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

[StoicButStressed]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22588954

^^^^^^^^^^^
THAT

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?

[BackOnlyBriefly]

I'm probably not the first one to say it, but aside from the religion argument all objections so far can be shown to be transparent excuses for the real motive. What does it say about a person or group who put forward other flimsy reasons to avoid admitting the real reason they can't stand the idea.

If 'gay marriage could lead to incestuous/multiple marriage' then so could heterosexual marriage. So that's a nonsensical objection. Especially as the god of the OT (not the modern replacement) is ok with both.

'Spending too much time on it in parliament?' It would be quicker if not being fought every step of the way and when was the last time the same people posted complaining about other uses of parliament's time?

If 'civil partnership is the same thing' then why object to gay marriage. Clearly someone making that argument doesn't genuinely believe they are the same.

I loved the dictionary argument btw. A dictionary is a constantly updated description of how we use words. It never was a rule book.

There is a kind of twisted human rights argument that I've seen here and in other (usually religious) threads that is hard to describe.

Imagine Fred saying to his neighbour. "but Tom, I should have the same say in what books you read as you have in what books you read".
It doesn't make any sense unless book reading affects neighbours.

Fred wants to choose his own books without interference and have an equal vote on what others read, and he tries to call that equality.

[somebloke123]

No that's not the way the english language develops.

Your second sentence is true. Some same-sex couples do refer to each other as husband and wife. This seems odd to me and I would say it is wrong. However if they continue to do this and persuade enough others to follow suit then it will become accepted as correct and the language will have changed, and the rest of us will just have to accept it. But it evolves, it doesn't change by statute.

Like "gay" to mean homosexual. It changed due to the extent of its usage, not be act of parliament.

[Binkybix]

A government does have the authority to change the law, which is what it is doing. Then the legal definition of marriage will change - in that sense it will be true. That's different to just changing the word for something, because it's conferring new rights. Your example doesn't seem very relevant for these reasons.

For the majority of people, when they say marriage they will mean the legal definition too. If you don't you might have to qualify any comment about marriage you make with the fact you mean a straight marriage. But, you know, tough!

Legally, something does not have to have been in a manifesto to be passed as law, and I think that a number of things have been passed that were also not in either manifesto (in fact, neither party's manifesto was elected with a majority, if you want to take the argument down that road).

[Binkybix]

I would argue that the religious arguments are still a cover for basically not considering gay people as equal, the difference being the argument is that one thinks this because one has been told to, rather than coming to the conclusion through some other means.

Obviously I know not all religious people think this , as evidenced by many on this thread.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

If the government changes the rules by which you can get a visa does that change the meaning of the word visa and is it therefore wrong for the government to do so?

[somebloke123]

BackOnlyBriefly (as indeed am I)

I'll just have one more go and I think I'll have to leave it at that.

No I don't think it changes the meaning of the word "visa". It would if the government redefined "visa" as the document in which you specify who you leave your money to when you die. But not if it's just modifying terms and conditions.

Of course in the constitutional sense a government can make or repeal any law it likes, whether or not it was in a manifesto.

It can redefine goats as sheep and declare the former word to be obsolete, as the Newspeak dictionary in 1984 declared the word "freedom" to be obsolete.

It can pass a law saying that 2 + 2 shall equal 5 when the moon is full.

It can repeal the Government of India Act and declare Boris Johnson to be the new Viceroy.

But whether these things affect reality is a different matter.

What I would maintain is that the word "marriage" to mean an enduring union between a man and a woman is a very deeply entrenched aspect of language, and not just english. This is largely because it represents a fundamental social institution which has stood the test of time in providing a stable environment for the rearing of children. Of course we don't consider a relationship to be not marriage if it doesn't produce children, but the 10+ year labour-intensive project which child-rearing is is greatly helped by such stability.

If the definition is to be changed to encompass same-sex partnerships then we have no word left to uniquely refer to this time-honoured social institution.

If governments do try to alter the language by statute in this way it does all become quite Orwellian - the abolition of an idea not by a direct ban but by the removal of the language necessary to express it.

[Binkybix]

You could try using the term a 'straight marriage'. That would seem to do the trick quite simply without the need to continue to disallow something that doesn't harm anyone else, doesn't compel anyone to have a gay marriage, and the majority of people want.

The better example re visas would be if the availability of visas were extended to a new group of people who had previously been excluded.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

I think you have made your point clear, but it is all just modifying terms and conditions. You are drawing a line between changes that matter and those that don't and that's a personal choice which you are entitled to. However the line you draw only exists for you. It's not of itself an argument against it.

As others have pointed out they altered it when they let black people marry white. I'll assume you are ok with that, but imagine being faced with someone from that time who said it was a step too far. How would you convince them? What argument would you offer them to make them see they were wrong. Just pointing to where you draw the line wouldn't work as they would have drawn their own line.

[SDeuchars]

the word "marriage" ... represents a fundamental social institution which has stood the test of time in providing a stable environment for the rearing of children. ... If the definition is to be changed to encompass same-sex partnerships then we have no word left to uniquely refer to this time-honoured social institution.

Are you suggesting that you do not expect marriages between gay people to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children? Or that co-habiting parents are married?

It is a fallacy to inextricably bind marriage with child-rearing (particularly in a society in which large numbers of people with children divorce or do not enter into a legally recognised partnership).

[cory]

"What I would maintain is that the word "marriage" to mean an enduring union between a man and a woman is a very deeply entrenched aspect of language, and not just english. This is largely because it represents a fundamental social institution which has stood the test of time in providing a stable environment for the rearing of children. Of course we don't consider a relationship to be not marriage if it doesn't produce children, but the 10+ year labour-intensive project which child-rearing is is greatly helped by such stability.

If the definition is to be changed to encompass same-sex partnerships then we have no word left to uniquely refer to this time-honoured social institution."

If you had asked a medieval churchman he would have told you quite clearly that a marriage is a consummated union between a man and woman, and that a ceremony which is not (for reasons of impotence, disability etc) followed by consummation (=penetrative sex) cannot be counted as a marriage.

You could get the ceremony part of it out the way earlier but if it was revealed that the consummation had not taken place once both parties were of age, then the marriage was declared null, i.e. it was recognised that there had never been a marriage.

This as far as the church was concerned was the time honoured institution of marriage.


Time honoured usually only means "what my generation can remember as the norm".

[BlingLoving]

I have to come back. I still can't understand this ridiculous concern about governments changing the meaning of words. I'd like to see a dictionary from 1900 and look up the verb, "to vote" or perhaps the noun, "parliament". These are just examples, but I can imagine they used to specificy men only. Now they don't.

Certain words in the English language are, by definition, legal terms. The legislature of the country in which those words are used, can therefore make changes. Seems pretty simple and obvious to me. homosexuality used to be illegal. It is not any more. It therefore changed the meaning of the word.

[Binkybix]

Bling has said what I have been trying to say far more succinctly and clearly.

I can't help but think that the convoluted language argument is just another one of those intricate arguments designed to try to rationalise the fact that people just think it's wrong to allow gay people to share marriage, just because it is.

[StoicButStressed]

HEY - OP HERE

Am trying to cut down on MN time, and having just read the above, am seriously glad have not been on here. As genuinley think could/would have exploded - with UTTER rage ans sheer incomprehension at some of the trite (thank God in the minority it appears) spouted here.

The notion that gay people being married in ANY way 'de-values' your own marriage vows is - bluntly - utter bullshit.

Ditto the equally trite 'argument' that 'marriage' is solely for a man and woman to 'raise children in'. Out of my 3 sons, the one that happens to have been born gay is actually the one who is THE most suited to parenting - he has love, empathy, compassion, boundaries and ALL a child would need to be raised in a secure/safe/loving home. And DEF a home which beats the SHITE out of being left in 'care' - a system of which the end product is a massively disproprtionate % of males from 'Care' being imprisoned, and females having teenage pregnancies. How the FUCK is that 'better' for ANY child than being raised within a loving parent? Whether that is an LP, a same sex couple, or someone who happens to be gay AND is alone but is willing to provide a home and that stability to those children who MOST people will not touch with a barge pole.

And here - for what it's worth and for those who trot out the 'children best in marriage' line:

I (very successful career bod) was married (to an equally successful career bod). The kind of man you - YOU - would look at and 'know' what a great Dad he was. As I TOO thought he was.

Until 2007 when my eldest DS1 (yep, the one who happended to have been born gay..) finally confided that he and DS2 had been systematically and secretly physically abused by that man for 2 years - IE, the 'man' in the marriage of a man and a woman that you assert without a fraction of doubt is the 'best' way to raise a child.

Tell that to my DS's1&2 - one of whom attempted suicide; was in the Priory for 9 WEEKS; and the other DS's just traumatised beyond words due to his 'Father's' 'parenting' within that best place of marriage to raise a child'. As you are so far off the shore of reality overall, that you are on an island named 'ignorant' & seemingly way past any choice you can/could make of getting back to planet Sanity.

THAT is my polite response to some of the - truly jaw-dropping - comments above.

Oh - and if you ARE 'of religion' and de facto Christian; do PLEASE look at today's news story from Russia and the - ferociously brave - people who went on a Pride march whilst knowing they WOULD be arrested; probably roughed up a bit; and did it anyway simply to try and ensure the BASIC right to be able to live their lives WITHOUT getting the shit kicked out of them on a daily basis ... And simply as they have a different chromosone make-up to 'normal' people.

So yes - my son will (WILL, as that is his plan) be an INCREDIBLE Father; but the 'man' I 'married (along with so so many others), has tranpsired to be the worst kind of 'Father' possible. Please at least TRY to remember that before you spout such obviously nonsensical stuff, it really is simply NOT TRUE.

And if your marriage is so fragile that you believe others being entitled to the same vows as you will somehow 'damage' yours; then it's Relate you should be heading to - NOT spouting straw man arguements about why ALL of us should NOT have the same rights...

...When what you actually mean - so why not just say it? - is that you are, fundamentally, simply homophobic. And that my son who simpy happens to be gay, is - to you -not worthy of the same rights that his brothers have.* Even though he may well contribute to society WAY more than YOU do.

Nauseating.

[StoicButStressed]

To those of you who have pointed out the ludicrousness of all of this, and who have posted rational, logical, arguements as to WHY - thank you.

Is impossible though to NOT see that those entrenched with their own, strange/offensive/outdated, views, do NOT seem to have actually ANSWERED your questions and points though?

Which kinda says it all.

[Toadinthehole]

jacks365

You've missed the point. Members of a civil partnership have the same legal rights as a married couple. The question is why it is discriminatory to deny same-sex couples the use of a word.

[Toadinthehole]

slug

If you re-read my post you will see that I said polygamous unions are in substance recognised in NZ.

My point is that, to quote you, an informal arrangement between 3 or more people is in substance treated the same way as a marriage, when separation takes place. Whether or not this is desirable is a matter for debate, but my view is that there should at least be one.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

Stoic, I understand the rage, but these threads do achieve something and so in a way do those arguing against equality. They demonstrate to all those looking on that there is no good reason to be opposed. If there were valid reasons they would have come out by now, but all they really have is excuses. Casting around for a way to object without saying "but I hate/am scared of/ gay people"

To those saying civil partnerships are the same as a marriage or saying 'it's just a word' why then are you so opposed?