Should 'Marriage' be re-defined

[Pianorak]

. . . Most undisguised homo-sexualists have no interest in "gay marriage." Their life-style and interests do not conduce to it; it is not and never could be their aspiration.

Assuming that Sydney Grew is right and assuming further that homosexuality and children will always be with us the following might be worth a brief ponder:

(From: Virtually Normal by Andrew Sullivan, published 1996, p. 164)


More important, perhaps, as gay marriage sank into the subtle background consciousness of a culture, its influence would be felt quietly but deepply among gay children. For them, at last, there would be some kind of future; some older faces to apply to their unfolding lives, some language in which their identity could be properly discussed, some rubric by which it could be explained - not in terms of sex, or sexual practices, or bars, or subterranean activity, but in terms of their future life stories, their potential loves, their eventual chance at some kind of constructive happiness. They would be able to feel by the intimation of a myriad examples that in this respect their emotional orientation was not merely about pleasure, or sin, or shame, or otherness (although it might always be involved in many of those things), but about the ability to love and be loved as complete, imperfect human beings. Until gay marriage is legalized, this fundamental element of personal dignity will be denied a whole segment of humanity. No other change can achieve it.

[MrGongGong]

To return to the thread title

"Should 'Marriage' be re-defined": the answer being , it already has, so get over it !
in the same way that "wicked" means something other than what it says in the OT and
"Bad" is not just a Michael Jackson album !
People who insist on not using the word Gay in the way it means today are simply ridiculous , I wonder if they will stop referring to all the "Grape" lanes in English towns by that name and use the original word ?

[Lateralthinking1]

.............And, of course, since Beeching, the map readers' nightmare, Station Road.

[aeolium]

People who insist on not using the word Gay in the way it means today are simply ridiculous

Are there any? I think there are far more people who simply assume that the current meaning of a word is the one it has always had, which makes it hard for them to understand its usage in earlier literature, for instance.

[MrGongGong]

Are there any? I think there are far more people who simply assume that the current meaning of a word is the one it has always had, which makes it hard for them to understand its usage in earlier literature, for instance.

Exhibit a: Post #81

Amongst the young people I frequently work with I don't think that they think that language doesn't change. There are folk (and quite a few round here) who will insist on using archaic or pedantic language not as a way of being precise, (which is something to encourage IMV, uni-intervalic-non-hierachical- pandiatonicism is a perfect way of describing a sonic effect frequently found in the music of Debussy for example ) but in a desperate and futile attempt to hold onto something that has past ! (not mentioning any names but the realisation of this G-rew on me gradually !)

[Magnificat]

Since I started this thread we on this forum have at least been able to discuss and debate the issue without fear of any more than a few heated words at times. Unlike the recent case of the housing association employee who was demoted and had his pay cut for merely stating on his private Facebook page that he didn't agree with same sex marriage. This evidently this went against his employer's diversity rules.

What will happen when same sex marriage becomes law if public employees e.g. teachers in State schools, because of their religious beliefs, refuse to teach children that same sex couples can be married. Will they lose their jobs in the same way as the Registrar and Relate counsellor who, because of their religious beliefs, refused to preside at civil partnerships and to counsel homosexual couples respectively.

The European Convention on Human Rights is supposed to protect freedom of religious conscience and to allow people to manifest their religion in the community ( which presumably includes their workplace ) as well as privately and to stop people being forced to act against their beliefs.

We now seem to have the situation where it is OK to do this as long as the State or your employer agree with you.

This is what I meant, above, by State imposed morality being just as bad as any prejudices suffered by homosexuals. Whatever way you look at it two wrongs do not make a right.

[MrGongGong]

What will happen when same sex marriage becomes law if public employees e.g. teachers in State schools, because of their religious beliefs, refuse to teach children that same sex couples can be married.

This is a total red herring. I recently made a performance with a school where everyone in the group was a Muslim, the teacher happened to be a Christian , I'm neither and the performance took place in a church as part of a festival. There really isn't a problem with people interacting in this way. To do what you suggest and "refuse to teach that same sex couples can be married" when they clearly CAN be would be the same as telling the students I worked with that they were all going to hell because they didn't believe the that only Jesus would save them OR even that the Sun goes round the earth. If gay (and GAY is the word that we use, whatever some people like to think !) people are married according to the law in this country then to pretend otherwise is at best confusing and in reality simply a lie, I would hope that we don't employ teachers who tell lies, it sets a bad example

[scottycelt]

People who insist on not using the word Gay in the way it means today are simply ridiculous

What's wrong with 'homosexual' which is the most accurate and meaningful description, and the word I shall continue to use with gay abandon, MrGG.

In fact, I am of the strong opinion that it heavily smacks of gross 'homophobia' to consciously and deliberately avoid using it ...

[MrGongGong]

gross 'homophobia' ..

Something that you, as a catholic, will be more than a little familiar with

[Barbirollians]

Since I started this thread we on this forum have at least been able to discuss and debate the issue without fear of any more than a few heated words at times. Unlike the recent case of the housing association employee who was demoted and had his pay cut for merely stating on his private Facebook page that he didn't agree with same sex marriage. This evidently this went against his employer's diversity rules.

What will happen when same sex marriage becomes law if public employees e.g. teachers in State schools, because of their religious beliefs, refuse to teach children that same sex couples can be married. Will they lose their jobs in the same way as the Registrar and Relate counsellor who, because of their religious beliefs, refused to preside at civil partnerships and to counsel homosexual couples respectively.

The European Convention on Human Rights is supposed to protect freedom of religious conscience and to allow people to manifest their religion in the community ( which presumably includes their workplace ) as well as privately and to stop people being forced to act against their beliefs.

We now seem to have the situation where it is OK to do this as long as the State or your employer agree with you.

This is what I meant, above, by State imposed morality being just as bad as any prejudices suffered by homosexuals. Whatever way you look at it two wrongs do not make a right.

They have a choice - if they cannot do their job without discriminating against others then seek different work . There is a great deal of difference between say being allowed to pray at work for example in your lunch hour etc and being allowed to discriminate just because you believe it is right against the law and the requirements of your contract of employment. This is the essential confusion of those who say they are discriminated against because of their religion - they are not , their religion does not allow them to discriminate against others .

[MrGongGong]

This is the essential confusion of those who say they are discriminated against because of their religion - they are not , their religion does not allow them to discriminate against others .

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Something that you, as a catholic, will be more than a little familiar with

I don't want to appear high and mighty, but that kind of comment is unlikely to further the debate in a constructive way.

[amateur51]

In fact, I am of the strong opinion that it heavily smacks of gross 'homophobia' to consciously and deliberately avoid using it ...

What's this opinion informed by scotty?

Anything more than a deep-seated fury and a desire to stir?

[Lateralthinking1]

and to allow people to manifest their religion in the community ( which presumably includes their workplace)

I am not sure this is wholly right. As an ex Civil Servant, I have been required to attend and pass more diversity courses than most will undertake in a lifetime. I am no expert but I know enough to see that it often depends on the context.

To support what you say, there was in one of the tests a role play. A Sikh walked into an office with a religious ceremonial sword. His manager was concerned that he could use it as a weapon. She therefore asked him to take it home. He refused so she then took it up with her bosses. It was she who was subsequently censured for behaving in a discriminatory way. He kept the sword.

Next, most with a religious belief will consider that they manifest their religion just by being themselves. This would surely be the case both in easy contexts and what they would consider to be difficult ones. Anything else could be viewed as half-hearted.

In contrast to your point of view, there is that all important word "professionalism". A Christian lawyer may defend someone in court believing him to be guilty knowing that the bigger point is that everyone should have a fair trial. A Muslim GP should offer health treatment to someone whatever her lifestyle knowing that everyone has an equal right to the health service.

And a teacher......well, a teacher really explains how things are or were rather than how things should be. It isn't really for a teacher of modern history to explain the reforms under Margaret Thatcher and then say "I was always against them myself".

In counselling, I am personally of the view that organisations should be flexible where possible in accommodating counsellors' sticking points. Similarly, counsellors themselves have a responsibility to specialise in areas with which they feel comfortable. I know that not everyone would agree with this view. However, I feel that such things are more likely to lead to good service.

On the origins of the word "gay", it might be an emphatic linguistic counterpoint to the roots and wider societal position of "eh?" Such a juxtaposition, once locked into everyday dialogue, can help to fix the dynamics "conveniently" for all involved.

[MrGongGong]

I don't want to appear high and mighty, but that kind of comment is unlikely to further the debate in a constructive way.

Probably not, but given the churches history of rampant bigotry and homophobia it's a bit much for it's followers to pretend (in a clegg styleee ) that "hey guys, that's all in the past, we really like gays, really , honest we do, that cardinal was only speaking metaphorically " etc etc etc

but sorry anyhow