Marriage

[Flosshilde]

Interesting use of the word "produced" there, Flossie. Makes it sound like a burger factory. :yikes:

I was, of course, using the same terminology as Doversoul, as you would know had you read the whole post, including the quotation from the post I was responding to.

(ff, we really do need the :doh: emoticon reinstated!)

[amateur51]

One thing that intrigues me is the homosexual 'community''s determination to appropriate all the appurtenances of heterosexual union for its own purposes, while simultaneously retaining its right to 'apartness'.

No doubt the more militant among them feel that this is only fair, considering all the years they spent in the trenches, when they were illegal, Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

But it really is nonsense: homosexual relationships have been recognised by law for some years now (as it is quite right they should be) but why these relationships should be sanctified by a rite never intended to apply to couples other than a man and a woman, is beyond me.

It is, if you'll pardon the expression, a perversion of something that a lot of people hold sacred - even if it doesn't mean a lot to me.

In any case, as many homosexuals freely admit, 'gay' relationships tend to be measured in weeks and months rather than years - so, we can look forward to rocketing 'divorce' statistics in the coming years. How ironic that Cameron - a man who claimed to want to strengthen marriage and the traditional family - may have contributed to a process by which marriage becomes, literally, meaningless.

The homosexual activists have hardly behaved with dignity over this issue: whenever I hear one of them on the radio, I'm reminded of John Osborne's immortal phrase: 'like a guild of housewives pointing out Alexander the Great.'

Ah always beware someone who cites that marital monster Osborne in defence of something to do with relationships :laugh:

Mandy, all relationships can succeed and can fail depending on a range of circumstances. Heterosexuals, bless them, can be every bit as promiscuous and unfaithful as their gay and lesbian counterparts, and lesbians and gay men of my acquaintance have been in very long-term relationships, some since before such things were legalI'm sure. As gay and lesbian relationships have until recently never been recognised in law, your evidence on the length of the average les/gay relationship must be limited by your sample size and thus regarded as hearsay :erm:

[Flosshilde]

So many homosexual people feel that for all their lives they have stood at a window looking in from the outside, and this has to stop.

:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

& not just in relation to marriage.

[ahinton]

It's more about shrinking away from the duties of it. If you have a very annoying potential father in law who hates you and treats you like a rag, you might have problems regarding paying for his medical care once he needs it and your partner can't afford it.

I don't understand; how would either a marriage or indeed civil partnership contract - which is between two people either of the same or opposite sex - obligate either partner to pay for a parent-in-law's medical care at all, irrespective of whether or not such payment could be afforded?

[MickyD]

I use an image uploader called Imgur:-

http://imgur.com/

If you register there, when you click on a web image, you will be given the option"upload to Imgur". Click on that option and you will save the image to your Imgur account. Then, within imgur when you select the pic to upload, you will see on the right of your screen various options, one of which will be "BB Code for message boards and forums". Right click on that to copy, and then just paste the link into your message. When you preview or post your message, the picture will appear within it.

Very simple once you get the hang of it! :winkeye:

(And it's free.)

Thank you, Mr Pee, most useful...I will give it a try.

[ahinton]

Well, let me try and spell it out so there can be no further confusion.

If those who are opposed to 'Gay Marriage' are to be automatically termed 'homophobic' (and much worse) if they simply wish to retain the existing definition of marriage, then surely those who are happy with the existing definitions of words like 'lesbian' which exclude heterosexual males and indeed homosexual males are in a very similar boat ?

So logically (if that means anything anymore) heterosexual males would be likewise entitled to accuse those who might be unwilling to change the current definition of 'lesbianism' to include male heterosexuals as being both 'sexist' and 'heterophobic' ?

Or is there some subtlety of 'equality' language here that I'm missing ... ?

Yes, there is, but at least you make some attempt to exonerate yourself from much of the responsibility for doing so by opening your statement with the conditional; it is indeed an "if", because no one is, I believe, seeking to suggest that anyone deserve the accusation "homophobic" purely by reason of being opposed to same-sex marriage and in favour of retaining what had been the definition of marriage in UK until yesterday evening; the term "lesbian" is, on the other hand, perhaps somewhat unfortunate in itself in that it applies only to women whose sexual preference is for women whereas the term "homosexual" effectively covers both men and women whose sexual preference is for those of the same sex.

The remainder of your accusatory definitions likewise do not apply in any reality that I've encountered and are certainly neither enshrined in nor otherwise affected by the new UK legislation, the principles behind which are not in any sense a means whereby men and women be encouraged to take more aggressive sides and stances against those whose sexual orientations differ from their own merely because they do so differ.

[Stephen Whitaker]

"It is, if you'll pardon the expression, a perversion of something that a lot of people hold sacred - even if it doesn't mean a lot to me."

How very "Politically Correct" of you to object on other people's behalf, to a 'perversion' of something which has little meaning to yourself.

Rather reminiscent of the the thrice married Roger Gale's views on the 'sanctity' of marriage.

[ahinton]

So those opposed to the proposed new marriage definition are not necessarily 'homophobic' but rather 'heterosexist' ... ?

I see ... I'm sure that must be a much more lovingly tolerant and inclusive term, amsey.:erm:

AMs is, I think, trying to help you out with a better word purely because you seem to feel an urgent need to be in search of one (unless I misinterpret him here); what need is there for any term for the purpose of categorising and/or identifying those who oppose the new UK legislation? No one would suggest that there'd be a particular need for a new term specifically to describe opponents, say, of a new Act of Parliament to increase the speed limit on UK motorways to 130kph to bring it into line with France, would they?!

[ahinton]

Doversoul, many lesbian couples have produced & brought up the next generation. Lesbian couples & gay couples have fostered & raised the next generation, some of whom have been thrown out of their homes by their 'loving', hetrerosexual, married parents because they were gay.

Heterosexual marriage is not the only, nor neccessarily the best, environment in which to raise children.

Indeed; it's on a case-by-case basis only. A further point here, however, is that what might have been "traditional" in this or that culture does not confer upon it some kind of immutability and, where marriage and the reasons for it are concerned, the very fact that, in UK, the law changed some years ago to go some way to recognise homosexuality put a number of arguably related issues in something of a different light, not least the understanding of what might constitute marriage.

One thing that especially bothers me is that some of those who oppose the new legislation cite as their reason that it "undermines" marriage; logic might suggest that it might well have the opposite effect by reason of making it a possibility for more people.

[Mr Pee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9852417/Gay-marriage-Russia-warns-Britain-vote-could-hinder-adoption.html

[LHC]

Yes, the numbers were very heartening, the vote unequivocal. But the creatures that always appear from the rightwing woodwork on THIS subject! I do LOVE the bit about marriage "celebrating the differences between a man and a woman" :laugh::winkeye:!

The Church will certainly have to reflect upon its, er, bedfellows...

While the majority of those voting against the motion were Tories, disappointingly, they were joined by several Labour and Lib Dem MPs.

Labour MPs nasayers:

Joe Benton (Bootle), Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley), Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellshill), Rosie Cooper (Lancashire West), David Crausby (Bolton North East), Tony Cunningham (Workington), Jim Dobbin (Heywood & Middleton), Brian Donohoe (Ayrshire Central), Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South), Mary Glindon (Tyneside North), Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe & Sale East), Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney), Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow), Jim McGovern (Dundee West), Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde), George Mudie (Leeds East), Paul Murphy (Torfaen), Stephen Pound (Ealing North), Frank Roy (Motherwell & Wishaw), Jim Sheridan (Paisley & Renfrewshire North), Derek Twigg (Halton), Mike Wood (Batley & Spen).

Four Lib Dem MPs voted against the Government:

Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed), Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley), John Pugh (Southport) and Sarah Teather, the MP for Brent Central (despite declaring her pride in the policy on her own website)

[ahinton]

Interesting use of the word "produced" there, Flossie. Makes it sound like a burger factory. :yikes:

Horses for (main) courses, perhaps - but you're quibbling by splitting hairs here, however, since it's clear that what Flossie meant was "brought into the world and raised".

And although a Gay or Lesbian couple may well "produce" children, somewhere along the line male/female biology had to play a part.

We're gradually moving beyond that now, actually.

And of course there are unhappy heterosexual marriages, and some people of all sexual persuasions who are wholly unsuited to being parents, or fostering children. However, at the risk of being labelled a heterosexualist by Amsy, I still believe that the best environment in which to raise a child is that of a loving home, with both a male and female role model; i.e a heterosexual (married) couple. I believe that this gives the child the best and most balanced upbringing. The primary concern must be the long-term future of the child.

The long-term future of a child is of course of great importance (and, by the way, if anyone were so to describe you here it would almost certainly have to be Sydney Grew, since he's the only user of that bizarre term that makes homosexuality sound almost like a profession!), but does your admission that "some people of all sexual persuasions...are wholly unsuited to being parents, or fostering children" influence your view about whether couples who are unsuitable parents or unable or otherwise unwilling to become parents means that you do not consider that such couples should be married? I'm not suggesting that this is what you;re saying; I'm just asking you.

[ahinton]

One thing that intrigues me is the homosexual 'community''s determination to appropriate all the appurtenances of heterosexual union for its own purposes, while simultaneously retaining its right to 'apartness'.

No doubt the more militant among them feel that this is only fair, considering all the years they spent in the trenches, when they were illegal, Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

I hope that the new legislation will in time help to dissolve the sense of a "homosexual community" per se and, if and when it does, no one will any longer have cause to feel a right to such 'apartness'.

But it really is nonsense: homosexual relationships have been recognised by law for some years now (as it is quite right they should be) but why these relationships should be sanctified by a rite never intended to apply to couples other than a man and a woman, is beyond me.

You use the word "intended" as if to suggest that certain intentions neither can nor should ever change; do you not accept that the very legal recognition of homosexuality to which you draw attention (and of which you verify your approval) changed the ways in which same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are viewed by society as a whole and, as a consequence, the legislation passed yesterday was to some extent made possible by the establishment of that legal recognition of homosexuality?

It is, if you'll pardon the expression, a perversion of something that a lot of people hold sacred - even if it doesn't mean a lot to me.

I referred earlier to the notion of "devaluation" of opposite-sex marriage and repeat that if this new legislation indeed had the power somehow to undermine or devalue opposite-sex marriage, one might well question whether it had been over-valued in the first place; I do not, however, question that because I do not see the legislation as having - or indeed intended for the purpose of seizing - any such power.

In any case, as many homosexuals freely admit, 'gay' relationships tend to be measured in weeks and months rather than years - so, we can look forward to rocketing 'divorce' statistics in the coming years. How ironic that Cameron - a man who claimed to want to strengthen marriage and the traditional family - may have contributed to a process by which marriage becomes, literally, meaningless.

I do not believe that this is what Mr Cameron has done (and notwithstanding his support of the legislation he cannot enact and has not enacted it alone) and it has been reported that some of the support that he's received for backing it has come from his own wife. There are some brief and unsuccessful marriages and civil partnerships between heterosexual couples, so your citation of what you claim "many homosexuals" to "freely admit" about their relationships is not only unsupported by factual evidence here but also misleading by reason of its irrelevance.

[scottycelt]

AMs is, I think, trying to help you out with a better word purely because you seem to feel an urgent need to be in search of one (unless I misinterpret him here); what need is there for any term for the purpose of categorising and/or identifying those who oppose the new UK legislation? No one would suggest that there'd be a particular need for a new term specifically to describe opponents, say, of a new Act of Parliament to increase the speed limit on UK motorways to 130kph to bring it into line with France, would they?!

On the contrary it's not myself who's searching for any sort of term or word to describe those who oppose same-sex marriage.

However, those who oppose same-sex marriage have been called by others 'homophobes', 'bigots' and now we have Amsey''s delightful 'heterosexist'. I find all these words rather silly.

So maybe you should take the matter up with them and not me ... ?

[scottycelt]

Yes, there is, but at least you make some attempt to exonerate yourself from much of the responsibility for doing so by opening your statement with the conditional; it is indeed an "if", because no one is, I believe, seeking to suggest that anyone deserve the accusation "homophobic" purely by reason of being opposed to same-sex marriage and in favour of retaining what had been the definition of marriage in UK until yesterday evening; the term "lesbian" is, on the other hand, perhaps somewhat unfortunate in itself in that it applies only to women whose sexual preference is for women whereas the term "homosexual" effectively covers both men and women whose sexual preference is for those of the same sex.

The remainder of your accusatory definitions likewise do not apply in any reality that I've encountered and are certainly neither enshrined in nor otherwise affected by the new UK legislation, the principles behind which are not in any sense a means whereby men and women be encouraged to take more aggressive sides and stances against those whose sexual orientations differ from their own merely because they do so differ.

Have you the time to convert the above jumble of words into a rather more meaningful form of English, please, ahinton ... ? :erm: