Should 'Marriage' be re-defined

[scottycelt]

It's quite easy really, scotty - just ask & we'll tell you.

Most of the time I find I don't even have to ask, Ams ...

[Flosshilde]

Oh, it appears to be true all right, Floss, and it did appear in the Mail, though you seriously wouldn't expect The Guardian to have much time for such illiberal trivia, would you ... ?

I understand from another report that Mr Peter Tatchell, to his great credit, backed the housing manager! He, at least, appears to have a genuinely 'liberal' spirit!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052319/Adrian-Smith-demoted-backing-gay-marriage-criticising-new-law-Facebook.html

Thank you for the link, Scotty, & I would agree that it is something of an over-reaction by the employers, especially as he's quoted as saying that he doesn't have a problem with civil gay marriages - although why he should assume that lesbians & gay men don't believe in god ("‘No, not really. I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in church."), when there is plenty of evidence that many do (which I don't understand) I don't know.

You must admit though that the Express & Mail have a rich history in making up things

[amateur51]

Thankfully I didn't have to turn to the Daily Mail for Peter Tachell's response

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/reinstate-adrian-smith.htm

[scottycelt]

Thank you for the link, Scotty, & I would agree that it is something of an over-reaction by the employers, especially as he's quoted as saying that he doesn't have a problem with civil gay marriages - although why he should assume that lesbians & gay men don't believe in god ("‘No, not really. I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in church."), when there is plenty of evidence that many do (which I don't understand) I don't know.

You must admit though that the Express & Mail have a rich history in making up things

Yes, Floss, I agree it sounds very 'Daily Mailish', in particular ...

Like many of these stories there may well have been more to it and the management was looking for any sort of excuse to demote the guy, but it must have been pretty desperate and stupid to apparently choose that one!

[scottycelt]

Thankfully I didn't have to turn to the Daily Mail for Peter Tachell's response

http://www.petertatchell.net/religio...rian-smith.htm

Thanks for that, Ams ...

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, Floss, I agree it sounds very 'Daily Mailish', in particular ...

Like many of these stories there may well have been more to it and the management was looking for any sort of excuse to demote the guy, but it must have been pretty desperate and stupid to apparently choose that one!

Careful, scotty - this could be sub-judice...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Most of the time I find I don't even have to ask, Ams ...

[scottycelt]

Careful, scotty - this could be sub-judice...

Thanks, S_A ... one can never be too careful.

In such cases I tend to use words like 'may' and 'apparently', in the most unlikely scenario that I've been hopelessly misinformed by a leading UK tabloid!

[Magnificat]

What is your source for this 'case'? Is it anything more than something the Daily Mail or the Express has made up?

This case has been well documented in several sources.

I understand that the employee concerned is taking legal action against the housing association concerned to establish that he has the right of free speech.

His employer should obviously have backed down but amazingly is prepared to spend money trying to defend the indefensible.

[Magnificat]

Since when has a Facebook page been private? I thought it was an acknowledged fact that they are all too public

The office of Registar in a local authority is a public office and the service must be open to all members of the public. If the load requires that civil partnerships/marriages are part of the job, then they are of the job. In the case you mention there was also a long-standing equality/diversity policy that included LGBT (lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people), so there was an employer imperative too. Employees cannot pick and choose which parts of the service they are paid to provide they don't wish to provide, or which part of the law to observe. Relate provides a service to lesban, gay and heterosexual couples. The same issues as mentioned earlier apply. It seems to me that these individuals wwre being used by Christian lobby groups to develop test cases. The cases were indeed tested and they lost. Thanks for the clarification.

Relate receives statutory and private funding to provide a service to all couples of whatever status. It is obviously the case that the employer wishes to be able to do this, and thus cannot countenance a selective opt-out, as it would be against the law.

Amateur51

How on earth can a counsellor who does not believe that homosexual sex is right be expected to counsel an homosexual couple!

The colleagues of the Registrar concerned hads offered to rearrange their rotas to accomodate her religious beliefs but this was not acceptable to the employer.

This point about reasonable accomodation and the meaning of the right to manifest religious belief in public and the question of not being forced to act against your beliefs ( being able to resign if you don't agree with what you are being asked to do as some have argued seems more like duress than liberty to me ) are currently the subject of appeals to the ECHR so the cases have not, in fact, been lost.

[Pabmusic]

That's fairly easy, scotty - 'homosexual' was the word created by the Victorians to describe us - the fact that one half (homo) is of Greek origin) and the other is of latin origin bothered them not The Victorians, bless 'em then proceeded to create laws criminalising homosexuality which were only done away with the late 1960s. So by refusing to use their word, we're refusing to collude with the oppressor, an approach used by liberation movements before & since

Hope that helps

There's probably a more simple objection to 'homosexual' - it was a term from central European psychology (Kraft-Ebbing and all that), and carried the implication that 'homosexuality' was a psychological condition. I'm pretty sure it entered English through the men with white coats. The Victorian British were addicted to euphemism (Americans still are) and were unlikely to embrace in general usage a term that included 'sex'. (Just think how we use 'gender' as a euphemism for 'sex' even now.)

You're quite right that it's a mixture of Greek and Latin, as is 'television' The latter generated letters to The Times, but I doubt the former did.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You're quite right that it's a mixture of Greek and Latin, as is 'television'

...also "quadraphonic" - more consistent terms would be "tetraphonic" or "quadrosonic".
But I digress. Perhaps worrying about the terminology has become the central issue in this discussion, instead of allowing people with different orientations simply to be treated with equal respect.

[scottycelt]

There's probably a more simple objection to 'homosexual' - it was a term from central European psychology (Kraft-Ebbing and all that), and carried the implication that 'homosexuality' was a psychological condition. I'm pretty sure it entered English through the men with white coats. The Victorian British were addicted to euphemism (Americans still are) and were unlikely to embrace in general usage a term that included 'sex'. (Just think how we use 'gender' as a euphemism for 'sex' even now.)

You're quite right that it's a mixture of Greek and Latin, as is 'television' The latter generated letters to The Times, but I doubt the former did.

Does that not logically mean that the word 'heterosexuality' therefore implied an alternative psychological condition, and maybe the men with white coats were to blame for that word also?

I would have thought that the modern term 'straight' for a heterosexual might well be deemed much more objectionable (from a homosexual point of view) than the latter word which, unlike the former, doesn't appear to make any loaded judgments of any norm or psychological condition, whatsoever.

Despite the apparently appalling crime of mixing Greek and Latin to form an English word, and Amateur & Co's general sniffiness about those frightfully oppressive Victorians, I continue to completely fail to understand this obvious phobia in some quarters concerning the clearly non-judgmental and wholly meaningful word, 'homosexuality'

[Pabmusic]

Does that not logically mean that the word 'heterosexuality' therefore implied an alternative psychological condition, and maybe the men with white coats were to blame for that word also?

Yes. "Heterosexual" seems to appear first in 1892 in Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis". It was presumably coined to be an opposite of "homosexual", which was older, dating from about 1870. But the more serious issue, surely, is that no term should be forced on anyone that offends them or makes them feel belittled or outsiders; and the test for that should be subjective.

[amateur51]

I continue to completely fail to understand this obvious phobia in some quarters concerning the clearly non-judgmental and wholly meaningful word, 'homosexuality'

I've tried to be kind scotty,explaining it to you in an earlier post, typing the keys v e r y s l o w l y ... but now I have to assume you're just fick. We don't like it cos it's a word you approve of, and we know how much 'gay' winds you up - simples