Cameron: "Let's export gay marriage!"

[Flosshilde]

Could you explain the double-entendre in 'dinosaurs' ? :puzzle:

[Sydney Grew]

I think you'll find that they have demonstrated through their actions that they are not fit to provide a service to the general public because of their negative attitude towards lesbians and gay men.

So - where is the monetary compensation - many thousands of pounds per person - for the thousands of homo-sexualistic survivors who were in the past thrown into prison by those in authority who were "not fit to provide a service to the general public because of their negative attitude"? Surely that must be the next step!

Forget the present "reforms" - attend first to righting the injustices of the past! All the elderly gentlemen are waiting!!!

[Pabmusic]

...I have answered your question. Shock horror, I believe men and women are different and thank goodness for that! It is absurd in my view to suggest that a same-sex partnership is the same as that between a man a woman. Why should it now be considered some sort of crime to state the rather obvious? You appear to be saying that if 'gay marriage' doesn't affect me directly why should I care? That could be applied to anything and everything. Of course I care. Just like you do presumably. So are you to to be the final arbiter, Pab? Really?...

My question was: "In what way has your relationship been diminished by talk of gay marriage?" {post 35]

In what way have you answered it? The extended footnote to your assertion that you've answered it takes us nowhere. I am happy to concede that you didn't post the item I responded to. Fair enough, but you replied to my response, so I think you're fair game. No one (surely) doubts that you really don't like the idea of gay marriage, but I wasn't asking if you liked it. I was asking in what way your own marriage is diminished because of it.

You see, I doubt that it's affected your personal relationship at all (and no-one would wish it to, either). Nor anyone else's. And no amount of ad hominem attacks can disguise that.

[amateur51]

You see, I doubt that it's affected your personal relationship at all (and no-one would wish it to, either). Nor anyone else's. And no amount of ad hominem attacks can disguise that.

But you would have thought that scotty would have been concerned for the lesbian or gay members of his family or friends (for they do exist, possibly at a distance). This is the single truth that has apparently changed the world's view on this matter - we all know someone whose sexuality (that's all) is inclined towards being what Gore Vidal used to call 'same-sexers'.

I do not underestimate for one moment the courage involved in lesbians' and gay men's coming out to their family and friends and colleagues. Listening to the broadcast of the most recent debate in the House of Lords I was struck by how many referred to friends or relatives whose lives might be transformed positively by the passing of this legislation. In a sense they were speaking from enlightened self-interest. This is a big social change and the principal reason why young people cannot understand what some people are getting so steamed up about.

[Pabmusic]

...I do not underestimate for one moment the courage involved in lesbians' and gay men's coming out to their family and friends and colleagues. Listening to the broadcast of the most recent debate in the House of Lords I was struck by how many referred to friends or relatives whose lives might be transformed positively by the passing of this legislation. In a sense they were speaking from enlightened self-interest. This is a big social change and the principal reason why young people cannot understand what some people are getting so steamed up about.

Delivered with more eloquence than I could, Ams.

[KipperKid]

My question was: "In what way has your relationship been diminished by talk of gay marriage?" {post 35]

In what way have you answered it? The extended footnote to your assertion that you've answered it takes us nowhere. I am happy to concede that you didn't post the item I responded to. Fair enough, but you replied to my response, so I think you're fair game. No one (surely) doubts that you really don't like the idea of gay marriage, but I wasn't asking if you liked it. I was asking in what way your own marriage is diminished because of it.

You see, I doubt that it's affected your personal relationship at all (and no-one would wish it to, either). Nor anyone else's. And no amount of ad hominem attacks can disguise that.

There was a serious point within my post #36 in answer to your post #35 (glad you liked to reference!).

Whilst I respect people's views on SSM, and believe many people honestly are motivated by questions of equality, there is a bad taste of the politics of grievance and envy about the whole transaction.

Some people such as myself, do believe that marriage has been devalued because it is no longer congugal and specific to a man and woman.

No big deal really.

[scottycelt]

Who?

Well, here's one dreadful case which was well highlighted in the media at the time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-15426919

[jean]

So - where is the monetary compensation - many thousands of pounds per person - for the thousands of homo-sexualistic survivors who were in the past thrown into prison...

Oh come now, Syd! You said yourself it was exciting to live in fear of such treatment!

It would be more appropriate if the homo-sexualistic survivors were to pay for the privilege of having been so thrilled at public expense.

You can't have it both ways (possible pun intended)

[jean]

Well, here's one dreadful case which was well highlighted in the media at the time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-15426919

I know, I mentioned him - and as it turns out, his employers were in the wrong in demoting him.

But where are the many others?

[Richard Barrett]

I'm getting fed up with this pointless bickering. The battle for the emancipation of lesbians and gay men has taken a major step forwards in England & Wales and I for one am entirely happy with it. It was debated at great length in both Houses of Parliament and on this Board. I suggest that those who are not content should sit back for ten years and observe how it all plays out. We can reconvene then to discuss further

Amen.

[Pabmusic]

There was a serious point within my post #36 in answer to your post #35 (glad you liked to reference!).

Whilst I respect people's views on SSM, and believe many people honestly are motivated by questions of equality, there is a bad taste of the politics of grievance and envy about the whole transaction.

Some people such as myself, do believe that marriage has been devalued because it is no longer congugal and specific to a man and woman.

No big deal really.

Thank you for this, Beefy ... no! ... KipperKid (should I call you KK?). I think I got the serious point (though I love the Diary) and might even agree with you that there's a whiff of something about the whole affair (it's the way we do things in Britain) - although I suspect gay marriage is something whose time has come, Enough countries are embracing it.

I think - hope - you're wrong about devaluation. In any case, it will not take long before people forget what used to be. Look at pre-decimal coinage.*

* This is not the best analogy I've ever made, I'll freely admit.

[KipperKid]

Thank you for this, Beefy ... no! ... KipperKid (should I call you KK?). I think I got the serious point (though I love the Diary) and might even agree with you that there's a whiff of something about the whole affair (it's the way we do things in Britain) - although I suspect gay marriage is something whose time has come, Enough countries are embracing it.

I think - hope - you're wrong about devaluation. In any case, it will not take long before people forget what used to be. Look at pre-decimal coinage.*

* This is not the best analogy I've ever made, I'll freely admit.

Good summary Pab and the decimalisation analogy works.

On this happy consensus, I feel I can bow-out of the SSM discussion!

Regards

Beef Oven

[MrGongGong]

Who else?

Vegan butchers ?

[scottycelt]

My question was: "In what way has your relationship been diminished by talk of gay marriage?" {post 35]

In what way have you answered it? The extended footnote to your assertion that you've answered it takes us nowhere. I am happy to concede that you didn't post the item I responded to. Fair enough, but you replied to my response, so I think you're fair game. No one (surely) doubts that you really don't like the idea of gay marriage, but I wasn't asking if you liked it. I was asking in what way your own marriage is diminished because of it.

You see, I doubt that it's affected your personal relationship at all (and no-one would wish it to, either). Nor anyone else's. And no amount of ad hominem attacks can disguise that.

Don't be silly. Apart from Simon and Mr Pee I've probably been the 'victim' of more ad hominem attacks here than any other member. I'm not complaining. I don't have to post my views, I simply choose to do so and take the inevitable consequences.

I'm not at all clear where I've failed to answer your question, Pab. I've already stated one doesn't have to be personally affected to be opposed to something. Most of us are opposed to huge pay-offs for management failure in the business world because we think it's absurd and not because we ourselves lose out. If we cannot agree on the word 'morality' maybe 'standards' might be more amenable?

I asked you in turn what is so 'diminishing' to you and others by the current arrangement where both heterosexuals and homosexuals have their own separate institutions regarding personal relationships. Why should one have to interfere with the other?

I'll say it again (as it doesn't seem to have registered here) that you don't have to be a 'dinosaur', 'bigot' or even simply a heterosexual to be opposed to the new laws ...

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/12/11/comment-gay-marriage-has-its-queer-critics-too

Some people, whether hetero or homo, do have the ability to think for themselves and are not easily swayed by bogus arguments about 'equality' promoted by the populist vote-seeking likes of David Cameron.

[vinteuil]

I've already stated one doesn't have to be personally affected to be opposed to something. .

... very well. What is your objection, then?