Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

To think that this is just a silly reaction on behalf of gay people?

(262 Posts)
Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:05:55

Don't misunderstand me, I support gay people having full access to same rights as opposite sex people. Always have done. As somebody has somebody close to me who is gay, I like to keep abreast of gay news.

But I don't know, isn't the following just a bit over the top:

I mean, Yes, I'm totally fine with same sex marriage, but I'm not going to take to the streets and party over it. I'm guessing that it's not that big a deal to the majority of us-this doesn't mean that anybody's against it at all, but that it really IS no big deal. So why are they expecting the news channels to give it much coverage?

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/19/whitehall-questions-why-equal-marriage-was-largely-ignored-by-bbc-channel-4-and-other-media/

I don't think they were expecting loads of coverage but a mention might have been nice.

YABU

VeryDullNameChange Sat 20-Jul-13 08:14:16

A mention would be nice, but I'm pretty sure they'll go to town when the first actual gay marriage takes place. TV news likes pictures of things happening, and radio news likes a fight. This bit of the story is of interest to neither.

well seeing as they've had to fight for it and until this last half century it was basically seen as a sin and punishable in many parts of the world (and still is actually) it is a pretty big thing. Its weird that the news coverage was so little actually.

I'm not gay & don't even have any gay friends and yet I still felt a bit sad that it was largely ignored when it's arguably the most important thing that's happened with gay rights legislation in years.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:16:36

But the news isn't about being nice as such, is it? I don't know. I just don't think it's particularly significantly newsworthy -especially when most people in civil partnerships are informally known as husbands and wives anyway.

quesadilla Sat 20-Jul-13 08:16:45

It's perfectly reasonable for any pressure group to seek to raise awareness and keep the profile of its campaign up.

Can't click on link so can't see whole story, but the way any editorial process works is that someone takes a decision about what the most important issues of the moment are. That is a subjective judgment.

So people who want to keep their issue live need to fight to keep it at the top of the agenda.

SuffolkNWhat Sat 20-Jul-13 08:18:45

A massive change to the legal status to a significant proportion of the population is not news?

Fuck me sideways with a banana hmm

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:19:34

Well, I'd argue that gay couples being able to adopt children was of more significance myself. I mean all they've really done is rename civil partnerships marriage as far as I can tell.

Not a bad thing at all, but no big deal, either.

curlew Sat 20-Jul-13 08:19:37

Don't tell me, OP- you have lots of gay friends, but you don't think the issues should be rammed down people's throats. Am I right?

It's not just about coverage because it's nice though surely?

It's a pretty big thing! And marriage is quite different to CPs in a lot of people's eyes, especially considering the comments about it having the potential to ruin the 'sanctity of marriage' hmm from a lot of right wingers.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:21:06

quesadilla, yes but why would the issue need to be kept alive now? It's over. Equal marriage has been achieved.

I disagree actually. Not being allowed a traditional marriage was an issue for many, especially religious ones. CPs did seem to be a consolation in some people's eyes and this leveled the playing field, IMO anyway.

Suelford Sat 20-Jul-13 08:23:59

I saw loads about it when it passed the Commons and the Lords. Royal assent is just rubber-stamping really.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:24:27

TheOrchardKeeper, it was an issue; that's the point. It's been achieved. End of story.

OwlinaTree Sat 20-Jul-13 08:24:30

Gay marriage gives different levels of legal rights to couples, so it isn't just renaming civil partnerships.

I think it's a big step forward for equality. I expect there will be more coverage when people start getting married.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 20-Jul-13 08:24:55

Equal marriage has been achieved - that is HUGE news and something people have fought and risked their lives for and have finally won. Yet the royal baby who isnt even here yet gets more coverage on bbc news? That is just a bizarre and wrong set of priorities and so no, I don't think gay people are being "silly" to complain hmm.

Just because equal marriage has been achieved doesn't mean equality has. I'd say that although things have progressed greatly there are still many who hold archaic/casually homophobic views (as proved by a lot of the comments that came about during the fight for gay marriage). Making sure the movement keeps going is surely still important?

pictish Sat 20-Jul-13 08:25:17

I disagree.
It is momentous actually. Gay people have been abused and discounted for long enough. This law recognises and respects their sexuality. It represents meaningful equality. This is definitely newsworthy, as it marks a significant shift in attitude and culture.

It ought to have been covered.

ApocalypseThen Sat 20-Jul-13 08:25:25

What harm are they doing you, Jessime?

pictish Sat 20-Jul-13 08:26:02

It is the very spirit of 'current affairs'.

(tbh the fact they had to fight for it in 2013 and had all those comments and opposition surely shows that attitudes have improved but still have a way to come).

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:29:01

And you think the abuse will now stop because of same sex marriage?

I say this with respect, but that's putting a lot on the institution of marriage being a panacea, isn't it? Marriage is not working for half of straight couples, is it?

In fact it's the reverse, really.

The non-bigotted amongst us see it as no big deal 'move on nothing to see here' as we have already accepted our friends in civil partnerships as being 'married' in all but formal title. I know I have.

And the homophobic are going to be even more so now.

I don't think abuse will stop because of this. that is my point. It's not 'over'. It's just progression.

Are you suggesting we're bigoted because we think it's a big deal? hmm

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 20-Jul-13 08:34:27

It's a momentous occasion. It should be covered. I've seen more coverage of Mishal Husain's new job, which affects few people outside of her immediate circle. It's insulting to say that a civil rights issue which people have spent years campaigning for is silly because you are 'totally fine' with it.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now