My feed

to access all these features


In being really really REALLY pissed off at those trying to stop same-sex marriage bill going through?

267 replies

StoicButStressed · 20/05/2013 15:28


My eldest DS is gay, I genuinely have NO concept or understanding of how anyone thinks he (or the other pretty significant % of our population who also happen to have been born gay?) should in any way be denied the same right as his two brothers have to be able to get married.

AIBU? Or is there something I am simply missing?

OP posts:
Dawndonna · 22/05/2013 08:46

Yes it is. Why would you think otherwise?

xylem8 · 22/05/2013 08:52

I hate the comparison with incest; Incest is obviously yucky, gay sex (or gay romantic love, anyway) is not yucky,

why is incest more or less yucky than gay sex?? That is just your opinion

Binkybix · 22/05/2013 09:05

It seems things are getting a but ridiculous here, but by way of comparison, it could also just be opinion that heterosexual sex is less icky than incest. What's your point? That because some people find it icky it should be banned?

As another poster said, at least if people were honset and said they didn't agree with gay marriage because they think being gay is wrong, rather than the weasly words and explanations we are hearing, we'd know where people stand.

There's good evidence that incest that leads to reproduction has a deleterious effect on offspring (mental and physical), which is one of the leading theories for why we find it icky.

xylem8 · 22/05/2013 09:17

Incest is commonplace in the animal kingdom.
And why bring reproduction into it? If you are talking about sex for reproduction then there would be no gay sex!!

Binkybix · 22/05/2013 09:30

I brought reproduction into it to explain a strong theory of why there is a taboo against incest and why people consider it icky. I'm not denying that incest might happen in a number different species. That doesn't mean it does not hold a higher chance of deleterious effects as compared to non incestuous reproduction, and therefore why we might have an aversion to it.

I wasn't the one who started talking about incest, but was responding to another poster. Believe me, I think it's a ridiculous point to have to be addressing in a discussion about gay humans being able to marry if they choose.

somebloke123 · 22/05/2013 11:05


"In many eras it has also been used for the union between a man and several women. This is clearly what it means in the Old Testament. And in many parts of Africa. And to some extent in old Germanic society too. "

Well I'm not sure that polygamy and polyandry are exceptions.

Even then, marriage has still been a union between one man and one woman. But if a man had, say, 3 wives it's just that there were 3 marriages, not one group marriage. My understanding is (and I'm not an anthropologist so I may be wrong) that in a polygamous system (as distinct from, say, a harem) the women are kept separate.

By the way I'm all in favour of people having equal rights. Civil partnerships do this. It's whether when we elect a parliament we also entrust the English dictionary to them to change at will. I don't think we do.

Restricting the term "marriage" to heterosexual couples is not a matter of restricting rights, it's just preserving the language from brutal change.

The question "Should two people of the same sex be allowed to marry each other?" sounds like a similar question to "Should women be allowed into the Long Room at Lords" but they are totally different. In the latter case, there is no change in the language.

Of course if people in real life do start and continue to use the "term "marriage" to refer also to same-sex couples then eventually the usage will stick and the language will have changed.

In this country, where we don't have any equivalent authority to the Academie Française, that's the way language evolves.

Binkybix · 22/05/2013 11:13

They're not changing the dictionary, they're changing the law. That's exactly what Parliament does. Language may follow that. Why do you care if it does?

somebloke123 · 22/05/2013 11:16

I don't care at all as long as they don't expect me to change my usage and there are no complaints if people continue to use the term in the traditional way.

Binkybix · 22/05/2013 11:46

Well that's all fine then! You can say it and take it to mean between a man an a woman, and others will take it to mean both. There may be misunderstandings and obviously some people will disagree with your stance on it, but it sounds as though you're live and let live about it.

Binkybix · 22/05/2013 11:47

Obvs you will be incorrect in the legal sense though.

BlingLoving · 22/05/2013 13:18

Somebloke, I honestly think you're being purposfully obtuse. You're upset because a dictionary definition might change? In which case, I assume you spend a lot of time going through the dictionery and campaigning every time the meaning of words change.

Also, as has been pointed out on this thread repeatedly, in fact, civil partnerships do not give the people involved the same rights. This is a key, indisputable fact. And therefore, it's not just about changing the meaning of a word.

EduCated · 22/05/2013 13:20

Why does it matter if the meaning of the word marriage changes anyway?

somebloke123 · 22/05/2013 13:44


Whether I am obtuse is for others to judge. I promise I don't do it on purpose though ...

I'm not at all upset that dictionary definitions change. Common usage does change over time (but often slowly) and new editions of dictionaries will reflect that.

What I do have an issue with however is for a definition to be changed by government fiat, with the inevitable consequence - as sure as night follow day - that we are all expected to jump to it and adopt the new definition for fear of being labelled bigot or worse.

For example, I am not one of those tedious people who object to the word "gay" for homosexual, by insisting that it really means bright or cheerful. I will freely use either word in conversation and quite rightly the dictionaries include this relatively recent meaning. If however some government back in the 1970s had passed a "Homosexual description Bill" which decreed that they should henceforth be referred to as "gay" and any deviation from this usage would be counted as a hate crime, then I would have a problem with that.

If civil partnerships do not give people the same rights as marriage - and I'll take your word for that -they damn well ought to.

As far as I'm concerned anyone should be able to specify one "significant other" - a sexual partner of either sex or a non-sexual relationship e.g. siblings - and they should have exactly the same rights as far as inheritance and tax and all the rest.

Keep the state out of our bedrooms and out of our dictionaries.

SconeRhymesWithGone · 22/05/2013 15:35

Speaking of dictionaries, I assume you know the meaning of "fiat" and "diktat," (which you used earlier). As to government fiat or dikatat, the House of Commons represents the people, does it not? A vote of a representative body in a democracy is the means by which laws are enacted, and hopefully, the will of the people expressed.

I understand that polls indicate that a majority of people in the UK (I recognize that this law will apply only to a part of the UK) support marriage equality. If this is true, then the Commons is reflecting the popular will. That a minority object, on whatever grounds, does not turn democratic process into "diktat."

Toadinthehole · 22/05/2013 19:27


Explain to me why continuing to deny same-sex couples the use of the word "marriage" is discriminatory.

Toadinthehole · 22/05/2013 19:33

Someone mentioned polygamy upthread.

No idea what UK law is in this regard, but in substance polygamy (and in theory polyandry too although I expect it happens rarely) are already recognised in NZ law. No, you can't ask a registrar to conduct a marriage ceremony if you're already married. However, on separation, marital property and custody rights will be considered just the same.

Coming Soon to a Country Near You.

Dawndonna · 22/05/2013 20:12

Toadinthehole not allowing same sex couples to get married is discriminatory too
No it isn't.

Yes it is. Why would you think otherwise?
So, what are you after now?

MrsRickyMartin · 22/05/2013 20:16

I happen to know gay people who are opposed to gay marriage. [shocked]

shockers · 22/05/2013 20:17

I'm a Christian and I'm of the opinion that if I'm 'Loving my neighbour as myself', then they are just as entitled to benefit from a secure, loving marriage as I am.

jacks365 · 22/05/2013 21:38

Toad stopping two people who love each other and wish to confirm that love in a marriage because they are the same sex is discrimination.

Stopping anyone from doing something that you would allow someone else to do unless it is to protect them ie children is discrimination, I really struggle to see how anyone could dispute that so please explain why you believe it isn't.

somebloke123 · 23/05/2013 10:40


Point taken. (It was not in any party's manifesto though.)

trockodile · 23/05/2013 12:11

Somebloke-this is taken from the Conservative Party Manifesto 2010 - A Contract for Equalities (page 14), where it states:
We support civil partnerships and will
recognise civil partnerships in the tax system.
our plans to end the couple penalty in the
tax credits system and to introduce a new
system of flexible parental leave will apply
to all couples, regardless of whether they are
heterosexual or same sex couples.
We will also consider the case for changing the
law to allow civil partnerships to be called and
classified as marriage.

slug · 23/05/2013 12:14

The polagmy exception in NZ only refers to members of polagymous marriages that were contracted in countries where such unions are legal them emigrated to NZ.

If you are talking of an informal arrangement between 3 or more people where the financial contributions of all parties are recognised after the union dissolves and men are expected to provide for their offspring, then I really don't know what you are objecting to.

somebloke123 · 23/05/2013 13:10


Thanks for that - but it hardly counts as a manifesto commitment!

And I still don't think a government has the authority to change the language, whatever the opinion polls may say on any particular issue.

Of course constitutionally it can pass whatever acts it likes. It could create a law saying that all goats will from now on be referred to as sheep. But that doesn't justify it or make it true.

HorryIsUpduffed · 23/05/2013 13:13

They change legal definitions all the time, and absolutely have the authority to do so.

Sometimes language in common use follows suit, sometimes language leads change. Many "civil partners" reasonably refer to each other as "husband" or "wife" already without the English language imploding.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.