Reynard Bleu Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 So tonight our political representitives debate the absolutely critical question of 'should marriage be permitted for same sex couples'. Never mind the financial ploppy this country finds itself in, the tories seem to be tearing themselves apart over this topic. I found the number of countries that currently permit gay marriage interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21321731 Me? I don't really care/mind.
Charl91 Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 I'm all for allowing it - doesn't really affect me either way, though it might mean I have a couple more weddings I have to go to.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 A marriage should be a happy occasion, yes.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 I think pretty much everyone is agreed that same sex couples should have equal rights and rightly so. I do not for the life of me understand why it should be called 'marriage' though. A man and a man is by definition not the same thing as a man and a woman so why would you use the same word to describe it? You wouldn't do this in description of any other differing pairs of objects so why do it in this case? Why pretend two carrots is the same thing as a carrot and a peach? I'm not making a qualitative distinction just a purely substantive one. I can completely understand gay couples wanting to have a more 'romantic' word to describe their union than civil partnership - so why don't they just come up with one? A new one that isn't already being used to describe something else. Garriage? It's only a matter of time before that becomes the colloquial term for it anyway so why not just get ahead of the curve and give it legitimacy from the start.
breadandcheese Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 This is one of the most ridiculous political debates. I genuinely do not understand why it is so heated. As far as I can tell, same-sex couples have all the same rights in the eyes of the state as married couples with civil partnerships. So it is effectively a debate about the use of a word. Hardly worth the time or money of a debate. If a same-sex couple want to say they're married rather than in a civil partnership, let them, it's just a word. I don't know why faith groups are so hot under the collar about it. Faith groups do not control the definition of a word in the English language. As long as church, mosques, synagogues, etc are not forced against their will to marry same-sex couples on their premises if they do not want to, then what's the problem.
FoxyPV Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 This is one of the most ridiculous political debates. I genuinely do not understand why it is so heated. As far as I can tell, same-sex couples have all the same rights in the eyes of the state as married couples with civil partnerships. So it is effectively a debate about the use of a word. Hardly worth the time or money of a debate. If a same-sex couple want to say they're married rather than in a civil partnership, let them, it's just a word. I don't know why faith groups are so hot under the collar about it. Faith groups do not control the definition of a word in the English language. As long as church, mosques, synagogues, etc are not forced against their will to marry same-sex couples on their premises if they do not want to, then what's the problem.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Faith groups do not control the definition of a word in the English language. True but neither does the gay rights movement. As much as I might like to call my new band 'The Spice Girls' I can't because the name is already taken. I agree that it is a ridiculous and completely unnecessary debate though. Bloody Cameron just stirring up shit based on some dubious opinion polling and questionable electoral maths. It's semantics at the end of the day but I believe in preserving the accuracy and flexibility of the English language and clubbing different things under a single heading for outright antagonistic and presentational reasons flies in the face of this.
21st Century Fox Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 [/size] True but neither does the gay rights movement. As much as I might like to call my new band 'The Spice Girls' I can't because the name is already taken. I agree that it is a ridiculous and completely unnecessary debate though. Bloody Cameron just stirring up shit based on some dubious opinion polling and questionable electoral maths. It's semantics at the end of the day but I believe in preserving the accuracy and flexibility of the English language and clubbing different things under a single heading for outright antagonistic and presentational reasons flies in the face of this.
MikeyT Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 If two people love each other then yes. Don't see why it should matter what their sexual orientation is.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 If two people love each other then yes. Don't see why it should matter what their sexual orientation is. It doesn't. That isn't the debate.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 probably is a bit gay that when I though 'hmm think of a band that exists' The first thing to come into my head was the spice girls
MooseBreath Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Couldn't care less about gay marriage. If we're going to discuss gay rights then their right to bring up children is much more important. Personally I am against it for the sake of the child.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Couldn't care less about gay marriage. If we're going to discuss gay rights then their right to bring up children is much more important. Personally I am against it for the sake of the child. We've had that debate on here before and the lefty mob refused to believe that I have gay friends who are themselves opposed to this. One of very few examples where I will come down on the 'freedom from' side against freedom to.
Haydos Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 I think pretty much everyone is agreed that same sex couples should have equal rights and rightly so. I do not for the life of me understand why it should be called 'marriage' though. A man and a man is by definition not the same thing as a man and a woman so why would you use the same word to describe it? You wouldn't do this in description of any other differing pairs of objects so why do it in this case? Why pretend two carrots is the same thing as a carrot and a peach? I'm not making a qualitative distinction just a purely substantive one. I can completely understand gay couples wanting to have a more 'romantic' word to describe their union than civil partnership - so why don't they just come up with one? A new one that isn't already being used to describe something else. Garriage? It's only a matter of time before that becomes the colloquial term for it anyway so why not just get ahead of the curve and give it legitimacy from the start. Because that's not what 'marriage' means. It's simply the joining of two objects/parties/whatever. It's odd why you care so much about a word. They're committing themselves to one another for life, the same as mixed-sex couples, that's what marriage is.
James. Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Yeah BlueBrett seems to be frothing at the tits over the definition of a word. Just let them call it marriage if they want to, why does everyone care so much?! Not allowing gay couples to "marry" just seems like such a backwards thing to do in the modern day. Everyone should just get on with their lives, it literally has no impact whatsoever on anyone apart from those that will benefit.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Because that's not what 'marriage' means. It's simply the joining of a man and a woman. . That's what it has meant for hundreds of years no matter how you try to muddy the waters. It's not that I personally care so much about the word, just that if we have to have the debate then this is what I think about it. Won't keep me up at night but I know a lot of people, mostly religious, do care about it so why not try to see it for what it is - a definition dispute and not a war of the homophobes and the enlightened - and try to come to a mutually acceptable compromise ie. a new 'romantic' word to describe the union of gay couples.
breadandcheese Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 [/size] True but neither does the gay rights movement. As much as I might like to call my new band 'The Spice Girls' I can't because the name is already taken. I agree that it is a ridiculous and completely unnecessary debate though. Bloody Cameron just stirring up shit based on some dubious opinion polling and questionable electoral maths. It's semantics at the end of the day but I believe in preserving the accuracy and flexibility of the English language and clubbing different things under a single heading for outright antagonistic and presentational reasons flies in the face of this. So who has the right to control the definition of a word? I would argue that if most speakers believe a word to mean something, then it does. As far as I can tell, the majority of people believe the word marriage to be a commitment between two people in love. The spice girls analogy doesn't hold water. One word is a trademarked name, the other word a noun to describe something. If anything, your choice of analogy helps to prove my point. You can call your band the Spiv Boys, Trendsetters, etc, but they all fit the definition of a "music band"
The Blur Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 This is one of the most ridiculous political debates. I genuinely do not understand why it is so heated. As far as I can tell, same-sex couples have all the same rights in the eyes of the state as married couples with civil partnerships. So it is effectively a debate about the use of a word. Hardly worth the time or money of a debate. If a same-sex couple want to say they're married rather than in a civil partnership, let them, it's just a word. I don't know why faith groups are so hot under the collar about it. Faith groups do not control the definition of a word in the English language. As long as church, mosques, synagogues, etc are not forced against their will to marry same-sex couples on their premises if they do not want to, then what's the problem. The only reason it is so heated because Tories is worried about alienating some of their core Tories members if they allow this proposal to go through.
MikeyT Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 It doesn't. That isn't the debate. No I know but I'm saying gay marriage should be allowed.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 So who has the right to control the definition of a word? I would argue that if most speakers believe a word to mean something, then it does. As far as I can tell, the majority of people believe the word marriage to be a commitment between two people in love. That is fair enough to a point but I would say that if there is a significant minority opposed to something then the majority should be wary of riding rough shod over them. That is one of the fundamental, inescapable dangers of democracies. I am not one of the significant minority opposed to this on principled or any other grounds really I just feel that since they exist and since it isn't really any skin of anyone's nose, why not try to compromise and achieve consensus?
Haydos Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 That's what it has meant for hundreds of years no matter how you try to muddy the waters. It's not that I personally care so much about the word, just that if we have to have the debate then this is what I think about it. Won't keep me up at night but I know a lot of people, mostly religious, do care about it so why not try to see it for what it is - a definition dispute and not a war of the homophobes and the enlightened - and try to come to a mutually acceptable compromise ie. a new 'romantic' word to describe the union of gay couples. Oh right, you're one of those people. Makes sense now.
breadandcheese Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 The only reason it is so heated because Tories is worried about alienating some of their core Tories members if they allow this proposal to go through. OK, that's clearly rubbish and neglects that all parties have members within them that have different opinions, not to mention different faith groups and views within different faiths. But if you want to believe that it's just Tories, then go and live in cloud-cuckoo land.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Oh right, you're one of those people. Makes sense now. The kind with an opinion? Yeah. I take it you are one of those trendy liberal bigots?
Haydos Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 The kind with an opinion? Yeah. I take it you are one of those trendy liberal bigots? I guess I didn't realise how strongly you felt about the English language. It's barely changed in the last 400 years anyway so a slightly different perception of the word 'marriage' would be outrageous and incredibly offensive to people everywhere.
Captain... Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Because that's not what 'marriage' means. It's simply the joining of two objects/parties/whatever. It's odd why you care so much about a word. They're committing themselves to one another for life, the same as mixed-sex couples, that's what marriage is. The argument is that it isn't, that the definition is also about bringing kids into the world and being under the eyes of god. The other argument is that it will open the flood gates to polygamous relationships and other such abominations, and it will devalue marriage. There are more differences as well between a Civil Partnership and a marriage, such as the ways in which it can ended. Of course these arguments are just thinly veiled homophobia that don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny as marriage laws are constantly being redefined to suit the modern world, such as things like consent. What has pissed me off about the whole thing is just the amount of time we have wasted discussing it, there is no logical reason to not pass this bill, it is not forcing anyone into doing anything, it just gives those churches that wish to marry a gay couple the right to do so, and those that are already married and what to live here the recognition they deserve. It is all just politicking and point scoring, and it is pathetic when we are in economic turmoil.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.