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/

[OnTheNingNangNong]

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]

"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]

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.

[Binkyridesagain]

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]

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]

"
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]

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

[BustyDeLaGhetto]

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.

[Binkyridesagain]

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

[BustyDeLaGhetto]

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]

Blinky that was to OP :)

[MissMarplesBloomers]

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]

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]

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.

[TheOrchardKeeper]

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?

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

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]

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]

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.

[Binkyridesagain]

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?'

[TheOrchardKeeper]

^agree with Binky.

That's AIBU for you though

[MarmaladeTwatkins]

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

[Jesssime]

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.

[Lj8893]

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]

"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.

[Binkyridesagain]

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]

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.