Marriage

[ahinton]

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 ... ?

If you read the whole of my post on the subject as well as merely quoting thereform you would surely have been able to deduce the fact that - and the reason why - I have neither desire nor intent nor need to take it up with anyone; that said, the words themselves are not inherently "silly", it's only the particular reasons for certain instances of their use as pejoratives that is a matter for concern, for neither "homophobic" nor even "bigot" necessarily applies to all those who oppose the legislation passed yesterday.

[ahinton]

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

If a Scot queries another on use of English and you really need this simplified for you, let's hav a go.

You wrote
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?
and I responded that the crucial word here is "if", for the remainder of your premise is invalid as there's no evidence of the automatic branding of those opposed to same-sex marriage and in favour of marriage as defined before the legislation was passed yesterday, as you suggest. Clear now?

You then wrote
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' ?
and my response to this is, again, that I do not accept that male heterosexuals would be entitled (or feel inclined, for that matter) to accuse anyone of being anything as a sole and direct consequence of this legislation being passed.

Your parting shot
Or is there some subtlety of 'equality' language here that I'm missing ... ?
is one to which I replied that there is indeed something that you're missing here, as outlined above.

In sum, then, my point in disagreement with the premise of yours is that the legislation has not been designed so as to incite greater aggression towards or accusation of any one group of people by any other and I do not believe that it does so.

[Mr Pee]

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

I must say that many of ahinton's posts do rather remind me of the worst sort of legal mumbo-jumbo, and become virtually unintelligible as a result, the one you have quoted being a prime example.

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.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/co...y-emoticon.gif

[ahinton]

I must say that many of ahinton's posts do rather remind me of the worst sort of legal mumbo-jumbo, and become virtually unintelligible as a result, the one you have quoted being a prime example.

Well that's your problem, I fear, but if, like scotty, you really need everything in primary colours, then let's account for
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.
by pointing out that I disagree with scotty's implication that the legislation is likely to encourage some people to be less tolerant and more accusing of others whose sexual proclivities differ from their own; if that's still too complicated or convoluted for you, I fear that I can do no more to help you.

You could try answering the question that I put to you, though; you surely understood that!

[Mr Pee]

You could try answering the question that I put to you, though; you surely understood that!

Of course they can get married.

[Flosshilde]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-adoption.html

Perhaps not if the people getting married are millionnaire film stars? :erm:

Otherwise, so what?

[Stephen Whitaker]

We mustn't call the opponents of gay marriage any nasty names or infringe their Human Right to their religious beliefs.
Even if they qualify for the epithets used and fall short of their religious obligations in other respects.
It's Political Correctness gone mad I tell you.

[ahinton]

Of course they can get married.

OK - thanks for this clarification, which I take to mean that, in declaring no objection to people of the opposite sex marrying or desiring to marry whether or not they may want or be able to procreate and regardless of whether they're capable of parenthood, you accept that opposite-sex marriage is not all about children. What do you feel about opposite-sex couples desiring to marry other than in Church and about those who do marry outside the Church applying for and/or being offered the opportunity of having their marriage blessed by the Church? I ask this as part of an effort to understand your stance and, now that you've agreed that opposite-sex marriage isn't all about children, I'm interested to ascertain whether and to what extent you feel that opposite-sex marriage and the rôle or otherwise of the Church therein are intertwined. My reason for asking it has to do with the various not necessarily exclusive ways in which marriage may be viewed, i.e. as a legal contract, an arrangement made "in the eyes of God" as a religious sacrament and as an emotional commitment.

[ahinton]

We mustn't call the opponents of gay marriage any nasty names or infringe their Human Right to their religious beliefs.

One can try to justify calling them nasty names such as those cited above only if they genuinely and unquestionably merit them as a consequence of their behaviour but certainly not on the sole grounds of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

[Mr Pee]

OK - thanks for this clarification, which I take to mean that, in declaring no objection to people of the opposite sex marrying or desiring to marry whether or not they may want or be able to procreate and regardless of whether they're capable of parenthood, you accept that opposite-sex marriage is not all about children. What do you feel about opposite-sex couples desiring to marry other than in Church and about those who do marry outside the Church applying for and/or being offered the opportunity of having their marriage blessed by the Church? I ask this as part of an effort to understand your stance and, now that you've agreed that opposite-sex marriage isn't all about children, I'm interested to ascertain whether and to what extent you feel that opposite-sex marriage and the rôle or otherwise of the Church therein are intertwined. My reason for asking it has to do with the various not necessarily exclusive ways in which marriage may be viewed, i.e. as a legal contract, an arrangement made "in the eyes of God" as a religious sacrament and as an emotional commitment.

Well heterosexual marriage is nearly always connected with having children, more so than homosexual marriage. Of course there will be some married heterosexual couples who do not have children for all sorts of reasons, but they will be the minority.

If they want to marry in a bouncy castle, that's up to them, isn't it, as long said bouncy castle holds the proper licence. And if they then decide they want their union to be blessed in church, that is also up to them. Although in that case one wonders why they didn't just get married in church in the first place.

[ahinton]

Well heterosexual marriage is nearly always connected with having children, more so than homosexual marriage. Of course there will be some married heterosexual couples who do not have children for all sorts of reasons, but they will be the minority.

If they want to marry in a bouncy castle, that's up to them, isn't it, as long said bouncy castle holds the proper licence. And if they then decide they want their union to be blessed in church, that is also up to them. Although in that case one wonders why they didn't just get married in church in the first place.

That's all fair comment insofar as it goes, except that I'm not so convinced as you are that married heterosexual couples who don't have children are "in the minority"; aside from those who can't and those who don't want to, just think of all those who feel obliged to postpone (sometimes indefinitely) having children on professional and economic grounds, to say nothing of all those who marry when the woman is already beyond child-bearing age. I think that, whatever the prevailing statistics, heterosexual marriage is a good deal less "connected with having children" than once it was and, even to the extent that it is when it is, would you not agree that the most appropriate foundation for commencing and raising a family is a profound emotional commitment of the kind that can and does apply also to homosexual couples whether or not they then choose to raise children?

[scottycelt]

If a Scot queries another on use of English and you really need this simplified for you, let's hav a go.

You wrote
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?
and I responded that the crucial word here is "if", for the remainder of your premise is invalid as there's no evidence of the automatic branding of those opposed to same-sex marriage and in favour of marriage as defined before the legislation was passed yesterday, as you suggest. Clear now?

You then wrote
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' ?
and my response to this is, again, that I do not accept that male heterosexuals would be entitled (or feel inclined, for that matter) to accuse anyone of being anything as a sole and direct consequence of this legislation being passed.

Your parting shot
Or is there some subtlety of 'equality' language here that I'm missing ... ?
is one to which I replied that there is indeed something that you're missing here, as outlined above.

In sum, then, my point in disagreement with the premise of yours is that the legislation has not been designed so as to incite greater aggression towards or accusation of any one group of people by any other and I do not believe that it does so.

You continue to miss the point.

My use of 'if' was to illustrate the logical conclusion that IF those who support the current definition of marriage are considered to be 'homophobic', because it excludes homosexuals, then it surely follows that lesbianism also must be automatically considered 'heterophobic' as it excludes heterosexuals.

It is not a question of whether those who support traditional marriage are sometimes automatically accused of 'homophobia' by those demanding change.

It is an indisputable fact, clearly demonstrated by posts on the subject on this very forum and even used by some MPs in the House of Commons. Check it out!

You appear to be blissfully unaware that such language exists, which I find truly remarkable.

[ahinton]

You continue to miss the point.

No; I'd not "missed" it in the first place and do not do so now. You wrote that
My use of 'if' was to illustrate the logical conclusion that IF those who support the current definition of marriage are considered to be 'homophobic', because it excludes homosexuals, then it surely follows that lesbianism also must be automatically considered 'heterophobic' as it excludes heterosexuals.
It is not, however, the "logical" conclusion as which you describe it. By "current definition", I take you to mean that which applied in UK until the law was passed yesterday evening. No such "automatic" considerations apply in practice. "Homophobia" is, as the word itself clarifies, is a phobia of homosexuals, a feeling that is perfectly possible for people to hold regardless of their own or any homosexuals' views upon marriage, either opposite-sex or same-sex; in other words, it's indicative of a dislike of homosexuals tout court and nothing to do with views on marriage before or after the legislative change. By "homophobia" here, I do indeed include negative attitudes towards female as well as male homosexuals.

You continue
It is not a question of whether those who support traditional marriage are sometimes automatically accused of 'homophobia' by those demanding change.
The implication here being that such people are accused of homophobia by those who demanded the change that we now have enshrined in law, I cannot accept your stance. Current legislation has no effect on what you call "traditional" marriage, as it does not supplant it with same-sex marriage; furthermore, the only people who might seek to accuse anyone of "homophobia" (i.e. by reference to the correct definition of "homophobia") do so unjustly, since support for "traditional" marriage and "homophobia" are not synonymous.

It is an indisputable fact, clearly demonstrated by posts on the subject on this very forum and even used by some MPs in the House of Commons. Check it out!

Just because an MP in HoC says something or a forum member posts something similar in the heat of the moment does not a homophobe make of anyone who happens to believe in "traditional marriage"; let's face it, many homosexuals also approve of "traditional marriage" (and I imagine that homophobic homosexuals must be in a very tiny minority indeed!), which is the principal reason why some of them have sought to attain a similar right for themselves!

You appear to be blissfully unaware that such language exists, which I find truly remarkable.

It would be if I were but, since the above demonstrates that I am clearly not, this is hardly a matter for concern for anyone other than you - and, hopefully, no longer you either!

[scottycelt]

No; I'd not "missed" it in the first place and do not do so now. You wrote that
My use of 'if' was to illustrate the logical conclusion that IF those who support the current definition of marriage are considered to be 'homophobic', because it excludes homosexuals, then it surely follows that lesbianism also must be automatically considered 'heterophobic' as it excludes heterosexuals.
It is not, however, the "logical" conclusion as which you describe it. By "current definition", I take you to mean that which applied in UK until the law was passed yesterday evening. No such "automatic" considerations apply in practice. "Homophobia" is, as the word itself clarifies, is a phobia of homosexuals, a feeling that is perfectly possible for people to hold regardless of their own or any homosexuals' views upon marriage, either opposite-sex or same-sex; in other words, it's indicative of a dislike of homosexuals tout court and nothing to do with views on marriage before or after the legislative change. By "homophobia" here, I do indeed include negative attitudes towards female as well as male homosexuals.

You continue
It is not a question of whether those who support traditional marriage are sometimes automatically accused of 'homophobia' by those demanding change.
The implication here being that such people are accused of homophobia by those who demanded the change that we now have enshrined in law, I cannot accept your stance. Current legislation has no effect on what you call "traditional" marriage, as it does not supplant it with same-sex marriage; furthermore, the only people who might seek to accuse anyone of "homophobia" (i.e. by reference to the correct definition of "homophobia") do so unjustly, since support for "traditional" marriage and "homophobia" are not synonymous.


Just because an MP in HoC says something or a forum member posts something similar in the heat of the moment does not a homophobe make of anyone who happens to believe in "traditional marriage"; let's face it, many homosexuals also approve of "traditional marriage" (and I imagine that homophobic homosexuals must be in a very tiny minority indeed!), which is the principal reason why some of them have sought to attain a similar right for themselves!


It would be if I were but, since the above demonstrates that I am clearly not, this is hardly a matter for concern for anyone other than you - and, hopefully, no longer you either!

Ahinton, now leaving other issues aside and on a point of fact, no new law has yet been passed. The bill has still some way to go before (and if) it ever becomes law.

Therefore, the current legal situation regarding the definition of marriage is exactly the same as it was yesterday afternoon.

[gingerjon]

Therefore, the current legal situation regarding the definition of marriage is exactly the same as it was yesterday afternoon.

Indeed.

And long may our ancient definitions of marriage, dating back to the time of some other point in the reign of that long-forgotten monarch Queen Elizabeth II, stand.