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/

YABU OP. You do not have the right to choose which stories are newsworthy and how people react to the enactment of legislation. If it is not that big a deal to you, why have you started a thread and been posting on this topic all morning?

Answer Kim's question OP - do you not think women getting the vote was a watershed moment? Or was it not because sexism still exists?

gordylovesheep my gay friends don't give a toss about marriage, they don't see it as a panacea that will solve the issues facing gay people. but you know your gay 'friends' don't actually represent all gay people right - unless you know every single gay person in England?

Quite the reverse: they realise once that it is passed, the public perception will be that gay people are no longer prejudiced against because, after all, a historic, watershed event has taken place. Which is a lie again the whole public - because many none gay people, who aren't allowed to have an opinion according to you, are not that ignorant

Frankly, it would be better to celebrate the day when nobody is beaten up for being gay, but I guess that's not such a 'sexy' (as in popular) issue but hang on ...you said up there that gay people weren't persecuted in the UK ,confused?>

People are fickle, they've done their bit for gay rights so it's onto the next thing which people - do elaborate

I think the OP is having a bit of a laugh at our expense.

So i shall leave her with her superior knowledge and insight and go to the shops.

Political Prisoner freed after 27 years in prison in a far away African country ...no not news worthy at all - doesn't effect me

I'm off for a ride now - enjoy this cooler weather and canter my stress away

maybe when I return the OP will be able to explain what the heck she actually means

kim147.

As far as I can see, same sex marriage is STILL different from opposite sex marriage.

Opposite sex couples have advantages in pension rights.

Opposite sex couples can (I know this is rarely used, but the principle is there) cite non-consummation to annul a marriage. Gay people cannot.

Gay married people cite adultery (as in penis in vagina sex with another adult -sorry to be crude but it is that specific) as grounds for divorce, however, why this would be any use to gay couples is anybody's guess (!)

So, really, even less reason for celebration, , as this is far from equal marriage. In other words, even if a person passionately believes in equal marriage (as opposed to indifference) they're revealing themselves as not really caring because they've not even realised that celebrations are premature as equality has not been achieved.

They've not even bothered to discover the facts; so much for caring that much about equal marriage, then.

A quick glance would clearly show that equality has not been achieved at all.

OP

Citing adultery as grounds for divorce is going to be changed now I believe. The idea was at least floated due to it's definition and therefore lack of inclusion for gay couples.

It's also fairly archaic and virtually nobody cites it now as if is actively discouraged by solicitors a lot of the time.

Many of us likely know the facts better about it that you. About the legislation as many of us followed it carefully, about the continued fights among several groups against oppression, and about being LGBT*+, (hint: Your adultery thing ignores that people can love and want to have sex with people of more than one gender, the adultery law being out of date doesn't cover you erasing groups of people with narrow thinking).

People can celebrate whatever they want. Just because some don't see it as a big deal and doesn't solve everything doesn't make celebrating bad. Hell, people across America celebrated women getting the right to vote, completely ignoring that Black women were denied it through tests and Native women were denied it by not having access to citizenship. People still celebrated, people still continued the fight.

Kim

There was loads! I mentioned this earlier. The media only wanted to report on it when there was a chance it would go ahead. Bollocks to the people who are interested in the positive outcome.

Personally I think all the debate was used for the governments benefit to deflect from other issues. This should have just been passed and reported as "this is how it is now" once it was done. Rather than giving right wingers and religious zealots yet more soap box time.

kim147 - [completely irrelevant] - are you a fan of the show Firefly? Your sentences on words mentioned reminded me of a piece of dialogue from Shepherd Book.

Well, MY gay friends (or rather two of them) will get married now. They wouldn't when they would only be recognised as a couple after a civil ceremony on principal. Am so glad that a couple who've been together for 40 odd years will now be able to do what us straight people can do after days or weeks in some pathetic cases.

Kim: Ah, pity, I was hoping to derail this frustration with geek fun Many forums are walls of such debates, over and over, the words almost end up seeming pre-programmed in some. .

I was reading something the other day about the theory that many who are purposefully antagonistic use the concept of "sensible debate" (which, as you know, they rarely are), as a power drain for people working towards equality as there is never enough evidence or reason for them but they can hide behind a veneer of moral high ground of debate and because so many fighting for equality want to convince others, it's practically the perfect trap. We spend energy on them that we then cannot spend elsewhere. I thought it was an interesting perspective and have been trying to keep it in mind (though it is so hard, I've been in debate mode for so long that cutting lose for my own good as well as the good of my activities is still a hard concept to follow through on).

It's not MY adultery thing, LittleSporksBigSpork, it's that the government purposely and deliberately skirted around the issue of adultery.

I mean what earthly use is it to same sex couples to have the specific meaning of adultery applied to them? It's taking the piss, really.

And to another poster here, Allisvoilapropiis, no adultery is not being removed from opposite sex marriage.

Anyway, I'm done here. As somebody who was -initially- against same sex marriage but got 'real' if you like and realised that it did not affect me or the vast majority of other people so I should mind my own beeswax, I resent being told that this should have been big news and I should be celebrating this.

I've been told to shuttup about it and I took that as the correct thing to do.

The same sex marriage supporters are right; it doesn't affect the vast majority of people, so why make a fuss when that is taken as true and it's ignored by the media?

Can't have it both ways.

YANBU - it's not important to most of the population.

"Anyway, I'm done here."

Well thank God for that. Your posts are painful to read.

Ta-ta.