Gay marriage thread

[scottycelt]

but not in the rest of the world

These damned foreigners, eh, Mr GG ... ?

[Beef Oven]

Do calm down Mr GG and have another glass of Talisker on me ...

According to WIKI:

<Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.>

Exactly. I can't see what all the fuss is about. I'm also calm, sipping on some nice Scotch (Highland Park 12 year old single malt).

[jean]

According to WIKI:

<Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.>

So why not call them marriage, and have done with it?

What is the 'heart of marriage' that such a decision would 'strike at'?

(I'm quoting you.)

[MrGongGong]

So why not call them marriage, and have done with it?
)

Most of us do
its just a small legal change to make
that will happen fairly soon
and then the daft fairy story folk can carry on playing their dressing up games

[Julien Sorel]

Almost identical to the sentiments in my last post. Of course, in my perfect world there wouldn't be CPs just as in your perfect world there wouldn't be a Catholic Church. Alas, it isn't a perfect world for either or any of us.

You're at it again. I don't believe in a perfect world: any world will be dynamic, not static, will change, evolve, and people will work things out as they go along. If that process included a Catholic Church then it would include a Catholic Church. So (a) I don't have a perfect world because I think humans are capable of better than that (b) the presence or otherwise of a Catholic Church is neither here nor there to me.

"I've always understood Civil Partnerships confers a similar status to gay couples as does marriage to heterosexuals. If not, why not just ensure that this happens? There is then no need to be concerned about changes of definition and words like 'husband' and 'wife' and then everybody can lead their own lives as they see fit with the same rights and responsibilities, and neither group encroaches on the other's territory. In other words. Civil Partnerships would remain exclusive to homosexuals and marriage confined to heterosexuals. This would be real 'equality' whilst at the same time respecting the rights of everybody."

No it wouldn't. Because it assumes all heterosexuals share your idea of what the territory of marriage is. And, of course, we don't. For you marriage is a sacrament. For other heterosexuals it isn't. You define a territory, claim it simply exists, and direct everyone else to inhabit it. The simple answer, of course, is to call all such entered into contracts marriages.

If people want to marry outside your church and other religious dispensations that's their business. Your Church can lobby against it, just as it lobbied against civil partnerships, just as it lobbied against homosexuality being legal, just as it lobbied against votes for women. But the basic thing here is you insist people respect your religious autonomy while trampling over the autonomy of everyone else. And the one theme that runs through it all is persistent, reactionary opposition to change. And then the ground shifts and you move on to the next terrible affront.

And there is no need to be concerned about changes of definition and words like 'husband' and 'wife'. None in the slightest. It's just daft.

[Mr Pee]

Care to explain why, Mr Pee?

Oh good grief; where do you want to start?

"Deeply heterosexist" comes straight from the Guardian/Dave Spart/70s school of reactionary feminist twaddle.

And "I defend the right of people to make the misguided choice to get married, if that is what they wish"...is one of the most patronising and condescending things I've ever read.

I really thought the world had managed to move on from such rubbish.

Most sensible people have.

[Pabmusic]

...But the basic thing here is you insist people respect your religious autonomy while trampling over the autonomy of everyone else. And the one theme that runs through it all is persistent, reactionary opposition to change. And then the ground shifts and you move on to the next terrible affront...

How I agree. It is the arrogant assumption of many supporters of religions that, because theirs is the world-view that counts, the rest of society should be made to conform to it. Scotty was at pains to tell me that the Catholic Church doesn't tell non-Catholics how to live (I haven't got the time to search for it) but they do. And people object to it.

The absurdity of it all is demonstrated by cases in the US against various states passing 'equality' laws aimed at preventing the bullying of gay people on state property (mainly schools). It is apparently common for the religious to pursue gay students in groups, publicly denouncing their 'sins' (even using megaphones to help them), and to produce printed tracts naming gay students. Because many states are now banning this, various Christian groups (including the Catholic Church) are bringing federal claims of religious persecution against the states, saying they are being prevented from exercising their religious freedom to do this. Religion cannot keep its own to itself, whether it be its priests' hands or the consequences of its beliefs.

I have not the slightest objection to anyone believing what they want. It's when their beliefs, rather than reason, guide their actions that you have to be on your guard.

[scottycelt]

So why not call them marriage, and have done with it?

What is the 'heart of marriage' that such a decision would 'strike at'?

(I'm quoting you.)

Yes you are (quoting me) ... and you have done so accurately unlike others who will 'lose the will to live' or 'haven't the time' to do likewise!

Because Marriage means Man + Woman. The union of two of the opposite sex. It's not MY definition. That's what it says in all my dictionaries.

Because CP means Man + Man or Woman + Woman. The union of two of the same sex.

When someone says he/she is in either one or the other the listener immediately knows the sex of his/her partner so there can be no embarrassing misunderstandings. Everyone knows how everyone else is placed.

It is simple ... straightforward ... honest ... helpful ... equitable.

Why opt instead for inequality and confusion? One even doesn't need to raise any religious objections to 'gay marriage', but simply point out the needless absurdity of doing that!

[Julien Sorel]

Because Marriage means Man + Woman. The union of two of the opposite sex. It's not MY definition. That's what it says in all my dictionaries.

Because CP means Man + Man or Woman + Woman. The union of two of the same sex.

From the OxfordWords Blog (for Oxford Dictionaries).

The meaning of marriage has likewise shifted. Although the first definition found in Oxford Dictionaries Online is for a union between a man and a woman, there is also an entry for a formal same-sex union. It is important to note that no dictionary entry tells you how a word should be used; rather it tells you how a word is currently used. In other words, dictionaries are generally apolitical entities – the people who compile them really do not (and indeed cannot) allow their feelings on whether same-sex marriage should or should not be allowed to influence whether or not they think that word should be in the dictionary. As always, evidence is the key, and the evidence shows a definite move towards using the word marriage to describe a same-sex union which has been formalized with a civil partnership. Interestingly, the Oxford English Corpus shows that the word marriage is often modified by terms like same-sex, gay, homosexual and heterosexual. While it seems likely that for the near future the addition of such adjectives will remain, it also seems quite possible that at some point it will no longer be necessary to clarify what kind of union is under discussion, and the various forms of marriage will simply be referred to as ‘marriage’. Time and evidence will tell.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/06/shifted-meanings-marriage/

I'm sure if you consulted an C18 or C19 pre-scientific lexicography dictionary you would find definitions of marriage which refer to the subordinate or dependent role of Woman and to the individual woman in a marriage becoming, effectively, her husband's property. You may have noticed that has changed. Because the meanings of concepts and the meanings of words change historically, socially and culturally. They don't do this magically of their own volition; they do it because of historic, social and cultural change.

The process may not be one of simple progress. It's possible to argue about the debasement of certain words and conversely the enrichment of others. Or a complex mix of the two. But whether you like it or not, marriage is changing its dictionary definition. As I'm certain it has in the past. So waving your dictionary around like a proxy Bible doesn't work.

[MrGongGong]

Because Marriage means Man + Woman. The union of two of the opposite sex. It's not MY definition. That's what it says in all my dictionaries.

Then you need to get a new dictionary
would that help ?

I doubt it as you seem to entrenched in your stubborn stupidity

Everyone knows how everyone else is placed.

NO THEY DON'T

Using a dick-tionary is a very dodgy way to go............ language changes , sick innit

[scottycelt]

From the OxfordWords Blog (for Oxford Dictionaries).

The meaning of marriage has likewise shifted. Although the first definition found in Oxford Dictionaries Online is for a union between a man and a woman, there is also an entry for a formal same-sex union. It is important to note that no dictionary entry tells you how a word should be used; rather it tells you how a word is currently used. In other words, dictionaries are generally apolitical entities – the people who compile them really do not (and indeed cannot) allow their feelings on whether same-sex marriage should or should not be allowed to influence whether or not they think that word should be in the dictionary. As always, evidence is the key, and the evidence shows a definite move towards using the word marriage to describe a same-sex union which has been formalized with a civil partnership. Interestingly, the Oxford English Corpus shows that the word marriage is often modified by terms like same-sex, gay, homosexual and heterosexual. While it seems likely that for the near future the addition of such adjectives will remain, it also seems quite possible that at some point it will no longer be necessary to clarify what kind of union is under discussion, and the various forms of marriage will simply be referred to as ‘marriage’. Time and evidence will tell.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/06/shifted-meanings-marriage/

I'm sure if you consulted an C18 or C19 pre-scientific lexicography dictionary you would find definitions of marriage which refer to the subordinate or dependent role of Woman and to the individual woman in a marriage becoming, effectively, her husband's property. You may have noticed that has changed. Because the meanings of concepts and the meanings of words change historically, socially and culturally. They don't do this magically of their own volition; they do it because of historic, social and cultural change.

The process may not be one of simple progress. It's possible to argue about the debasement of certain words and conversely the enrichment of others. Or a complex mix of the two. But whether you like it or not, marriage is changing its dictionary definition. As I'm certain it has in the past. So waving your dictionary around like a proxy Bible doesn't work.

I don't consult Blogs, I consult Dictionaries. Sorry if that's caused any offence.

We are not discussing the terms and conditions of Marriage simply the meaning of the word.

When we go to a business meeting and are told to wear a suit we reach for a jacket and trousers.

We don't arrive at the meeting wearing two jackets without trousers or a couple of pairs of trousers without a jacket and claim it's a suit. A suit means the combination of a jacket and trousers. Nothing else.

Same with Marriage. It means the combination of a Man and a Woman.

If Homosexuals are unhappy with the term CPs they can change it to something else ... but not Marriage.

[MrGongGong]

When we go to a business meeting and are told to wear a suit we reach for a jacket and trousers.

I think this gets to the heart of it
I stopped listening to people telling me what to wear (apart from performances) when I left school at 16
go on take off the tie
who is telling you that ?
Your church might be telling you things , some of which (like being nice to people even if they are horrible to you ...... shame they don't do it ) are quite a good idea
but this one is simply daft and unnecessary

this is a suit




and so is this

[jean]

And so, of course, is this:

[jean]

I don't consult Blogs, I consult Dictionaries...

If the compilers of a dictionary, aware that you may have unrealistic expectations of their product, write blog entries to set you straight [sic], you would do well to consider them.

[MrGongGong]

A suit means the combination of a jacket and trousers. Nothing else.

Well that's clear then

If the compilers of a dictionary, aware that you may have unrealistic expectations of their product, write blog entries to set you straight [sic], you would do well to consider them.

Spot on

this, on the other hand,



is fancy dress suitable for a party but not to be used to signify wisdom