Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[jean]

Ahem...isn't Marriage off limits as a discussion topic?

[ahinton]

The staggeringly overwhelming majority of married people can and do have children.

I do know and appreciate that.

Sensitivity is completely irrelevant (although I really sympathise with people who want to have children but can't).

It's far from irrelevant in principle but I'm relieved that you do sympathise with those couples (and frankly would have been suprised if you could not).

Marriage has (hitherto) never been about social justice.

But it's not so now - at least to the extent that heterosexuals who want to marry and either conjugate or not or procreate or not can continue to do so just as was the case before the same sex marriage law was passed; I'm still struggling to try to understand what precisely it is that you think has been done by the passage of this legislation to undermine or in any other way compromise heterosexual marriage and, had it done so, I would be against it.

[ahinton]

Ahem...isn't Marriage off limits as a discussion topic?

Dunno; better address that question to FF (who, unlike some around these parts, can be relied upon to answer reasonable questions when asked!)...

[Beef Oven!]

I'm still struggling to try to understand what precisely it is that you think has been done by the pasage of this legislation to undermine or in any other way compromise heterosexual marriage

I can see that.

This will help you.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/TheMeaningOfMatrimony.pdf

[ahinton]

I can see that.

This will help you.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/TheMeaningOfMatrimony.pdf

Whether or not it will do so or indeed whether or not it might even need to do so will inevitably have to remain debatable for the time being but, in the meantime, I very much appreciate your drawing my (and others) attention to what already looks, on even the briefest of skim reads of the surface matter, a fascinating document which will obviously require a good deal of reading time that I cannot devote to it all immediately; that said, I maintain in the interim that I have understood nothing about the new legislation that was ever intended to undermine - or could undermine, still less has undermined - marriage as it has been understood up to the time of its passage and I fail to see how it could do so in any case against the wishes, desires and motivations of heterosexual couples who wish to marry, whether or not they are able or wish to have children thereafter. Laws are, after all, made not just by but for people and, if swathes of people feel undermined by any new ones, they will likely and understandably speak out and/or defy them, yet here there seems to be nothing to speak out against or defy.

But many thanks once again!

[Beef Oven!]

Whether or not it will do so or indeed whether or not it might even need to do so will inevitably have to remain debatable for the time being but, in the meantime, I very much appreciate your drawing my (and others) attention to what already looks, on even the briefest of skim reads of the surface matter, a fascinating document which will obviously require a good deal of reading time that I cannot devote to it all immediately; that said, I maintain in the interim that I have understood nothing about the new legislation that was ever intended to undermine - or could or has undermined - marriage as it has been understood up to the time of its passage and I fail to see how it could do so in any case against the wishes, desires and motivations of heterosexual couples who wish to marry, whether or not they are able or wish to have children thereafter; laws are, after all, made not just by but for people and, if swathes of people feel undermined by any new ones, they will likely and understandably speak out and/or defy them - but here, there seems to be nothing to speak out against or defy.

But many thanks once again!

You're more than welcome!

[teamsaint]

I sense the ghost of Ian Dury

[carol_fodor]

Whether or not it will do so or indeed whether or not it might even need to do so will inevitably have to remain debatable for the time being but, in the meantime, I very much appreciate your drawing my (and others) attention to what already looks, on even the briefest of skim reads of the surface matter, a fascinating document which will obviously require a good deal of reading time that I cannot devote to it all immediately; that said, I maintain in the interim that I have understood nothing about the new legislation that was ever intended to undermine - or could undermine, still less has undermined - marriage as it has been understood up to the time of its passage and I fail to see how it could do so in any case against the wishes, desires and motivations of heterosexual couples who wish to marry, whether or not they are able or wish to have children thereafter. Laws are, after all, made not just by but for people and, if swathes of people feel undermined by any new ones, they will likely and understandably speak out and/or defy them, yet here there seems to be nothing to speak out against or defy.

But many thanks once again!

Crikey, that's 205 words and only 2 semicolons in a single sentence...

[Beef Oven!]

Crikey, that's 205 words and only 2 semicolons in a single sentence...

Nothing compared to Hilaire Belloc.

[Barbirollians]

I note that Beefy has not been able to justify his nonsensical suggestion that human rights have been destroyed .

[Beef Oven!]

I note that Beefy has not been able to justify his nonsensical suggestion that human rights have been destroyed .

Note all you like, pal.

[Barbirollians]

Note all you like, pal.

Happy to do so . Your posting was nonsense and your failure to explain it simply underlines that .

[Beef Oven!]

Happy to do so . Your posting was nonsense and your failure to explain it simply underlines that .

So what's your point?

[Beef Oven!]

I sense the ghost of Ian Dury

?

[teamsaint]

?

"you are more than welcome"...a phrase he used in some song or other....