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.

MadBannersAndCopPorn Sat 20-Jul-13 08:35:06

I think it's on a par with women getting the vote. Long time coming, should have happened long before, a very big historical moment that future generations will take for granted.....

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:36:12

TheOrchardKeeper. Eh? Don't know where you got that from.

OK, try it this way: a small minority are positively happy about this, as in cock-a-hoop with joy.

a small minority are positively unhappy with this, as in really unhappy.

The majority are very mildly happy/ very mildly unhappy/indifferent.

As in, 'live and let live', doesn't affect me: move on.

VeryDullNameChange Sat 20-Jul-13 08:36:37

Royal Assents very rarely get coverage though, because they're so dull and inevitable. I'm sure there'll be shedloads of lovely coverage for the first gay couple to tie the knot - I hope they like cameras.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 20-Jul-13 08:37:25

"the non bigotted amongst us see it as no big deal"

Who are you speaking for? It's a fucking huge deal. Does that make me a bigot?

pictish Sat 20-Jul-13 08:37:35

No...I don't think the abuse will stop.
Ir is marked progression though. And newsworthy.

pictish Sat 20-Jul-13 08:39:22

I think it's a big deal.

The non-bigotted amongst us see it as no big deal, move on nothing to see here - read a bit funny. Plenty of non-bigoted people see it as a big deal.

The 'minority' that are unhappy with it will now have to accept it anyway. That's pretty big.

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 20-Jul-13 08:39:59

Yabu.

That is all.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:40:04

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou, perhaps my post at 8:36 makes it clearer.

I'm sorry, but it IS no big deal for me either way. It's no big deal for many of us.

If it's no big deal for you then surely you shouldn't be fussed about them wanting more coverage and carrying on with the movement?

GettingVerySleepy Sat 20-Jul-13 08:42:02

Yes, who are you speaking for? So because you have a few gay friends you think you can speak for all gay people and your conclusion is that anyone who thinks its a big deal is a bigot? That is shockingly ignorant.

Let me inform you that I, the daughter of a gay parent, think its great my dad can now get married and is a sign of real progress. My family broke down in tears of joy over this. I guess we are all bigots hmm.

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 08:43:30

Lots of things people consider unimportant get news coverage.
No Royal baby has been born yet - but look at the coverage so far.

It's a big thing for the gay community - people were aware it was going through Parliament but did not know it became law.

So yes. some coverage would be nice.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:44:33

GettingVerySleepy

Well you're obviously part of the minority for whom this is a big deal then, aren't you?

Once again, for the sake of clarity, I ask you to read my post as of 8:36.

^ DP's brother has had kids (adoptive) with his partner and they live together but didn't want a CP as they're both christian and wanted to get married. They weren't sure if they'd ever be able to. They both cried too and we've actually had them round to celebrate and start planning! So it is a big thing for many.

Also, the title of the thread is a tad offensive as it's such an important issue for so many people and 'silly' just isn't appropriate wording really, unless you're trying to offend.

I understand you don't have an issue with it all but many do, so why begrudge them the coverage or decide they're silly?

GettingVerySleepy Sat 20-Jul-13 08:47:01

Okay so this thread has changed your mind? Because right there in your thread title you call this a "silly reaction" and your OP takes a very different tack from your post at 8:36. And yes I am we'll aware that my family is a minority thank you so much for taking the opportunity to remind me though!

GettingVerySleepy Sat 20-Jul-13 08:48:23

Congrats to your DP's brother and fiancé , TheOrchardKeeper smile!!!!!

I don't think the minority find it a big deal actually. This affects all gay people, whether they get married or not, as it's progression. There are more straight people in this country, yes but I wouldn't call gay people and their families/loved ones/friends a 'minority'. This is a big deal for a lot of people. Just not you, which is fine.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 20-Jul-13 08:49:08

No, doesn't make it clearer. OK so I'm not straight so maybe I come at things from a different angle from you but the fundamental fact is you can't have equality until you have equality for everyone. This effects everyone, even those of us who can't see past our own privilege. You thinking it's irrelevant because you are 'fine' with it just shows how little you understand about the struggle of marginalised groups to achieve equality. Are you also 'totally fine' with women having the vote, or Irish Catholics. Are you 'fine' with black Americans having the same civil rights as white Americans? No, it doesn't stop all the bigotry, otherwise Trayvon Martin would still be alive but nor is it just a piece of paper or a rubber stamp. It's bloody important and shouldn't be dismissed by people who think they are so damn cool and accepting.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:49:57

GettingVerySleepy.

You're really being oversensitive now.

I meant no slight against your family.

But it is fair too say that the vast majority of people in this country are not bothered about gay people getting married. That's a good thing, believe it or not. They're neutral or very mildly happy about it.

Thank you GVS smile

GettingVerySleepy Sat 20-Jul-13 08:50:12

Damn, right on, IThink, excellent post!

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 08:52:19

So what's the point of your OP?

Something that affects gay people in this country - and has been the source of a lot of debate in this country - becomes law and did not get much coverage in the news?

When it happened in France, it got a lot of news coverage over here.

Surely it should have had some news coverage.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 20-Jul-13 08:52:43

People not really caring about civil rights and equality actually isn't a good thing. Apathy is the glove into which evil slips it's hand et etc etc.

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 08:54:20

I don't think it is a minority that think this is a big deal either, assuming by minority you mean homosexuals who want to get married?

There are many many gay people who have no plans to get married now or in the future who will still see this as a big deal, as its a huge step for equality for the gay community.

There are many straight people, with or without gay friends and relatives, who will see this as a big deal, for the same reasons.

Equality should be a big deal for us all.

This is huge news with almost zero coverage, people are right to question it.

^ I actually wondered if it was a purposeful blackout (and I am not the type to believe in conspiracies. EVER). It would actually be fairly easy seeing most mainstream media is controlled by only a few people.

But that's another thread grin

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 20-Jul-13 08:57:58

OP, did you see the debate in the House of Commons? I did, start to end. It was one of the most moving things I've ever seen. Margot James and Toby Perkins almost had me in tears. There were so many personal stories, so many MPs nailing their colours to the mast, so many declaring their intention to vote 'yes' because of their Christian convictions, not in spite of them. There were several MPs who moved from No to Yes that day and the passing of the law means that the gen pop will move to, and even if they don't they can no longer hide behind a law that allows gay people to be treated as second best.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:58:19

It's good that it has not got much coverage in the news.

It means that people have accepted it and moved on with their lives.

What would you prefer? Mass rioting in the streets against it?

But, really, to expect the reverse is also silly: the vast majority aren't going to be saying that this is the best news since the invention of The Pill either.

To be honest, there is something of the bully about the complaints about little coverage of this story:

'It's like: celebrate and make a big fuss over this or else!' But I don't want to celebrate it. It's right that gay people should be allowed to marry, I agree, but why should anybody else feel obliged to join in the fuss over it?

It doesn't even need to be celebrated...just covered confused

No coverage does NOT mean that people have moved on. Some obviously will have but it doesn't mean things are now magically ok and there's no more need for the GR movement.

But it is fair too say that the vast majority of people in this country are not bothered about gay people getting married.
Speak for yourself Jesssime, I for one am delighted and am surprised there has been no coverage. And I have no close friends or family directly affected by this, but am purely happy for this step that society as a whole has made. And I am not alone in feeling this way - the majority of my friends and family share my delight.

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 09:03:51

"It's good that it has not got much coverage in the news."

I bet there are a lot of people out there who do not know it's been passed as law and would be unhappy about it. Maybe they're trying to sneak it through so no one criticises it.

It's news. That's what news is - and it is a big change in the law, its been the cause of debates, protests etc - so maybe a big change should get coverage in the news because it's news.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 20-Jul-13 09:04:32

Well, a number of people have tried to explain this to you Jesssime but you're just not getting it so I'm going to move on. But just one last point, replace "gay marriage" with "royal baby" in your last paragraph and it actually makes sense, yet that hasn't stopped the maniacal media frenzy on the topic!

Splashsplosh Sat 20-Jul-13 09:13:05

The vast majority of people have moved on from Harry Potter but Daniel Radcliffe still gets plenty of news coverage every time he does a new fart. No/little news coverage doesn't reflect how accepting people are and how they've moved on, it's more akin to "we don't want to know thanks" which is sad at best, bigoted at worst.

It doesn't affect anyone very close to me and I still think it's a MASSIVE deal, even just the dull Royal Assent bit. Am very disappointed the media have chosen not to make a huge deal of it - if I have to listen to 10 minutes on the latest celeb breakdown or film premiere then I should get at least equal info/coverage on something as monumental as this. It'd be like broadcasting nothing about the moon landing from the moment Neil Armstrong shoved his foot down and saying "yeah, well, they made it, what more can you say, we're so over it".

Wow...just wow....
So you think we shouldn't show anything contentious in case it incites bigoted people to riot...

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 20-Jul-13 09:15:13

In the words of Martin Luther King Jr "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."

OP, you might think that the apathy of a nation is a reflection of it's 'it's totally fine' attitude but I think it's what it is. Apathy. How many of these majority totally fine people have lobbied for this, written letters, signed petitions etc? Not very many. This is not because they are 'totally fine' with it, although they may be 'totally fine' that is incidental. It is because they are apathetic and whist you see that as a virtue, I cannot help but see it as a vice. The majority of the country don't vote, not even in a general election. Would you be happy to get rid of the vote as most people don't really bother with it? Most people who have put any thought into it see marriage equality as a good thing, even if it doesn't directly effect them, the majority not putting any thought into it is not a positive step towards true equality, it's a back slide and one day we will pay the price for it.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 09:16:32

kim147

It's not big news.

No I'm sorry, I used to shrug off claims that there was an element of gay bullying in the gay rights movement.

I'm not sure anymore. Apparently, it's not enough to accept equal marriage, people have to actively care about it, too, well I don't care about marriage full stop. It doesn't seem to work well for heterosexual people; don't see why I should change my mindset and say it's marvellous for gay people and lie.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 09:17:38

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou,

Hottest place in hell?! confused

Guess I was right about the bullying. hmm

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 20-Jul-13 09:19:35

OP

That is a quote.

People disagreeing with you isn't bullying,it's a fact of life. biscuit

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 09:20:53

jess you don't have to care or celebrate or anything, that's completely fine.

But it is big news and should have some news coverage.

Like I said, you are impartial to it, fine, many others are impartial to it, fine. But many others view it as big news.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 20-Jul-13 09:21:18

Yes, MLK jr, that well known bully. I think you are being a little over sensitive Jesssime (ie exactly what you said to me....).

I think the issue here is that it has been massively under reported.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 20-Jul-13 09:23:42

Martin Luther King Jr was a black civil rights campaigner in America. I thought everyone knew that. He received the nobel peace prize for fighting racial inequality. His quote refers to the idea that evil will triumph if good men do nothing. You think your apathy is a reflection of your accepting attitude. I think it sucks.

This isn't about whether marriage works or not, or if you or anyone else approves of marriage.

This is about a group of people that where denied rights because of their sexuality. It wasn't just a small group of bigots that discriminated against another small group. It was a LAW that discriminated against a minority, based on who they choose to spend their lives with.

You don't care.

To me, when it's something this important, not caring is not much better than being against it, for all the use it does. I think that's what the MLK quote was being used to emphasize.

I'm straight as a ruler but I still feel that it's important to fight for equality of others. Because, by nature lgbt people are in the minority the more straight people that add their voice to the cause the better, surely. I feel that way about all sorts of issues not just gay rights.

If everyone that was 'ok' with it kept their mouths shut and eyes to the floor then this law wouldn't have been passed at all.

It's a great quote Alisvolatpropiis I was thinking of the Edmund Burke quote "All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing"

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 20-Jul-13 09:28:12

It is a great quote!

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 09:28:22

Alivolapropiis, so why are a small group of gay people now in effect demanding that people make out that their right to marriage is headline news AND say how marvellous it is to boot?

The right to it has been achieved. Nobody seems to have started riots against it. That should be good enough.

I accept the live and let live philosophy when it comes to gay people, why can't they accept others right to react as they wish, too? The BBC et al have a right to choose things that they deem to be newsworthy.

FamiliesShareGerms Sat 20-Jul-13 09:28:24

This is an exceptionally big story, both for all the reasons eloquently set out upthread, and because it is something that David Cameron has championed despite profound opposition from his back benches and party members, and may yet cost him politically. If only because of the Westminster Village angle I'm genuinely surprised that this has had so little coverage.

it is headline news...it's just not been made so for whatever reasons hmm

Of topic but my favourite Martin Luther quote is

“Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.”

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 20-Jul-13 09:33:02

Actually, the BBC aren't supposed to show bias in reporting. They do all the time, but they are not within their rights to do so. I can't believe you don't know this so I am going to assume that you are a wind up merchant and bow out now.

the fact he was assassinated only proves his points further really. Which is probably not what they wanted!

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 09:34:06

It would have been a news story had it not been for civil partnerships.

But everybody I know who knows people in cp's refers to them as husband and wife, anyway. In fact, the other day, a friend of mine introduced her friend's partner as: ' This is Mike, and this is his husband, Dave'.

All that's changed is the nomenclature. Although I do believe that there are still some differences between straight and same sex marriage.

BustyDeLaGhetto Sat 20-Jul-13 09:34:24

My grandfather was gay and married my grandmother because until the 1960s homosexuality was still an inprisonable offence. He did not father either of the children this marriage produced, and they lived cordially together for the sake of public appearance. He was lucky to have met someone as free thinking and open minded as my grandmother in the 40s, otherwise he would have been forced to repress his sexuality until he died. Now, only FIFTY YEARS later you can be married, legally, to someone of the same sex. Isn't that brilliant? My friend was one of the first people in the UK to have a civil partnership but because it wasn't recognised as a legally binding marriage it affected everything from joint insurance to mortgages. There's a lot more to this than it being a civil partnership under a different guise. A lot more.

CPs are not the same as Marriages. Similar but not the same. And they don't hold the same reverence for many people. So it is a big story.

Especially as it's considered 'truly' equal for a lot of people, whereas CPs were seen as a consolation for many.

A Civil partnership is not a marriage,they are not the same in law, its not just a name change.
maybe they refer to each other as husband and wife because its easier than saying This is my Civil Partner.

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 09:37:15

it is big news - it's a fundamental change in the law that caused massive division in parliament - and it is a huge step forward in the continuing battle for equality and acceptance

I am not bigoted - I did a happy dance and felt it deserved much more coverage

I am sure gay people the world over thank you for your support

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 09:39:11

But jesssime it is also the fact they now have the equal right to get married if they choose that is big news. Not the fact they can get married if that makes sense.

Cps arnt the same thing has marriage really.

This is a huge step in equality and that is the big news, for me anyway.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 09:39:22

I don't view marriage as being brilliant full stop. BustyDeLaGhetto. The divorce rates support my view that an awful lot of people don't either.

Why should I pretend that it is brilliant for gay people to get married when, clearly, it ain't that good a thing for straight people?

In fact, to ignore the evidence that it is bad for straight people yet somehow miracalously great for gay people is inverse homophobia as in: gay people will be so much better at it.

Equal marriage should be granted, that goes without saying, really, as gay people pay taxes and contribute to society just as straight people do.

But why should anybody else feel the issue to be worthy of headline news?

because its about discrimination!

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 09:40:52

Inverse homophobia as in far from thinking that gay people are inferior that they are somehow superior to straight people.

TurnipIsTaken Sat 20-Jul-13 09:41:31

And what gives you the right to dictate what other people do and say? You don't seem to see the contradiction in your argument.

And it's not even fully equal btw, there are some areas eg pensions were gay couples are still not treated the same as straight ones.

OnTheNingNangNong Sat 20-Jul-13 09:42:36

It's good because of free choice

I think your argument is misguided at best, it is newsworthy as it is a major piece of statute being changed.

It doesn't matter how you react to the news. It's the fact that this IS news and has barely been reported.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 09:42:57

But I'm not dictating at all, TurnipIsTaken, the people who are complaining about lack of coverage are the dictators.

I'm merely reacting to the fact that they think they can dictate what appears in the news.

symfem Sat 20-Jul-13 09:43:06

Sounds like Jess you want to have them keep it behind closed doors

It's a major change in fundamental rights in society, for a long marginalised and abused people. Of course its news

Really? Superior? It's bigger news because it's a breakthrough, not because they're better than straight people hmm

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 09:44:01

You are completely missing the point!

The big news and importance of this law being passed is the huge step in equality and acceptance. Not the fact they can now be married. That's what the bottom line is anyway.

it's not about if marriage works either...it's about the fact they were denied it until now.

You don't need to have a party or even care but to begrudge them and their supporters for doing so is unreasonable.

TurnipIsTaken Sat 20-Jul-13 09:46:22

But you are. You are saying they shouldn't make such a fuss, stop being silly etc. That is telling other people what they should do.

If the BBC didn't cover Nelson Mandela's death do you think no-one should accuse them of being racist, just accept they can choose what to cover?

it should've appeared in the news because it was news. Big news. No one's dictating that because it is a fact. It just didn't happen and people are wondering why.

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 09:48:54

And jesssimes don't ask if you are being unreasonable, if you are not prepared to be told that yes you are being unreasonable.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 09:49:05

TheOrchardKeeper, clearly you think gay people are going to make a better go at marriage than straight people, otherwise you'd just say that equality is good but let's not ignore the evidence that marriage -as we know it today- is not working too well as an institution full stop. Quietly hopeful at best. Not demanding that everybody shares the good news.

Put it this way, I fully support the right of group A to jump into a swamp of crocodiles as group B have been doing for years.

That doesn't mean to say that I think there's a lot to be said for jumping into a swamp of crocodiles.

I don't but thanks for telling me what I think...

And it's not about the swamp but the right to jump in too (what a ridiculous analogy though, plenty of people do make marriages work and want the right to them).

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 09:51:25

"Alivolapropiis, so why are a small group of gay people now in effect demanding that people make out that their right to marriage is headline news AND say how marvellous it is to boot?

The right to it has been achieved. Nobody seems to have started riots against it. That should be good enough."

shock That is amazing. Not in a good way.

You're suggesting that gay people should be happy because all of this has passed by without fuss and be happy that there have been no shows of protest. That should do. Disgusting attitude.

You seem to be confused about civil partnerships being equal and same as marriage. It is not. I'm sure Mike or Dave can tell you more on this. hmm

TurnipIsTaken Sat 20-Jul-13 09:51:47

That is because you are missing the point. It is about the state saying, we respect your rights to exist, not ooooh you are better than us and will do so well at marriage.

OnTheNingNangNong Sat 20-Jul-13 09:54:34

Do you really think Will and Kates impending birth has more need for publication in the media than a whole shift in law and rights?

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 09:55:12

"TheOrchardKeeper, clearly you think gay people are going to make a better go at marriage than straight people, otherwise you'd just say that equality is good but let's not ignore the evidence that marriage -as we know it today- is not working too well as an institution full stop. Quietly hopeful at best. Not demanding that everybody shares the good news."

That is so not the point and a pathetic attempt at a back-peddle and you know it. You didn't start this thread on the footing of marriage being a shaky institution so don't insult our intelligence by pretending that that is your issue, please.

Whether marriage is working well as an institution isn't the issue. The issue is that gay couples, until now, didn't even have the option to decide whether they wanted to enter that institution. Something that straight couples have been able to enter to with gay abandon (pardon the pun) for centuries. Who knows? Maybe because it has had to be strived for, gay couples might take the commitment of marriage more seriously? That isn't for you to pontificate on, frankly.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 09:56:10

MarmaladeTwatkins,

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting; because, believe it or not, that is progress. The right to live and let live has been achieved.

Just don't expect anybody else to be joyous over it, that's all.

By the way if gay people are happy, good for them. They can party outside in the street if they like; I don't mind. As long as they shuttup at a reasonable hour.

My strong objection is that they feel they've the right to dictate the news of this country.

It isn't about whether marriage works, or whether you agree with the institution, it isn't about whether gay people can do a better job.

Its about EQUALITY

What do you not understand about that!

Changing a law that was discriminatory is news. It was news when laws changed allowing black people the same rights as white people, it was news when women were allowed the same voting rights as men, it was news when disabled people where allowed the same rights as ablebodied.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 09:59:13

It's not even equality for heaven's sake-as inequalities remain.

So those going on about equality haven't got their facts straight on that one.

I'm all FOR equality!

What I'm most definitely NOT for is one group of people thinking they've the right to dictate what news stories the media publish.

That is very dangerous territory.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 10:00:31

"
Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting; because, believe it or not, that is progress. The right to live and let live has been achieved.

Just don't expect anybody else to be joyous over it, that's all.

By the way if gay people are happy, good for them. They can party outside in the street if they like; I don't mind. As long as they shuttup at a reasonable hour.

My strong objection is that they feel they've the right to dictate the news of this country."

It has been achieved and it is a BIG DEAL. Achievement of equality in law is a BIG DEAL. A minority group that have thus far been denied the rights granted to the rest of us, after a lengthy struggle, is a BIG DEAL.

You don't have to be joyous but it deserves acknowledgment.

You're starting to sound like my casual homophobic uncle, tbh. "I don't mind the gays but as long as they don't ram it down my throat."

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 10:00:33

No one has said there is complete equality now. Just that its a huge step for equality.

BustyDeLaGhetto Sat 20-Jul-13 10:00:55

Op you seem to be struggling to sustain your argument. I don't think marriage is brilliant. I literally couldn't give a fuck about it, other than it makes people happy. But it's about equality, and how long it's taken to achieve it. Not about divorce statistics or how many of your friends are going through a shitty marriage, gay or straight.

Inequalities do remain, but now at least there is one less.

BustyDeLaGhetto Sat 20-Jul-13 10:02:16

Now you're arguing about equality? Why? A civil partnership does not have EQUAL rights to that of a marriage. So yes, some semblance of equality has been achieved.

BustyDeLaGhetto Sat 20-Jul-13 10:02:41

Blinky that was to OP smile

MissMarplesBloomers Sat 20-Jul-13 10:03:53

I think it's on a par with women getting the vote. Long time coming, should have happened long before, a very big historical moment that future generations will take for granted...

^ This sums it up beautifully.

OP just because it isn't a big deal to you please do not patronise and belittle those of us who want to make a big deal out of it and have it acknowledged even if not agreed with

I am gay and not currently in a relationship but its great that in the future should I wish to I have the same rights as everyone else, I am no longer a second class citizen.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 10:04:08

Why shouldn't the gay community be aggrieved that barely a mention has been given?! This might not seem much to you but to them and a lot of straight people who genuinely do have gay loved ones, it is a massive achievement!

Imagine if the right of women to vote got brushed under the carpet and the menz said "well they got it, didn't they? No need to go on about it. They can have a quiet party in the corner as long as they keep the racket down and don't interrupt the cricket." You'd think them sexist and rightly so.

pictish Sat 20-Jul-13 10:04:55

At the risk of being deleted, you are being a stubborn idiot OP, sticking to your point for the sake of argument. You're coming across as blindly foolish now, and getting more and more detrimental in your posts as you clutch at straws to defend your misguided pov.
Just stop it now, before you say something you don't mean.
My advice.

a very newsworthy part of law has been changed and is barely reported on & you think they're being silly to be annoyed about it. What? hmm

When we talk about equality it's more about the attempt to achieve it. The point is that is hasn't yet been achieved so this law doesn't make it all ok. But because it's not yet been achieved that makes it big news because it's a progression.

To be honest, I'm fed up of most mainstream media/news being controlled by few people with dishonorable intentions, which is dangerous territory. But that really is another thread hmm

Basically you asked AIBU and have been told by many people that you seem to be. Why ask if you aren't open to that?

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 10:06:29

And just because there are still inequalities, it doesn't mean that the ones that have been overcome shouldn't be mentioned! In fact, the fact that there ARE still inequalities means that the ones overcome SHOULD be mentioned! So that people know that as a whole, generally, we are FOR equality. We are the dominant voice here.

VeryDullNameChange Sat 20-Jul-13 10:06:59

It's not about the right to change the news OP. It's about the right to challenge news priorities. If the BBC news have fifteen minutes of coverage to Roger Federer winning Wimbledon but only two minutes to Serena Williams then I'd protest their priorities. If the Guardian gave the whole if the front page to a three man anti-badger cull protest while relegating a hundred thousand person march against cuts to page seven then I'd protest their priorities. It's an entirely legitimate approach.

As it happens I completely understand why the news media haven't found this particular part of the legislative process newsworthy, but the Pink Paper is completely within its rights to take a different view.

I think the OP is having a butbut moment. As her original argument is not standing up too well she is now scurrying around trying to find 'but, but... what about this?'

^agree with Binky.

That's AIBU for you though grin

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 10:09:10

Yes, and same sex marriage is STILL not equal to an opposite sex one in terms of legal rights:

Let me run through the differences:

The big one first: Pension in equality. Simply put, a straight couple are entitled to more pension.

Consummation aspect: i.e. the right to annul a marriage if the marriage partner won't have sex with you. Gay people do not have this right.

A small point, perhaps, but nevertheless it remains.

Adultery. Still defined as being penis in vagina sex within a same sex marriage What use is that to gay people?

So you know you can really tell that the people here who are saying its newsworthy because discrimination has ended are not fully aware of the situation, anyway.

Anyway, I support equality. I do NOT support people thinking they have the right to dictate the reaction of other beings i.e. other human beings and news channels to their newfound rights.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 10:09:10

I agree, Binky. The "marriage is not a safe institution argument" is very lame.

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 10:09:54

And also OP, its not just the gay community who are happy about this, and want it acknowledged.

I am as straight as straight can be, and although have several gay friends, I don't have any friend or relative to be celebrating for personally if that makes sense.

I am celebrating the massive movement in equality and acceptance, the whole marriage thing is secondary in my opinion. If I had been alive when black people got equal rights, i also would have celebrated, yet I'm not black.

If we were alive when women got equal rights, my partner would have celebrated, and he's not a woman.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 10:10:48

"Anyway, I support equality."

Sorry but pretty much everything that you've said on this thread dictates otherwise.

NO-ONE IS SAYING DISCRIMINATION HAD ENDED PLEASE USE YOUR EYES AND READ.

We are not saying that discrimination has ended, what we are saying that a step has been made towards equality, Different things.

But, but...

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 10:14:32

I shall say it again, don't ask if you are being unreasonable if you are not prepared to be told that yes you are being unreasonable.

As not one person on this thread has agreed with you.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 10:16:27

It is because we are not as aware about the issues as OP is, Lj. hmm

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 10:17:06

Er why does it say that I don't believe in equality?

No I DO believe in equality.

What I don't believe in is that those who have achieved equality (as in equal marriage) dictating how OTHERS should react to the news of that equality.

Why is that hard to understand?

Cherriesarelovely Sat 20-Jul-13 10:17:23

Strange thread Op! I think you are nit picking here.

Wbdn28 Sat 20-Jul-13 10:17:26

YABU. You say it's not important because it's "not that big a deal to the majority of us". Why should it only be majority issues that are a big deal? Don't you think it's cause for celebration when a minority is treated more fairly and equally?

Cherriesarelovely Sat 20-Jul-13 10:18:37

I'm confused as to why, if you are pro equality you feel a need to complain about this aspect of the issue.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 10:20:36

"Er why does it say that I don't believe in equality?

No I DO believe in equality.

What I don't believe in is that those who have achieved equality (as in equal marriage) dictating how OTHERS should react to the news of that equality.

Why is that hard to understand?"

You haven't said a great deal to support your assertion that you are for equality, to be honest. Just saying it over and over doesn't make it so.

You have said a few things that make me think that you aren't all that fussed about equality. If you want me to c&p them, I can do.

And they aren't "dictating". Do you know what dictating is? Because it sure as hell isn't writing an article in a minority-read publication asking the question they are asking.

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 10:20:56

Because that's not what your OP said. You seem to have changed tact halfway through this thread.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 10:23:20

What LJ said.

Your OP gambit was that "It is no big deal" You have since changed tack to "Marriage isn't that successful an institution" and "dictating the news".

Which is it?

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 10:23:37

Cherriesarelovely

I'm against anybody telling news channels what stories they should report.

It's as if the premise of the gay rights movement i.e. live and let live has been destroyed.

That is it's no longer good enough to be pro-equality; you have to celebrate and cheer it as well. Even when you don't particularly believe in the thing that is being celebrated i.e. marriage (for anybody)

But I don't want to cheer it -and nor do the news channels- it's no big deal to me, nor them, but, somehow, this view cannot be respected or tolerated. This is veering towards something more unpleasant and totalitarian.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 10:27:19

"It's as if the premise of the gay rights movement i.e. live and let live has been destroyed"

You seem to think that live and let live doesn't mean "Let people love who they want to love" with "Sweep our issues under the rug". Bizarre.

"

That is it's no longer good enough to be pro-equality; you have to celebrate and cheer it as well. Even when you don't particularly believe in the thing that is being celebrated i.e. marriage (for anybody)"

Roughly translates as "I don't mind gays, me, and I'm not homophobic but I don't want to see it everywhere."

edam Sat 20-Jul-13 10:29:47

<shrugs>

People are free to complain about the media and moan about issues they care about not being covered as much as they'd like. Actually there has been LOADS of coverage of the progress of the bill, including it finally going through in parliament so that it would become law. Royal Assent is a technical detail that is very rarely reported about anything. It would only be news if the Queen went mad and refused to sign something into law - or was signing the abolition of the monarchy, I guess.

As for grumbles about whether equal marriage is in fact equal, the only aspect that is actually significant is pension rights. That's a striking anomaly.

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 10:29:57

But it's not really the marriage aspect that is being celebrated.

A friend of mine is over the moon with this new law, he is gay and has never believed in marriage. But the step in equality is what he is celebrating, and what he has fought for.

OP answer me this, I am assuming you are female, lets imagine that the law that had just been passed, is giving women the right to vote, weather as a woman you want to vote or not, it's still a huge step in equal rights for women. Would you not be celebrating that?

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 10:32:54

Eh?

MarmaladeTwatkins, I don't give a fig about what consenting adults do in their love for each other. Although what love has to do with marriage is anybody's guess given that millions happily cohabit and millions are in loveless marriages, but I digress.

Let gay couples get married. If it makes them happy, fine.

But I **ing well resent anybody dictating what the news should print.

And I resent being told that it's not good enough to be for equality but that I have to cheer it as well.

That ain't democracy; that's a dictatorship.

Splashsplosh Sat 20-Jul-13 10:35:07

It's not about 'cheering' it, it's about recognising it as the landmark step that it is, regardless of whether you feel pleased, angry or indifferent about the fact it's happened, and regardless of how you feel about the institution of marriage itself. I find the monarchy to be a pointless institution on a day to day basis and couldn't care less about what 'WillKat' will call their child and whether Kate is in hospital yet, but I'd be very annoyed and suspicious if the fact they're having a child and, later, had had one, was barely given 2 mins on the news because it IS news - the sprog could/will be monarch one day, so should be treated as such.

Are you really saying that if you were deeply involved in something categorically newsworthy, say for instance getting children the right to vote, you'd be absolutely fine with that getting no/little news coverage if the majority of us feel we supported the idea in the first place, are "over it" and think voting is a crock of shite anyway? Somehow I doubt it.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 10:36:34

Does acknowledging on the news equate to cheering for you, OP?

Dear oh dear...

OnIlkelyMoorBahtat Sat 20-Jul-13 10:36:43

In a world where people can be put to death for their sexuality (I'm looking at you, Uganda), it's very big news indeed OP.

You seem to be saying that only things that affect you should be deemed newsworthy hmm

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 20-Jul-13 10:37:37

If you are against anybody telling news channels what they report then can I ask what you have done about this apart from start a thread on how those pesky gays should slip back into their closets instead of ramming their equality down peoples throats?

If this is a thread about who should or should not influence the media the why pick on this? Why not John Inverdale, which was a much bigger story about a story. What about The Expresses obsession with Princess Diana or the BBC's take on how long a heavily pregnant Duchess is going to take to give birth. BBC Breakfast did a whole article on the sweep amongst journalists as to when the baby will be born. How is this more newsworthy? How has this not provoked your moral outrage? How about complaining that people complain that the pesky BBC give massive coverage to the disappearance of pretty white pre-teen girls compared to any other group. Can I ask how many people give a shit that the annual puffin count is taking place on the Farne Islands? After all who are we to say what should be in the media?

Who should control the media? The government? The billionaire media moguls? The people? The monarchy? The Australians?

<kicks self for getting sucked back in>

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 10:39:08

OP, its coming across like you are dictating what others should or shouldn't want in the news actually.

Wbdn28 Sat 20-Jul-13 10:46:25

OP, do you have any evidence at all that people are "dictating" to the news channels and that it's actually "no big deal" to the news channels?

News channels have decades of experience and are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what's newsworthy.

stickingattwo Sat 20-Jul-13 11:04:56

YABU. It's a HUGE deal and it would have been nice to have seen it covered. Mainly because quite a lot of us were waiting for it to pass and that's hard to see if no one co era the flipping story. Maybe you should stay away from the Pink Paper OP 'cos I'm warning you now it's FULL of stories that concern us gays ;)

crashdoll Sat 20-Jul-13 11:04:56

OP: <posts in AIBU>
Everyone else: "YABU!"
OP: "No I'm not. Blah blah blah bullying."

No idea why people post in AIBU and do this. confused

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 11:09:17

goodness OP I am not sure you understand your OWN argument

no one is 'dictating' anything - they are complaining - as it their right, about the lack of news coverage

not everyone who feels it was down played in the news is gay btw so where do you get the idea that 'one group' is 'dictating' what the news coveres

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 11:14:55

Wddn28 Sorry, I don't understand. Gay people are now complaining that the Royal Assent did not receive much coverage.

I can't think you've read my posts at all because I completely agree that news channels have decades of experience and are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what's newsworthy.

That's kind of one of my points.

The other point is that an issue that means little to the general population as a whole- I mean most people are either mildly happy/mildly unhappy/indifferent- all valid reactions. Obviously, being cock-a-hoop or flaming mad about ssm are both over-the-top reactions- should receive much coverage in the first place.

Is same sex marriage really worth mentioning above the state of the NHS, or other big issues. Or is it really a side issue that affects very few and thus not really worthy of huge coverage?

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 11:19:32

"The other point is that an issue that means little to the general population as a whole"

You're making the mistake of thinking that members of the majority i.e straight, don't care about this. A lot of us do.

And you're also labouring under the weird misapprehension that the news only cover events/occurences that the majority are happy about. I think that the nation was probably 50/50 split between indifference and interest on, say, Wimbledon but it was covered at length nonetheless. Who says that the news only covers things that the majority are wildly excited about? hmm

OnTheNingNangNong Sat 20-Jul-13 11:19:36

Is all the pap in the news currently really more newsworthy than a huge shift in law and rights?

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 11:21:19

Have you got statistics that show that it means little to the general population as a whole?

You keep stating the this issue means very little to the population as a whole, how do you know this, have you or anyone else conducted a survey on people reactions to this. The replies to your thread seem to contradict what you have stated.

ReginaPhilangie Sat 20-Jul-13 11:22:23

Of course it should get more coverage, a lot more coverage actually. It certainly more newsworthy than whether Kate has popped or not yet! hmm

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 11:23:26

But it's not a huge shift in law and rights, is it?

It's not as if we live in a country where gay people are being persecuted or denied employment rights or homosexuality is illegal.

We already have civil partnerships that offer the major rights of marriage, anyway, all that has happened is that formally gay people can be known as married.. As opposed to informally by family and friends.

All this huge shift in law stuff is bollocks, sorry, but it is.

It's a minor shift.

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 11:24:22

Is same sex marriage really worth mentioning above the state of the NHS, or other big issues. Or is it really a side issue that affects very few and thus not really worthy of huge coverage? wow - and you say you aren't bigoted

your 'I have gay friends line' reads just like 'I'm not racist ...I have black friends' to me - the more you post the more you seem quiet prejudice

Could you please decide which argument /discussion you are having, because all this swinging from one point to another is sending me dizzy and making you sound ignorant.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 20-Jul-13 11:25:59

Won't somebody pleeaassse think of the puffin count. I have had the news on since 8.30 and the poor puffins haven't been mentioned once sad . I know that there is a video on the BBC news website and they have had hours of coverage already but it's not the same.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 11:26:31

I'm sorry gordlylovesheep, but if you want to know what true bigotry is, you need to travel the globe.

Because somebody saying that it's no big deal that gay people can get married but there are more important things affecting the nation is not really bigotry.

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 11:27:03

jesssime I shall ask again, why ask am I being unreasonable if you are not prepared to be told yes you are being unreasonable?!

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 11:35:39

oh is it Bigotry lite then hmm I don't need to travel the globe - I have been involved in the LGBT rights movement for over 20 years - you are coming across badly

for example - it's quiet prejudice to say that one of 2 people complain about the coverage means all gay people are unreasonable - which you are doing - the acts of some members of a 'group' do not always reflect the beliefs of everyone in it

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 11:36:30

"It's not as if we live in a country where gay people are being persecuted or denied employment rights or homosexuality is illegal."

hmm

Gay people are still persecuted. Wherever did you get the idea that they weren't?!

Wbdn28 Sat 20-Jul-13 11:43:05

So oP, why do you think it matters if news channels are "dictated to" if this makes no difference to what they choose to broadcast?

Yes, same-sex marriage is worth covering on the news. It's happened so very recently. And no, it doesn't mean that other important issues won't get covered - the vast majority of what's on the news is other things.

Why do you think this "affects very few" when actually there are millions of gay people in the UK? Not to mention all those who aren't gay but are pleased to see this change?

And would you like to answer my earlier question "why should it only be majority issues that are a big deal?" If you think about it, nearly all news stories only directly affect a few people.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 11:46:45

Very well said, Wbdn28.

Where do we draw this line then, OP? The one that says that only things affecting the masses can be reported upon? Should the news stop reporting on murders because, let's face it, the only people directly affected are the victims and their families? It is a silly argument and I think you know that.

reelingintheyears Sat 20-Jul-13 11:53:16

I'm not gay and i'm not married and i'm an atheist.

My son is gay and also an atheist but...if he were to become religious and find god forbid i will defend to the very end his right to marry the person he loves.

These issues are so important in telling gay children and young people that they are as important as anyone else and their needs and wishes too.

Which is why the ignoramuses and bigots of the world need this to be newsworthy too, so that people like my son don't get picked on and discriminated against.

Cherriesarelovely Sat 20-Jul-13 12:18:41

I think women's sports ought to have more news coverage. Given that 50% of the population are men and some women don't like sports am I being unreasonable in "wanting to dictate what is in the news"?

Cherriesarelovely Sat 20-Jul-13 12:20:50

It's like you are jealous of the attention gay people might be getting!

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 12:22:29

MarmaladeTwatkins, not in the UK they're not. Anyway we've been led to believe that same sex marriage is no big deal, that the sky won't fall in if it comes about-it hasn't, that it won't affect the vast majority of us-'if you don't want gay marriage, don't marry a gay person' etc etc.

So now the arguments have been taken at their word and nobody gives two hoots; but apparently that is not good enough, either, it must be shouted from the rooftops by the press.

What will be good enough, I wonder? hmm

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 12:24:09

I don't think it should be shouted from the rooftops - but I do read the news on various websites and consider myself upto date with the news.

But I missed this one.

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 12:28:16

not in the UK they're not holy smoke do you actually believe that?

it's you that needs educating I think - homophobia is very much alive and well right here in good old Blighty

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 12:29:08
gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 12:29:41
gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 12:30:08
gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 12:31:20

www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/06/14/milton-keynes-woman-victim-of-homophobic-assault-has-her-face-dragged-against-a-wall/

I could, sadly, go on ...maybe you don't think it exists because it's not widely reported in the news hmm

As a member of the unoppressed group, you want to tell the oppressed group (who are still facing violent assaults, discrimination, lack of proper representation and access, higher rates of homelessness and murder - particularly those young and/or with darker skin, and so much more) how we should act? And you think this is reasonable.

I will agree that the same-sex marriage law wasn't the major victory that the media treat it as, it is certainly not the end of the road, particularly as trans* people got thrown under the bus and ignored on it again and it obviously does nothing for most of the issues above. But let us take our victories where we can get it, people have fought hard for this and people are fighting hard for more. Some celebration doesn't hurt anything, I'm sorry we seem to be getting up your nose. But our demonstrations and parties aren't anything to do with you.

teacherlikesapples Sat 20-Jul-13 13:03:56

Wow OP. YABVU in this thread.

Can you post any link to where people are 'demanding' celebration & coverage? Where are all these people posting with these demands?

Also- the distinction between CP & marriage is massive. Both in public perception & practice. Not having to be treated like a second class citizen (one rule for us & one rule for you) Gay people who have dreamed of getting married their whole lives, can now actually live their dreams. No one dreams of a civil partnership.

It is also the UK leading by example & setting the precedent for other countries. That is noteworthy. As a country we have made a further step towards equality. It deserves press coverage. It deserves celebrating. In New Zealand when the gay marriage bill passed Parliament burst into song http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/apr/18/new-zealand-parliament-song-gay-marriage-video
There were street parties & celebrations. The country was proud of itself, viewed the law change as a massive event & celebrated it accordingly. The UK is a much bigger country- & this law change is a much bigger deal because of that.

It is disappointing that we are not celebrating.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 13:04:15

Unoppressed? What makes you think gay people have the monopoly on oppression?

Actually, if I may do a little sidestepping here, same sex marriage is a bit of an own goal from a strategical viewpoint as there's a risk that society will think, 'Well they've got equal marriage now, what are they whingeing about'?

Which is probably what I'm guilty of doing here to a certain extent.

I'm not saying this is right at all but how people are.

5madthings Sat 20-Jul-13 13:05:05

Yabu and either obtuse or plain stupid.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 13:07:16

teacherlikesapples

It's actually a good thing that people are not celebrating: they've been told that same sex marriage is no big deal either way and to shut up about any reservations they may have had. That it won't affect them. Well, they listened and decided that that it didn't affect them and that they were being assholes for objecting to it.

What do you expect the majority of people (who are straight, remember) to celebrate for? Same sex marriage is nothing for them to care about either way, remember?

reelingintheyears Sat 20-Jul-13 13:32:34

So your saying that we can only celebrate things that directly affect us?

I do care about same sex marriage even though i'm not gay.

I do care about racial discrimination even though i'm not black.

I do care about lots of things and not just things that i have a personal interest in.

I may not be going out and having a party over gay marriage but inside i'm proud that here in Britain we are at least trying to be tolerant of differences.
We might not always get it right but at least we can talk about it openly without fear of imprisonment.

I think we should be celebrating that we've got this one right.

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 13:37:07

yeh I campaigned for years against Apartheid despite not being a black South African ...sill me hmm

Gruntfuttock Sat 20-Jul-13 13:37:47

reelingintheyears I agree with you 100%.

TheFallenNinja Sat 20-Jul-13 13:44:26

I maintained all along that the legalising of gay marriage would make not one iota of difference and that the world would still turn in spite of all the bigoted opponents.

It heartens me that there is no huge media hoopla, now regular gay people can exercise their rights like everyone else and have personal, intimate/fun/outrageous weddings and marry whoever they love.

Wbdn28 Sat 20-Jul-13 13:51:05

Jesssime I've just visited the following news headline front pages:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/
www.independent.co.uk/
www.guardian.co.uk/
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
www.telegraph.co.uk/

Not a single mention of gay marriage on any of them.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 13:51:08

That's it, exactly, TheFallenNinja.

It makes not one iota of difference, that's why it's a good thing that no fuss has been made.

But no iota of difference means just that, doesn't it? People shouldn't -be up in arms or celebratory of its passing (unless gay or have a gay member of family) . Just quietly accepting. Not that big a deal and all that.

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 13:53:07

I am sure your gay friends thank you from the bottom of their hearts for all your support op grin

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 13:56:24

So....

If you had been around when women got the vote. would you have expected that to have been in the news?

After all, women getting the vote means people accepted it and life goes on, nothing to see, the world would still keep on turning etc etc.

Or do you think that should have been reported?

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 13:58:37

Or any other major change in equality that most people accepted widely - should anyone of those changes have been reported even though most people know the world would still keep on turning etc?

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 20-Jul-13 13:59:06

But why should people only celebrate if they are gay or have a gay family member?

I'm not gay nor do I have any gay family members. In the great scheme of things gay marriage doesn't "bother" me. But I do think it is a good thing and I do think it should be reported. The media reported it enough when there was a chance it wouldn't be passed didn't they?

reelingintheyears Sat 20-Jul-13 14:00:04

Of course it makes a difference.
It makes a difference to many people.
Many gay people still have intolerant family members and don't tell vast swathes of their relatives.
Quietly accepting is ok but it should still be big news, it is certainly a huge step in history.
Just like when women were first allowed into University or allowed the vote or allowed to have rights to their own property.

It is important, and it is telling the whole world that gay people are just as important as anyone else.

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 14:01:37

But don't worry - there's a lot of shit out there that really affects the LGBT community that does not get reported by the mainstream media because they don't see it as important.

And there's a lot of stuff happening in the world that is important but does not get reported (just look at other news sources such as Al Jazeera to see all the shit going on)

That's the good thing about the internet - the real world is exposed and important stories are reported which the mainstream media ignores.

I didn't say they had a monopoly. But since you have identified as being straight that means you the unoppressed group to those in the LGBT*+ group. Just like Asian men can still be oppressed while being men, their being male doesn't take away from the oppression they face from being Asian but does make them immune to the oppression Asian women face as they are immune to those specific issues. Just like White women can still be oppressed but their Whiteness gives certain immunities that other women do not have (and gives benefits in some areas over some men, just not White ones). It's the intersections of oppression, one group has power others.

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 14:02:19

yes but you are not allowed to be pleased about things unless it directly effects you see Alisvolatpropiis so for me, as a white, middle class, single parent female I am not allowed to be happy for gay people grin I am though - shoot me grin

OP you haven't answered any ones points really - I am also wondering if it's deliberate or if you don't understand their questions.

*power and immunities that others do not have.

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

gordy
Innit! We are about people other than ourselves in different situations to us. What monsters we are grin

OP's logic leaves us not being able to care about an awful lot! Starving children in poor countries? Nope, not allowed. Caring about what's going on in Egypt and Syria? Nope not allowed. Homeless people? Nope not allowed either.

If we all had the same attitude as the OP an awful lot of people wouldn't get the help, or in this instance, equality they deserve.

Ffs. It's the epitome of the "I'm alright jack" attitude.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 14:08:53

gordylovesheep my gay friends don't give a toss about marriage, they don't see it as a panacea that will solve the issues facing gay people.

Quite the reverse: they realise once that it is passed, the public perception will be that gay people are no longer prejudiced against because, after all, a historic, watershed event has taken place. Which is a lie.

Frankly, it would be better to celebrate the day when nobody is beaten up for being gay, but I guess that's not such a 'sexy' (as in popular) issue.

People are fickle, they've done their bit for gay rights so it's onto the next thing.

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 20-Jul-13 14:09:10

*care not are blush

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 20-Jul-13 14:11:12

op

It is a watershed moment confused

I don't think anybody with half a brain thinks this solves all the prejudices gay people face. But it is a step in the right direction. Gay people don't have to want to rush out and get married now, they just have the same option to do so as heterosexual couples.

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 14:13:22

The point is - it's equality and it's a big change in how people are treated. It won't solve the issues but it's a massive change.

Just like the vote for women - it did not solve female equality but it was important and it got reported in the news.

It is a big thing.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 14:14:35

A small moment, surely? Not a watershed one.

All that's happened is that people who were regarded as married anyway by those around them (remember civil partnerships give same rights) are now formally known as married instead of informally known as married.

Hardly a watershed.

What will be a watershed moment is when nobody is beaten up or abused just because they're gay.

But this is just not a 'sexy' issue, is it? Not like bloomin' marriage.

reelingintheyears Sat 20-Jul-13 14:15:05

People are fickle, they've done their bit for gay rights so it's onto the next thing.

Well, you're rude.

DioneTheDiabolist Sat 20-Jul-13 14:16:42

YABU OP. You do not have the right to choose which stories are newsworthy and how people react to the enactment of legislation. If it is not that big a deal to you, why have you started a thread and been posting on this topic all morning?confused

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 20-Jul-13 14:17:02

Answer Kim's question OP - do you not think women getting the vote was a watershed moment? Or was it not because sexism still exists?

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 14:17:40

gordylovesheep my gay friends don't give a toss about marriage, they don't see it as a panacea that will solve the issues facing gay people. but you know your gay 'friends' don't actually represent all gay people right - unless you know every single gay person in England?

Quite the reverse: they realise once that it is passed, the public perception will be that gay people are no longer prejudiced against because, after all, a historic, watershed event has taken place. Which is a lie again the whole public - because many none gay people, who aren't allowed to have an opinion according to you, are not that ignorant

Frankly, it would be better to celebrate the day when nobody is beaten up for being gay, but I guess that's not such a 'sexy' (as in popular) issue but hang on ...you said up there that gay people weren't persecuted in the UK ,confused?>

People are fickle, they've done their bit for gay rights so it's onto the next thing which people - do elaborate

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 14:18:01

Civil partnerships did not give the same rights - why the hell do you think religious groups kicked up such a fuss?

Why do you think LGBT groups have demanded this around the world?

Just for a laugh?

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 14:21:30

Let's see - coloured people allowed to sit anywhere on the bus.

World doesn't change, life goes on - no big thing.

Not newsworthy?

reelingintheyears Sat 20-Jul-13 14:23:33

I think the OP is having a bit of a laugh at our expense.

So i shall leave her with her superior knowledge and insight and go to the shops. grin

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 14:24:24

Trans people get the gender recognition act.

Life moves on, world still in one piece

Newsworthy?

But hey, trans people still get murdered and face discrimination.

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 14:24:30

Political Prisoner freed after 27 years in prison in a far away African country ...no not news worthy at all - doesn't effect me

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 14:25:27

I could go on with other equality leglisation which is a big step.

Stop me if you get bored.

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 14:25:35

I'm off for a ride now - enjoy this cooler weather and canter my stress away

maybe when I return the OP will be able to explain what the heck she actually means grin

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 14:27:28

kim147.

As far as I can see, same sex marriage is STILL different from opposite sex marriage.

Opposite sex couples have advantages in pension rights.

Opposite sex couples can (I know this is rarely used, but the principle is there) cite non-consummation to annul a marriage. Gay people cannot.

Gay married people cite adultery (as in penis in vagina sex with another adult -sorry to be crude but it is that specific) as grounds for divorce, however, why this would be any use to gay couples is anybody's guess (!)

So, really, even less reason for celebration, , as this is far from equal marriage. In other words, even if a person passionately believes in equal marriage (as opposed to indifference) they're revealing themselves as not really caring because they've not even realised that celebrations are premature as equality has not been achieved.

They've not even bothered to discover the facts; so much for caring that much about equal marriage, then.

A quick glance would clearly show that equality has not been achieved at all.

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 20-Jul-13 14:30:38

OP

Citing adultery as grounds for divorce is going to be changed now I believe. The idea was at least floated due to it's definition and therefore lack of inclusion for gay couples.

It's also fairly archaic and virtually nobody cites it now as if is actively discouraged by solicitors a lot of the time.

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 14:30:59

So after all the previous news reports, the religious complaints, all the debate in the media (I'm pretty certain there was some debate about this) - when it finally happens, you don't think it should be in the news?

Many of us likely know the facts better about it that you. About the legislation as many of us followed it carefully, about the continued fights among several groups against oppression, and about being LGBT*+, (hint: Your adultery thing ignores that people can love and want to have sex with people of more than one gender, the adultery law being out of date doesn't cover you erasing groups of people with narrow thinking).

People can celebrate whatever they want. Just because some don't see it as a big deal and doesn't solve everything doesn't make celebrating bad. Hell, people across America celebrated women getting the right to vote, completely ignoring that Black women were denied it through tests and Native women were denied it by not having access to citizenship. People still celebrated, people still continued the fight.

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 20-Jul-13 14:36:41

Kim

There was loads! I mentioned this earlier. The media only wanted to report on it when there was a chance it would go ahead. Bollocks to the people who are interested in the positive outcome.

Personally I think all the debate was used for the governments benefit to deflect from other issues. This should have just been passed and reported as "this is how it is now" once it was done. Rather than giving right wingers and religious zealots yet more soap box time.

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 14:44:11

You're right on one thing - it's not full equality

www.gaystarnews.com/article/six-ways-gay-marriage-england-and-wales-isn%E2%80%99t-quite-%E2%80%98equal%E2%80%99170713

But it's a start.

On another forum I am on, there was loads of debate about this. Usually involving the words God and sin. I think burn in hell was mentioned.

It's not perfect. Equality still has a long way to go for many people. But it's a good thing. And sometimes it's nice to have good things reported in the news.

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 14:46:55

And there is loads of stuff on equality that is not reported.

Like a trans teacher who killed herself. Did you realise that the media have updated their guidelines on how they treat trans people in the media?

That's nothing that will affect most people. But it affects me and I think that's a bloody good thing with regards to equality.

Not reported in the mainstream media though.

kim147 - [completely irrelevant] - are you a fan of the show Firefly? Your sentences on words mentioned reminded me of a piece of dialogue from Shepherd Book.

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 14:52:28

Not heard of it.

Just been involved in a lot of debate on this issue on another forum with someone very opposed to gay marriage.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 14:54:56

Well, MY gay friends (or rather two of them) will get married now. They wouldn't when they would only be recognised as a couple after a civil ceremony on principal. Am so glad that a couple who've been together for 40 odd years will now be able to do what us straight people can do after days or weeks in some pathetic cases.

Kim: Ah, pity, I was hoping to derail this frustration with geek fun grin Many forums are walls of such debates, over and over, the words almost end up seeming pre-programmed in some. sad.

I was reading something the other day about the theory that many who are purposefully antagonistic use the concept of "sensible debate" (which, as you know, they rarely are), as a power drain for people working towards equality as there is never enough evidence or reason for them but they can hide behind a veneer of moral high ground of debate and because so many fighting for equality want to convince others, it's practically the perfect trap. We spend energy on them that we then cannot spend elsewhere. I thought it was an interesting perspective and have been trying to keep it in mind (though it is so hard, I've been in debate mode for so long that cutting lose for my own good as well as the good of my activities is still a hard concept to follow through on).

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 15:18:26

It's not MY adultery thing, LittleSporksBigSpork, it's that the government purposely and deliberately skirted around the issue of adultery.

I mean what earthly use is it to same sex couples to have the specific meaning of adultery applied to them? It's taking the piss, really.

And to another poster here, Allisvoilapropiis, no adultery is not being removed from opposite sex marriage.

Anyway, I'm done here. As somebody who was -initially- against same sex marriage but got 'real' if you like and realised that it did not affect me or the vast majority of other people so I should mind my own beeswax, I resent being told that this should have been big news and I should be celebrating this.

I've been told to shuttup about it and I took that as the correct thing to do.

The same sex marriage supporters are right; it doesn't affect the vast majority of people, so why make a fuss when that is taken as true and it's ignored by the media?

Can't have it both ways. hmm

navada Sat 20-Jul-13 15:21:20

YANBU - it's not important to most of the population.

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 15:22:09

"The same sex marriage supporters are right; it doesn't affect the vast majority of people, so why make a fuss when that is taken as true and it's ignored by the media? "

Why make a fuss?

Why make a fuss about equality - because it's news and it's good to have good news

Otherwise what is the whole point in news?

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 15:24:33

"Anyway, I'm done here."

Well thank God for that. Your posts are painful to read.

Ta-ta.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 20-Jul-13 15:31:10

Why make a fuss?

Because “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” - MLK jr.

Bye!

No one is telling you to celebrate, but you shouldn't tell other people whether or not they can celebrate. The idea we can only celebrate if it affects a lot of people is ridiculous. The Lakota and Ojibwe nations recently got back their stolen sacred lands after having to raise a lot of money to prevent development (with the US ignoring the UN who told them to just give it back as even the UN agreed it was stolen). In terms of number of people, our nations are tiny and many no longer live anywhere near the sacred lands, should we not be allowed to celebrate due to population size?

And YOUR sentence about adultery ignores that people in same sex relationships may also enjoy having sex and being in relationships with people of other genders. The adultery law is out of date, but YOU have erased many groups of queer people. Get out of the narrow box - bisexuals, pansexuals, ringing any bells?

RockChicken1 Sat 20-Jul-13 15:35:45

Op you say that gay people don't face persecution in this country. I challenge you to walk around your local town for an hour holding the hand of a female friend. We may not face being imprisoned for who we are, but I guarantee at the very least you will be stared at and experience homophobic remarks. I was once holding my dp's hand and a cup of hot coffee was thrown at us, and a friend of mine was beaten up for embracing his dp in public. Legalising same sex marriage is huge! It sends out the message that we are equal in the eyes of the law, and I believe it will change the way future generations view gay people. I don't think anyone expected street parties, but more of an acknowledgement in the mainstream media would have been nice.

MarmaladeTwatkins Sat 20-Jul-13 15:36:34

No-one is even saying it needs to be celebrated (although I certainly wouldn't mind one iota if anyone did!) but it definitely should be acknowledged.

As we have been saying all along.

But OP keeps banging on about cheering and celebrating. hmm

GettingVerySleepy Sat 20-Jul-13 15:47:18

^ As somebody who was -initially- against same sex marriage^

I think the OP is one of those people who think gay people should be immensely grateful for the "tolerance" she is showing them by "allowing" them to get married but is fed up because after all she's done for them they won't just shut up and go away!

Cherriesarelovely Sat 20-Jul-13 15:50:08

As a gay person living in the UK I do feel lucky to live here as opposed to many other countries around the world. That doesn't mean that gay people are not discriminated against at all. That is like saying that because black people are protected in law there is no racism or racist incidents. Last year a family took their children out of the school where I work because they didn't want their child to have a gay teacher.

The thing I most dislike about your posts are the assertions that "the majority of people are not interested".....so because they are not gay they wont care? I am not disabled but I care about legislation that affects people that are.

MissMarplesBloomers Sat 20-Jul-13 16:09:31

I am rarely so gobsmacked as I have been on this thread ,to the OP's ignorance & bigotry, and I am never lost for words, but this time I have nearly posted and then deleted so many comments I have given up.

We did our best folks some people just don't want to hear!grin

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 16:36:02

So basically every single poster on this 10 page thread (minus the OP) is wrong according to the OP.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 17:01:02

I don't understand how it can be called 'bigotry' to say that one does not care particularly about the same sex marriage issue and that it is not exactly headline news.

I really think that some ought to look up the word bigotry for it is clear they have no idea what the word means.

Indifference does not equal bigotry. It may be viewed as uncaring, morally lax in some way, but not bigotry.

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 17:04:24

Oh god. I thought you were done here. Just give it up Op, not one person has agreed with your thoughts yet many have out rightly disagreed.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Sat 20-Jul-13 17:08:38

And yet you care so little you've started a thread about it and persisted in failing to understand the eloquently argued poimts put to you.

Hmm

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 17:10:05

Yes, well the thing is, Lj8893, I don't like being called a bigot because I'm not that bothered about same sex marriage.

Not caring about it and being a bigot are two different things.

No one called you a bigot - you are the one who brought up bigots.

You "don't care" you just want to, as a straight person, tell the rest of us how we should react. That we're not very important and should keep any feelings we have the topic to ourselves. That you, the straight person, are the decider of all of that is important in the world and the LGBT*+ community that is part of it.

You have every right not to care - no one is trying to make you care - you just don't get to tell other people whether or not they should care.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Sat 20-Jul-13 17:33:18

OP your words:

"Actually, if I may do a little sidestepping here, same sex marriage is a bit of an own goal from a strategical viewpoint as there's a risk that society will think, 'Well they've got equal marriage now, what are they whingeing about'?

Which is probably what I'm guilty of doing here to a certain extent

I'm not saying this is right at all but how people are"

You admitted in the post above that you are allying yourself with people who are unreasonable. Therefore Yabu and I don't think you are fully aware of your own bigotry because you appear to not understand the implications of what you said in that post

JamieandtheMagicTorch Sat 20-Jul-13 17:34:50

Btw.

We are all a bit bigoted about something. It takes a biggere person to admit it.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Sat 20-Jul-13 17:35:19

Bigger. Bloody ipad

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 17:37:16

OP, you just seem to me very ignorant and short sighted and unwilling/unable to look at the bigger picture.

You seem to have only picked up on comments that you are able to find a loose argument back to, and ignored the comments you are unable to find a response to.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 17:40:25

LittleSporksBigSpork

Actually, somebody did just accuse me of bigotry here.

The entire point of my post to begin with is that gay people now think they have the right to tell the media what stories it should/should not cover. That's really dangerous territory, really.

And, Jamie my view is not wholly original about it being an own goal-I am paraphrasing that well known lesbian 'bigot'* hmm Julie Bindel.

*NOT my view of her, but if I am a bigot she must be, too, for holding that view.

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 17:43:37

The entire point of my post to begin with is that gay people now think they have the right to tell the media what stories it should/should not cover. That's really dangerous territory, really.

For about the 5th time now, not just gay people believe there should be some kind of news coverage.

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 17:46:31

jesssime The LGBT community have been fighting for ages to get this through Parliament. There's been loads of debate about it.

Don't you think it should be mentioned in the news when it becomes law?
Even if you think it's no big deal?

And as you seem to be totally ignoring my previous posts - do you think any changes where people become more equal should be newsworthy?

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 17:47:12

But there wasn't. So what's the solution, then? FORCE the media to print news that we think is newsworthy?

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 17:48:54

It would have been newsworthy had:

a, Civil partnerships not existed

b, It was exactly the same as straight marriage

As it is, they've only effectively renamed civil partnerships 'marriage'.

You still brought it up first, and I am not psychic enough to see what people would do after me.

LGBT*+ people (this does not just affect "gay people") are not the monolith you are trying to create. We have a wide opinions on the issue, we are a very diverse group actually. I already posted on how it isn't the end all and be all, but we have more legitimacy than a straight person trying to tell us what about ourselves we should and should not care about and how we should fight our fight. Quoting one lesbian doesn't mean you are apart or an ally to our fight (and hint: the mainstream news media is pretty much run by straight people. they're the ones deciding it's a big story, we get little say in the matter actually). There is no gay conspiracy trying to tell you what is important or that you must celebrate or be labelled a bigot.

Though your erasure of bisexuals, pansexuals, and several other groups affected by this issue, trying to make us a monolith that onloy does one thing, and you deciding we should listen to you does have an dominant oppressive ring to it .

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 17:50:33

I don't think you can force the media to do anything.
But you can raise questions and ask people why they did not feel it was newsworthy.

The LGBT lobby cannot tell the media what to do - but it, like anyone else, can ask questions.

There is so much stuff that is ignored by the media - we should ask why rather than passively accept it.

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 18:08:32

pmsl do you understand what dictate means - every single person on the PLANET has the right to complain if they are not happy with something on TV ...it doesn't mean anyone has to do anything

Dictating is not what you mean ...you mean 'expressing an opinion' and if you don't think people have the right to do that you are a fool

please do go now x

MissMarplesBloomers Sun 21-Jul-13 16:14:33

Fucking hell is this still going?!!

Yes it was me who used the word bigot/bigotry and I am well aware of what it means and believe me I don't use it lightly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

About sums you up I feel, but just MHO.

Have a good Sunday all .

LemonPeculiarJones Sun 21-Jul-13 17:05:24

Gay marriage: a triumph over discrimination.

Worth celebrating, worthy of report.

It's a no-brainer. Unless deep down inside you're a little bit prejudiced yourself and a part of you thinks, 'good! Why should I be told to celebrate that massive breakthrough!'

gordyslovesheep Sun 21-Jul-13 17:06:58

well to be fair it hadn't 'been going' for almost 24 hours grin

ANormalOne Sun 21-Jul-13 18:23:19

I don't get the big issue with LGBTs asking why the Marriage Bill didn't get more coverage.

Oh noes 'teh gays' are telling us what should be in the news?

You mean like the hundreds of other campaigns that constantly try to get more coverage in the news, like Bottle Stop, the people trying to get tougher sentences for owners of dangerous dogs, Irish feminists challenging the Irish abortion law, or pretty much every big public campaign....ever?

Why are you focusing on gay marriage? hmm

Catsize Sun 21-Jul-13 20:23:07

OP, OP, OP...

As someone who is writing 15,000 words on this topic at the mo, I can assure you that lots of people from all different quarters (not just those pesky news-dictating homos) think this is a big deal.

We should be proud of what we have acieved, and send a message to the countries that hang and stone people for homosexual acts.

What I'm most definitely NOT for is one group of people thinking they've the right to dictate what news stories the media publish.

Think you will find that nobody is dictating, and the whole point of the story is this... Is an interview with a kid about the not-yet-born royal baby of more importance? Of course not.

What about the sports news? Or the weather?

Your ignorance shines when you suggest that someone in a CP would not have heterosexual sexual intercourse. Obviously, no bisexual would enter a CP, would they OP?

It seems that various people on this thread think the story of significance, whatever their background.

Pesky heterosexuals, always deciding what's on the news. When they aren't doing rude things to make baby gay people. It is all their fault. They breed the news dictators...

Jesssime Mon 22-Jul-13 09:56:53

You don't seem to understand, Catsize, I don't think same sex marriage in this country is a big achievement.

We've had civil partnerships which gave most of the rights of marriage anyway, people informally call people in cp's 'married' as it stands: all that's really changed is the nomenclature.

As Philip Hensher pointed out, 'Against gay marriage? We've got it already'.

May I point out to you that you are being ignorant as regards the civil partnership issue?

Let me be clear: there is no mention of adultery at all in a civil partnership; the concept of adultery (specific definition of penis in vagina sexual intercourse) does not exist in a civil partnership. Only unreasonable behaviour can be used as reason to dissolve a cp if the other partner has sexual relations with another person. And it makes no difference what gender the unfaithful person strayed with.

For somebody who is writing an essay on this, you really ought to know that.

So it doesn't matter what a person's sexual orientation is in a civil partnership, they can't cite adultery anyway! They can only say 'I want to dissolve this civil partnerships owing to the fact that my partner has had sex with another adult' (the gender of that other person is irrelevant).

I am talking about same sex marriage and saying that the specific concept of adultery -being penis in vagina sex- is hardly likely to be of use to the majority of same sex couples who will usually be purely homosexual. Just as the majority of opposite sex couples are purely heterosexual.

Jesssime Mon 22-Jul-13 09:59:17

It's really ironic you accusing me of ignorance Catsize because clearly you don't even know the basic differences between civil partnerships (as they stand) and same sex marriage.

Lj8893 Mon 22-Jul-13 11:12:30

Oh my god Op!!! Not one person has agreed with you, get over it.

Lavidaenrosa Mon 22-Jul-13 11:53:36

Orchard congratulations to your brother and his fiancé! I have lots of gay friends and I am looking forward to be invited to a wedding. I agree with the posters saying this is equal in importance to women getting the vote or black civil rights.

MarmaladeTwatkins Mon 22-Jul-13 16:05:42

"It's really ironic you accusing me of ignorance Catsize because clearly you don't even know the basic differences between civil partnerships (as they stand) and same sex marriage."

Neither do you, it seems, since you're hellbent on claiming that CPs have already been achieved ergo no need to give a shit about equal marriage.

Honestly though, I'll hand it to you, you've the hide of a rhino.

Catsize Mon 22-Jul-13 19:20:29

jess, believe me, I do. You were the one discussing the possible concept of adultery in same-sex marriage, and deeming it irrelevant. You didn't even countenance heterosexual relations outside a same-sex relationship as a possibility earlier on, but you seem to now. That is what I was addressing.
I find your patronising tone quite amusing at least.
And no, marriage and CP are not the same.
For the record, the problem with adultery is not the person with whom it is committed; it is the person against whom it is committed. Historically, the definition has been that the person wronged was of the opposite sex. That is why adultery does not feature in CPs. Just in case you should think I know nothing about this...
My view is that adultery should be ditched from all civil marriages, but there we go. Hardly anyone petitions for divorce on grounds of adultery nowadays, as with adultery, the third party has to be named and served with the papers. Not so with 'unreasonable behaviour', which is more commonly used in adulterous situations. Adultery is a religious concept belonging in religious marriage. They are formed differently, so can end differently. Just my opinion.

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