Should 'Marriage' be re-defined

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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.

I had not heard of this, and as you describe it, it sounds heavy-handed of his Employers to say the least. There are legal proceedings he can persue if this is a full summary of what's happened.

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.

But, "when" the new law comes into effect, a teacher would be wrong to say that same sex couples "cannot" be married. They might point out that many religious faiths do not recognise such "marriages" as bona fide, just as a Biology teacher might point out that some religious faiths do not recognize Darwinian explanations of Evolution.

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.

Not sure how these two sentences "join up": "It is OK 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 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.

Hmm. So Pubs where people who oppose Gay Marriage congregate are being bombed? Gangs of kids, spurred on by their parents, are pushing dog shit through the letter boxes of known (or suspected) opponents of Gay Marriage? It's an imprisonable offence (two years with hard labour) to oppose Gay Marriage? Chemical castration (such as Alan Turing was subjected to) now a legal option for those opposed to Gay Marriage? Kids committing suicide because they can't live with the bullying brought on because they believe that Marriage should only be for mixed sex couples? Your knowledge of exactly what "prejudices" have been and continue to be "suffered by homosexuals" seems a little naïve.

And, haven't you come rather a long way from "I object to same sex marriage because ... " (err. I never was quite certain why: because of linguistic or religious beliefs?) to "We shouldn't allow Same Sex Marriage because ther people who oppose it might get persecuted".

[scottycelt]

What's this opinion informed by scotty?

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

Ahhhh, just the very man to ask!

It's a serious question, actually, Ams ... why do so many 'gays' deliberately avoid using the word 'homosexual' yet constantly refer to others' 'homophobia'? ... it just doesn't seem at all logical to me, that's all.

[MrGongGong]

Ahhhh, just the very man to ask!

It's a serious question, actually, Ams ... why do so many 'gays' deliberately avoid using the word 'homosexual' yet constantly refer to others' 'homophobia'? ... it just doesn't seem at all logical to me, that's all.

Is that a statement of "fact" or just your impression ?

[amateur51]

Ahhhh, just the very man to ask!

It's a serious question, actually, Ams ... why do so many 'gays' deliberately avoid using the word 'homosexual' yet constantly refer to others' 'homophobia'? ... it just doesn't seem at all logical to me, that's all.

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

[scottycelt]

Is that a statement of "fact" or just your impression ?

No, I admit my statement was not wholly factual, MrGG , as it's not just our 'gay' friends who continually avoid using the established dictionary word, but also our ruling liberal elite and press and media ... and, of course, members of this forum ... so, why is that?

[scottycelt]

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

It certainly does and I thank you ever so much, Amsey ... we live and we learn!

[MrGongGong]

No, I admit my statement was not wholly factual, MrGG , as it's not just our 'gay' friends who continually avoid using the established dictionary word, but also our ruling liberal elite and press and media ... and, of course, members of this forum ... so, why is that?

Well I'm sure you refer to "Classical" music even if its not from the "Classical" period ?
Why is that ?

Because the word has a common usage that means something other than it's dictionary definition perhaps ?

[Flosshilde]

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

[scottycelt]

Well I'm sure you refer to "Classical" music even if its not from the "Classical" period ?
Why is that ?

Because the word has a common usage that means something other than it's dictionary definition perhaps ?

Conveniently for me on this occasion , I try not to use that term, Mr GG, though it would be dishonest of myself in the extreme (heaven forbid!) to claim that I never have ..

I prefer the admittedly far-from-perfect term 'serious music', though I've often been accused of being 'elitist' and 'snobby' when using it, not least by members of my own family!

[Flosshilde]

Originally Posted by scottycelt
Ahhhh, just the very man to ask!

It's a serious question, actually, Ams ... why do so many 'gays' deliberately avoid using the word 'homosexual' yet constantly refer to others' 'homophobia'? ... it just doesn't seem at all logical to me, that's all.

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

& I don't really like being referred to as "a gay", or lumped together with others as "gays" - it's almost as offensive (to me) as being called (by heterosexuals) queer. I prefer being called a 'gay man' - it's less open to use as a derogatory name.

[MrGongGong]

I prefer the admittedly far-from-perfect term 'serious music', though I've often been accused of being 'elitist' and 'snobby' when using it, not least by members of my own family!

I always find the idea that Johann Strauss is "serious" music hilarious
so what's the music of Metallica then ?
or Offenbach


the most "serious" musicians I ever meet are teenagers in bands !

[amateur51]

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

[Serial_Apologist]

I always find the idea that Johann Strauss is "serious" music hilarious
so what's the music of Metallica then ?
or Offenbach


the most "serious" musicians I ever meet are teenagers in bands !

Prompted by this diversion, I have just started a separate thread on this topic.

(Hint, hint )

[amateur51]

& I don't really like being referred to as "a gay", or lumped together with others as "gays" - it's almost as offensive (to me) as being called (by heterosexuals) queer. I prefer being called a 'gay man' - it's less open to use as a derogatory name.

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

[scottycelt]

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

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