or other people getting married, being married (happily or unhappily), staying married, separating, getting divorced.
It's just going to be a bit easier for everyone to talk or write about these things in respect of gay people in future.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 12, 2013 10:18:20 GMT
"It's just going to be a bit easier for everyone to talk or write about"
Your mistake is in the assumption that there was some problem in talking or writing about gay couples until now.
They were covered by the word "partner" which, not so VERY long ago, remember, was the preferred PC option for describing ALL cohabitees - straight or gay and married or not IN ORDER NOT TO DISCRIMINATE.
How quickly fads /DO change with the politically correct fraternity, don't they? They must need a perpetual supply of new perceived "inequalities" to keep their little teeth honed on and to provide them with a sense of group identity. Why, one wonders?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 12, 2013 10:32:15 GMT
Since "marriage" is now perceived by some as so superior to mere "partnership" there is nothing in the least "nasty" in enquiring about an "upgrade" and even whether the partnership still exists at all, jean.
One is merely curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 12, 2013 10:44:25 GMT
Your mistake is in the assumption that there was some problem in talking or writing about gay couples until now. They were covered by the word "partner"... Certainly, that's fine if you want to talk about the people concerned. Partner is fine for heterosexual people in relationships, too, and many use it, even if they're married (though there are always those who complain about the terrible difficulties involved in distinguishing between a sexual and a business partner). But if you look at the examples I gave above and replace the terms married and divorced with something involving partner, you get cumbersome phrases like they're having a civil partnership, they're in a civil partnership, they've been in a civil partnership for ... years, their civil partnership is no longer as happy as it once was, they are having their civil partnership dissolved.All very cumbersome, and unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 12, 2013 10:47:49 GMT
Since "marriage" is now perceived by some as so superior to mere "partnership" there is nothing in the least "nasty" in enquiring about an "upgrade" and even whether the partnership still exists at all, jean. It is quite nasty to couple such an enquiry with one about the meaning of the word normal, marchesa. It was you who introduced that word to this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 12, 2013 11:34:56 GMT
All except a few die hard PC activist will continue to use the expression "marriage" in the heretofore normal sense of a male-female union.
If you don't like the world "normal", tough. Most people are perfectly at ease with its meanings and do not feel the need to quibble over its use.
Perhaps you should start a campaign to outlaw it since some gays are offended by it?
|
|
