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

[Jesssime]

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?

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

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 .

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!'

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

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?

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

@Jesssime

Those silly gays, getting worked up about finally getting equal rights.