|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 12, 2013 12:36:41 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 they do they'll have to stipulate heterosexual marriage if they wish to convey any such intended distinction. Otherwise their intention simply won't be understood, will it? Because marriage will no longer carry the definition that was previously laid down - by legislative diktat, not by any sense of "normality". You are not using "normal" in the mathematical, statistical sense, are you? If you are, that's not the normal sense of normal at all. It's the sense that you are in fact using it that gays are offended by - and they're not the only ones, by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Feb 12, 2013 12:51:58 GMT
(sorry to appear thick) But I still don't understand what was voted for last Tuesday.
Are civil partnerships now to be called marriages?
Or can gay couples now ask a registrar to perform either a "civil partnership" ceremony or a "marriage" ceremony? Do they get a choice?
I have stuck with referring to registry office services i.e. civil ceremonies because the new law exempts religious organisations from performing "gay marriages" unless they want to. And religious organisations can't be sued for discrimination, if they choose to not to perform "gay marriages"?
But didn't a number of religious adoption agencies (catholic?) have to close because they refused to place children with gay couples?
So will this protection actually stand?
Again I ask did any of the main parties included this in their manifestos?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 12, 2013 13:44:03 GMT
(sorry to appear thick) But I still don't understand what was voted for last Tuesday. That same-sex couples can get married if they wish. No. I'm not sure. I'd guess the civil partnership institution will be redundant, practically if not legislatively. It would be a silly and lazy oversight to leave that institution still extant, I think. I believe the CofE and W can't, even if they do want to. A very daft shillyshallying on Cameron's part - I really don't understand the rationale for it. Yes. Their right to so choose is enshrined and has been upheld by the ECHR, the supreme court on such matters. They chose to close rather than follow the law. Yes, unless there's a new EU treaty, superceding the ECHR as the supreme court; or unless the ECHR modifies its convention, which will again require all signatories to ratify such modification. The change would have to be the subsumation of canon law under civil law, so it's not a minor matter. That doesn't mean it will never happen; but it's an inconceivable change without a major internal schism between the EU and all its Catholic members. Not to mention the minority religion populations of every member - any mosque could be sued for refusing to conduct a same-sex marriage, for example; or for that matter a marriage between a Moslem and a Jew. It will stand because no government, least of all one as fragile, democratically questioned, and institutionally unestablished as the EU, would ever dare to take on such deep-rooted and widespread dissent. Maybe in a couple of centuries, when religious belief itself has more or less withered away, who knows; but, then, who would care? No. It's a very minor matter; except for those religiously or psychologically opposed to equal civil rights for homosexuals. (Unless you're the Marchesa, whose objections are avowedly based on such bizarre anthropological, sociological, and linguistic theories that they're - to be generous - incomprehensible. Something to do with something called a "nexus", that can only scientifically exist between a man and a woman, of child-bearing age, and fertile constitution, that provides the sine qua non of the very meaning of the institution "marriage" - like the concept of electric charge is indispensable from the meaning of "electron".)
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 12, 2013 13:48:50 GMT
On second thoughts - it probably will remain; otherwise all those who have already contracted civil partnerships will be in some sort of quasi-legal limbo. I expect it will merely dwindle away, in fact and memory - a bit like the legal requirement for a radio license, or the still extant law that requires taxi cabs to carry a bale of straw.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 12, 2013 15:08:52 GMT
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. You are not using "normal" in the mathematical, statistical sense, are you? If you are, that's not the normal sense of normal at all. It's the sense that you are in fact using it that gays are offended by - and they're not the only ones, by a long shot. It's this sliding between the statistical use of normal and the everyday sense that is so useful to people who want to advance the kind of argument the marchesa is so fond of. They use the word in the second sense, and then come over all innocent and claim they were using it in the first sense all the time. But whoever talks of, say, red-haired people as abnormal in ordinary conversation? Even though, statistically, that is what they are.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 12, 2013 16:59:11 GMT
Are civil partnerships now to be called marriages? Or can gay couples now ask a registrar to perform either a "civil partnership" ceremony or a "marriage" ceremony? Do they get a choice? On second thoughts - it probably will remain; otherwise all those who have already contracted civil partnerships will be in some sort of quasi-legal limbo. I expect it will merely dwindle away, in fact and memory - a bit like the legal requirement for a radio license, or the still extant law that requires taxi cabs to carry a bale of straw. The reason for this curiously anomalous state is surely that when civil partnerships were devised and named, the intention was quite clearly to allow gay people to contract civil marriages. The name marriage was just seen as a step too far at that point. But civil partnerships won't dwindle away while Peter Tatchell stll has the bit between his teeth: equallove.org.uk/
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 12, 2013 17:03:51 GMT
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. You are not using "normal" in the mathematical, statistical sense, are you? If you are, that's not the normal sense of normal at all. It's the sense that you are in fact using it that gays are offended by - and they're not the only ones, by a long shot. It's this sliding between the statistical use of normal and the everyday sense that is so useful to people who want to advance the kind of argument the marchesa is so fond of. They use the word in the second sense, and then come over all innocent and claim they were using it in the first sense all the time. But whoever talks of, say, red-haired people as abnormal in ordinary conversation? Even though, statistically, that is what they are. It's very unusual to come across any argument that ever uses "normal" in the statistical sense. Because in most cases: so what? Whenever it's used in debate, what its user nearly always really means is normative. And that really is objectionable.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 12, 2013 17:06:19 GMT
The reason for this curiously anomalous state is surely that when civil partnerships were devised and named, the intention was quite clearly to allow gay people to contract civil marriages. The name marriage was just seen as a step too far at that point. Yes. Well - good for him. Are you going to get "married", if that's not too personal an enquity? Congratulations, if so - or if not, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 13, 2013 10:52:33 GMT
I made it perfectly clear that I think people are at ease with all the different senses of normal. They are not stupid. However, when I use it the simpletons on this board usually pretend for invidious reasons that I mean it in opposition to "abnormal". My academic background is in sociology which deals with both norms/values AND statistics so those are the senses in which I might employ the word "normal' as well a the ordinary, everyday meaning of "usual". The usage is invariably clear from the context except to the wilfully obtuse.
I don't think gays are abnormal in any way. I think the gay-marriage promoters are a tiny vociferous minority within a minority engaged in dictionary wars because they have nothing better to do and like to think they are progressing the, to me, faux "equality" agenda. They are a politically motivated pressure group that has attracted a coterie of the bien pensant politically correct. Let's not pretend any higher motivation or principle enters into it.
I'm sure people can add to these contexts in which the word "normal" is employed.
normal = usual/accepted/common normal vs abnormal (medical/genetic) normal distribution = statistical
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 13, 2013 11:04:47 GMT
Gay marriage was referred to as "gay marriage" this morning on Woman's Hour.
Proof, if any were needed, that normal usage of the word marriage will refer to that between a man and a woman, whereas the gay variant will remain explicitly demarcated by most people in everyday language. Why? Because they are different and everyone except a few diehards know it. The common usage is all.
Should've stuck to "partners" and "co-habitation". No confusion there and no discrimination against the "unwed". Until overtaken by the gay marriage agitation, these key words represented the most recent foray by the PC into "relationships" parlance. How things do move on with the PC, ever on the look-out for a new cause.
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Feb 13, 2013 12:11:28 GMT
No. It's a very minor matter; except for those religiously or psychologically opposed to equal civil rights for homosexuals. I don't have a background in the law, so I'm not in a position to say whether this is a "minor matter". At the moment I'm neither for or against "gay marriage". (The way I see it) For years (centuries), laws have been made on the basis of marriage being between a man and a woman. If marriage is redefined to include same sex couples what impact does that have on existing laws? A lot of the discussions I've heard/seen have been emotive, putting emotions aside what are the legal impacts of such a change? At the moment "straight couples" have marriage & "gay couples" have civil partnership thought they aren't called the same thing both "marriage" & "civil partnerships" give the same rights on those taking part. As I have said previousily I don't fully understand the issue, so can't accurately work out whether I'm for or against, I'm concerned that there are some unintented consequences as yet unforseen. There is a programme "Boston Legal", where the two main male leads, both heterosexual, want to enter a same-sex relationship with each other, so that one can look after the other who is ill - they weren't allowed, so ended up going to court to argue that even though they were both male and both heterosexual they should be allowed a "same sex" union. I know the above is fictional, but it did make me think about how laws could be used, and whether they are can be used in unintended ways
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 13, 2013 12:43:22 GMT
I made it perfectly clear that I think people are at ease with all the different senses of normal. Well, you think wrong, then. It's the "values" sense that people are ill at ease with. Statistically they are, obv. More to the point, you have argued vociferously that they do not share in the "nexus" between man and woman which is what every society has always placed great "value" on and celebrates specifically with the institution of "marriage" - which gays by your definitional logic cannot share. This obsessive meme has thoroughly distracted your perception and distorted your judgement on this question. No, let's not pretend - let's state it as the fact that it is. Yep. You've missed out the context we're talking about: conforming to a standard. And that sense invariably gets conflated with the meaning of normative - this standard is an ideal, one that should be aimed for and upheld by a system of prescriptions and rules. Thus it's also usually conflated with another concept you often use in the context of this debate, some moralistic connotation of the term natural. If I were you, I'd stop using it when you're talking about homosexuals, or what society might deem just in terms of how they're treated. I can't see it has any helpful place whatever.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 13, 2013 12:50:35 GMT
Gay marriage was referred to as "gay marriage" this morning on Woman's Hour. Proof, if any were needed, that normal usage of the word marriage will refer to that between a man and a woman, whereas the gay variant will remain explicitly demarcated by most people in everyday language. Why? Because they are different and everyone except a few diehards know it. The common usage is all. Proof of nothing of the sort. It merely demonstrates the commonplace I referred to above: they'll have to stipulate heterosexual marriage if they wish to convey any such intended distinction. After a few years, when "gay marriage" has been legal and routinely contracted, it will simply be assumed that anyone who then says "marriage" is referring to the institution that is applicable to both heterosexuals and gays. If they intend to communicate something more specific, they'll have to say so - they'll say "gay marriage" or "heterosexual marriage". That meme you've caught is a bastard, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 13, 2013 13:04:43 GMT
No. It's a very minor matter; except for those religiously or psychologically opposed to equal civil rights for homosexuals. I don't have a background in the law, so I'm not in a position to say whether this is a "minor matter". You don't need a background in law. All you need to know is that legally there is no difference between "civil partnership" and "marriage", as the opponents of gay marriage constantly harp. All the legal paraphernalia setting up such partnerships is already in place - it's merely a matter of a change in definition. As to whether it's a constitutional change, or one significant enough to require a mandate by manifesto announcement - as I said, there is no legal difference between civil partnership and marriage. What existing laws? No impact whatever, as far as I can imagine. None. The supposed impacts are all hypothetical, in some dystopian future where the hideous Orwellian European Court starts whipping priests into acting against their prejudices. Ah, that old one. Well - those unintended consequences might be healthy and beneficial, might they not? Interesting - I assume there must have been some financial implications involved here: the access to health insurance of a spouse, that sort of thing?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 13, 2013 16:22:30 GMT
Gay marriage was referred to as "gay marriage" this morning on Woman's Hour. Proof, if any were needed, that normal usage of the word marriage will refer to that between a man and a woman, whereas the gay variant will remain explicitly demarcated by most people in everyday language. Why? Because they are different... No such conclusion can or should be drawn from what anyone says this morning. The difference between heterosexual and gay marriage at the moment is that one is legal and the other isn't, yet. Hence the need to distinguish. When and if the proposed legislation is enacted, there will be no need to speak separately of gay marriage, and nobody will. Just wait and see.
|
|