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/

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

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?

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

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?

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

"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.

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

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?

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.

"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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Dear oh dear...

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

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?

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

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.

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 ;)

OP:
Everyone else: "YABU!"
OP: "No I'm not. Blah blah blah bullying."

No idea why people post in AIBU and do this.

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

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?

"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?

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