|
|
|
|
Anyone following the gay marriage debate in Ireland at the moment?
I think its an unusual one not because the debate is taking place, but because of the Community's stance on the issue.
Ireland seem quite happy to be passing a civil partnership bill that seems largely similar to what we have here, and about half the gay lobby groups in Ireland and a surprising number of their supporters are opposed to it. At Dublin Pride, a group of activists symbolically tore up a copy of the act, because it didn't go far enough in granting actual marriage or recognising the marriages of those people who get married in canada or spain.
Personally, I'm with them. I oppose civil partnerships for two reasons. 1/ its segregationist law making (one law for gays one law for straights) 2/ it makes it harder to achieve gay marriage.
I have no problems with religious groups not wanting to be forced into marrying gay couples they disapprove of. If large christian groups want to be homophobic, let them. Albeit the Quakers recently voted to lobby the government to let them marry gays. But civil marriages, of which the majority in the UK are, should not discriminate.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I've been thinking about the points you've raised. I'm not 100% happy with the idea of a civil partnership vs whatever a marriage is, but I'm not happy about marriage either.
I think, and folk here know I think, that asking for the "forbidden word" the word MARRIAGE has been an opening shot too far. I think that the gay movement has chosen to target a "reserved word" that the heterosexuals have had as their own for a very long time. And I think that this attempt to claim the word has caused a backlash by the vociferous religious people, not just the bigots, but ordinary folk.
I think that we caused quite a furore by taking the word "gay" and apparently perverting it. Taking "marriage" as well was a bridge too far.
I don't actually care what the contract is called. But I do care about the rights and responsibilities that it confers. If the verb became "to miggle" and we miggled each other, then, as long as it conferred the same rights and responsibilities as a "marriage", then I would be perfectly content.
And here's the thing. People are not stupid. Almost everyone would be speaking about "Marriage" not "Miggling", and the term "Miggle" would soon become erased from common parlance, and naturally so.
My own feeling is that, by seeking to claim the WORD "Marriage" that we lose. You do not fight an enemy on his home turf. Instead you get him to come to you, and there you defeat him on your own terms.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Given the choice I'd prefer a wide array of marriage contracts, read the following article for what I really feel is a balanced way of tackling the gay marriage issue:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25858992-7583,00.html
Like Tim Wilson, I think the best approach is to provide legal alternatives for religions that want to protect the sanctity of marriage while meanwhile allowing for gay marriage- in Australia there is majority support for it. There should be a range of legal contracts that suit people of all backgrounds.
Tony Abbott, one of the most conservative members of parliament and Tim Wilson, an openly gay proponent of gay marriage agreeing on a single issue really speaks to how much of a good idea it is.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnleeb
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: January 2009
Messages: 44
|
|
|
Most states in the US did not allow inter-racial marriage for a long time.
By your reasoning, when they finally allowed mixed couples to legally join, they should have used another word so the word 'marriage' could continue to be a segregationist word.
Yes, there was a lot of of people, including most of the same religions who now oppose gay marriage and unions, who argued against it.
And those of different races seeking to marry did not lose. Now no one ever mentions it. It has become a non-issue.
So why not the same for us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I disagree. The term "marriage" has always meant for sure the union of a man and a woman until recently. That the USA chose to restrict the racial content was a perversion and cannot be a valid part of the argument.
I understand totally where you are coming from. I am just saying that I believe our strategy has been to our detriment.
[Updated on: Tue, 04 August 2009 10:31]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a deeply conservative (small 'c') thing to want to keep all word meanings the same as they have ever been, Timmy. That doesn't mean it is right. I'm with johnleeb in thinking that the ultimate word for a partnership ought to be the same whatever the sex of the partners.
When something is right and strongly held by the people involved the dam must eventually burst and let the change through.
Have you noticed that there are now three gay priests in the USA being considered for bishop? Rowan Williams may not want to deal with it but I think he is going to have to. And it is one more way in which the african view of life is out of step with the rest of the world and will have to change. That's what I hope anyway.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
You miss my point.
I do not want it to remain as it ever was. I simply think trying to claim the word as the opening tactic set more people against us that was sensible.
I view this as one battle at a time to win the war. Going for the huge target has caused major antagonism from the very people who would otherwise have supported us.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand exactly where you come from, but from the activists view point, in the last couple of decades the majority of the campaign has been rights and equality based rather than identity politics. We find ourselves a comparator and say, what can he do that I can't. Its on this basis that we've achieved so much.
By settling for something less than marriage, we make it so much harder to achieve marriage politically. People are more than happy to agree that we shouldn't be discriminated against, but when we have a legal partnership and want more, its very easy for those who oppose us to portray us badly.
Our own camp isn't too good at defending it either. There are plenty of gay couples who emphasise the fact that they are NOT married. Perhaps they don't want to be a part of a heterosexist entity and fair enough, but in other cases, gay people themselves say that marriage is for a man and woman, a stance I find hard to fathom.
I agree Timmy, if and when I get married, it will BE marriage, it will be called and referred so in every way possible, and the only bit where the term civil partnership will be used is where I'm legally required to do so.
But what I hate the most is the segregation. Its one law for straights and one law for gays and how is that right? A very famous anti-discrimination case cites that separate but equal is still discrimination. The US Supreme Court sure as hell got that right in Brown vs Board of Education.
My understanding is that one of the states is being taken to the Supreme Court over its civil partnership law for precisely that reason.
Maybe the inter-racial marriage is a bad example. How about, black people can attend higher education, but they cannot go to university, because that is explicitly reserved for white people only. Instead they go to Doggles. Would anyone stand for the institution of higher education being so blatantly racist? Why marriage?
The holy sanctity of marriage is always a laughable argument... from britney spears and her 55 hour wife time to nevada gaming commission marriages. In the 1500s the Catholic Church changed the definition of marriage during the Council of Trent to ensure that only marriages performed by a catholic priest would be recognised. Entirely a political decision aimed at making protestant marriages outside of Gods law. It failed of course, protestants didn't care, since they were happy to believe that god would recognise their marriage. If the Church can redefine marriage for political reasons in the past, why not now.
Besides, in this country at least, there aren't too many other targets to shoot for legislatively speaking. Sure we have a world of work ahead of us in making sure the laws we have our upheld and respected, but they exist.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I find I am in broad agreement with all that you say. My only point is that I differ from some of the activists over tactics. And that's Ok because one should differ over tactics provided one reaches agreement before action (if possible).
As a side issue, and off topic a little, I've just watched a TV item where it is seen as important to encourage 'immigrants' into the countryside - a place they and you and I are free to travel to anyway - because "There aren't enough non white faces there."
I find both negative and positive discrimination abhorrent. I am also the son of an immigrant. We went to the countryside. His face wasn't black, but he spoke accent with a trace of English. We went there.
I wonder what my point is? It has something to do with the fact that being an immigrant (sorry, non-white) is acceptable, but being homosexual is not. I do agree that 'marriage' using that express term is important. Whites can marry blacks, can marry chinotypes (what IS the noun for that?) etc, but two ladies or two gentlemen may not 'marry'. I'm just unsure that the direct route is best.
[Updated on: Mon, 10 August 2009 19:53]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no objection to the meaning of words changing. That is the natural way of things. I do, however, object to the meaning of words being changed, particularly by special (self-) interest groups.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I concur. It is 'obvious' that committed same sex couples are married, and the meaning of the word is expanding to include that.
In my local hospital today I found that 'gel' has become a verb associated with cleaning one's hands. I thought that 'leverage' being a verb was a bit much, but it seems we may now turn any noun into a verb.
So, forgive me while I go out and flower the flowerbed.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we were to accept that same sex couples are 'married', what do we do about the constituents of a marriage, namely husband and wife? Spouse is the nearest we get to it.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of a hijack and to extend the notion I have just heard the Classic FM 6 o'clock news which referred to a country returning to 'normalcy'. What's wrong with the word 'normality'?
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing's wrong with normality (except that it isn't queer). But president Wilson used the phrase 'back to normalcy' and ever since then americans and some of their lovers have felt it had more cachet than the correct word.
So I deduce classic FM is a USA lover. I guess for the same reason that pop songs are sung in an american accent?
I fear, Nigel, that you are turning into an old fogey!
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony, I've been an old fogey for years and as always I like to turn a vice into a virtue and have fun.
Hugs
Nigel
[Updated on: Wed, 19 August 2009 20:08]
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
