Legislation for gay marriage

ACW said:
Not a majority though that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Um, did we not just have a vote by MPs which proved that a majority of conservatives were against pro marriage?

The overall vote was 400 in favour vs 175 against. The break down of the Tory vote was 127 in favour vs 136 against. That's about as clear cut as it's going to get.
 
TriggerHappy said:
Um, did we not just have a vote by MPs which proved that a majority of conservatives were against pro marriage?

The overall vote was 400 in favour vs 175 against. The break down of the Tory vote was 127 in favour vs 136 against. That's about as clear cut as it's going to get.
Click to expand...

It's not a majority. That's my point. I'm arguing the conservatives don't want gay marriage.

Out of the 127 for it I'd be interested to know how many were doing it to simply please their constituents (which is their job) and how many were voting based on their own thoughts on the matter.
 
Last edited:
ACW said:
Please expand? Not so I can argue (or maybe argue a little bit), I'm just genuinely interested to hear the point of view of someone I usually agree with.
Click to expand...

I believe that the dictionary should represent language as it changes, its why words like "cool" and "mint" have different meanings added to them, the dictionary should not dictate langauge, language should dictate the dictionary.

So since i believe that marriage is simply the union of two people irrelevant of color, race, sexuality etc then the dictionary should be updated if/when this law is passed.
 
ACW said:
It's not a majority. That's my point. I'm arguing the conservatives don't want gay marriage.

Out of the 127 for it I'd be interested to know how many were doing it to simply please their constituents (which is their job) and how many were voting based on their own thoughts on the matter.
Click to expand...

Sorry I was just coming back to change my post when I realised I'd quoted you rather than the post you had replied to! My mistake!
 
joescrivens said:
I believe that the dictionary should represent language as it changes, its why words like "cool" and "mint" have different meanings added to them, the dicitonary should not dictate langauge, language should dictate the dictionary.

So since i believe that marriage is simply the union of two people irrelevant of color, race, sexuality etc then the dicitonary should be updated if/when this law is passed.
Click to expand...

Can't find mint in the Oxford dictionary, but yes, it doesn't mean it hasn't engrained itself into gutter vernacular.

Last time I checked, the addition of cool into the dictionary didn't include The Cool Act 2005.

If it were such a unanimous decision it wouldn't require parliamentary intervention would it. Dictionary's aren't governed by law.

There are underlying legal issues which are causing the need for further legislation on the matter. It's not a case of simply changing the definition of marriage.
 
TriggerHappy said:
Sorry I was just coming back to change my post when I realised I'd quoted you rather than the post you had replied to! My mistake!
Click to expand...

No worries, I think that made me take the post out of context. At least we agree on that point!
 
ACW said:
It's not a majority. That's my point. I'm arguing the conservatives don't want gay marriage.

Out of the 127 for it I'd be interested to know how many were doing it to simply please their constituents (which is their job) and how many were voting based on their own thoughts on the matter.
Click to expand...

And this is no different to the church and female priests, just because the people who vote on these issues don't agree, doesn't mean the masses don't want it.
 
Davec223 said:
And this is no different to the church and female priests, just because the people who vote on these issues don't agree, doesn't mean the masses don't want it.
Click to expand...

It's totally different.

Having a job and not having a job is very different to having a civil partnership and having a marriage, which should be near identical.
 
ACW said:
It's totally different.

Having a job and not having a job is very different to having a civil partnership and having a marriage, which should be near identical.
Click to expand...

lets turn your argument upside down then. If they are so near identical then why not make them identical?
 
joescrivens said:
lets turn your argument upside down then. If they are so near identical then why not make them identical?
Click to expand...

Joe, ignoring all of my valid points does not mean you are winning this argument.

But just because I can answer I will:

They are very similar but not the same. To use a posters previous anecdote, breakfast and lunch are similar. They are both meals but not identical.

Marriage and civil partnerships are very similar but not identical. As I've stated they should however both enjoy the same rights. Equally breakfast and lunch both provide similar outcomes, whereby they provide sustenance for the rest of the day.

I must now take my '1950s' self to my motor vehicle and go hunting. Toodle pip.

In all seriousness I am going out now so will be unable to enjoy demolishing this argument until later on tonight.
 
Also where is the LGB back lash to my comments?

There isn't because the vast majority are rational, intelligent people that value civil partnerships and simply do not see what all the fuss is about.

They will agree with marriage in principle and probably welcome its introduction, but will also agree that this whole debacle been blown out of all proportion.

I immensely respect the community and hope some of them agree with my points!

Final thought for the morning done.
 
ACW said:
mar·riage
/ˈmarij/
Noun
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.


break·fast
/ˈbrekfəst/
Noun
A meal eaten in the morning, the first of the day.


This answers my point.

Marrige, traditionally, involves the above definition. Eating breakfast does not revolve around what colour, creed, religion, or sexual orientation you are.

Hardly comparable.
Click to expand...

haha oh good Lord. Using the dictionary as a legal injunction. Only on TalkPhotography.

I see your point though. They define coitus as being "sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman."

I guess we should get gay people to call it something other than sex now? I mean, that's OUR word, right? They've got to get their own word, for...some...reason

But it's not because you're a closet homophobe, no, not at all, you just want there to be a clear division between you and them. For some reason that's definitely not related to latent homophobia.
 
ACW said:
Hardly.

Is there any real need to change the definition of marriage in the dictionary that has stood for however many years?

I think gay couples should enjoy all of the rights afforded to married couples, but under a different name, as it is, as I've established, a different act.

(I still don't understand linguistic evolution Joe ;) still typing that response?)
Click to expand...

I don't see the need to name a marriage different for some people compared to others. Why make things so complicated. A marriage is a marriage equal for all. Why cares whether it is mf mm ff. everyone the same rights, the same name. Easy job done.
 
LH, I thought sexual intercourse between two men was called something else?
 
ACW said:
They are very similar but not the same. To use a posters previous anecdote, breakfast and lunch are similar. They are both meals but not identical.

Marriage and civil partnerships are very similar but not identical. As I've stated they should however both enjoy the same rights. Equally breakfast and lunch both provide similar outcomes, whereby they provide sustenance for the rest of the day.
Click to expand...

and by that you mean that the reason they are not the same is because one is between a man and a woman and the other is between two men or two women.

so what about marriage between two people of the same race compared to two people of different race. That's similar but not the same too, so why is it ok to call that the same thing

why is gender so different to race?

Isn't the more important part of marriage about two people in love - isn't that a bigger thing to concentrate on rather than who has which genitals?
 
London Headshots said:
Sodomy? Yeah, exactly my point.
Click to expand...
Not sodomy!

But coitus is for a penis and a vagina........I can't find a definition example of coitus involving a penis and any other orifice.

So, you can't use coitus for gay men or even lesbians for that matter.
 
Last edited:
If a bisexual man and a bisexual woman were joined in union ....what would we call that?
 
tiler65 said:
Not sodomy!

But coitus is for a penis and a vagina........I can't find a definition example of coitus involving a penis and any other orifice.

So, you can't use coitus for gay men or even lesbians for that matter.
Click to expand...

Actually, the etymology for coitus is an agreement, or union. It's latin.

Only the English dictionary defines it as an actual sexual act. In Latin, one could be engaged in coitus but not actually be having sex. It has absolutely nothing to do with genitals.

In old English, you could go to the pub to engage in coitus with a male friend, and you'd be doing nothing more than sharing a pitcher of ale.
 
London Headshots said:
Actually, the etymology for coitus is an agreement, or union. It's latin.

Only the English dictionary defines it as an actual sexual act. In Latin, one could be engaged in coitus but not actually be having sex. It has absolutely nothing to do with genitals.

In old English, you could go to the pub to engage in coitus with a male friend, and you'd be doing nothing more than sharing a pitcher of ale.
Click to expand...

But we live today, we have to use what it means today.
 
London Headshots said:
haha oh good Lord. Using the dictionary as a legal injunction. Only on TalkPhotography.

I see your point though. They define coitus as being "sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman."

I guess we should get gay people to call it something other than sex now? I mean, that's OUR word, right? They've got to get their own word, for...some...reason

But it's not because you're a closet homophobe, no, not at all, you just want there to be a clear division between you and them. For some reason that's definitely not related to latent homophobia.
Click to expand...

You don't learn, do you? This type of behaviour has earned you some time off.

Maybe you could use this time to think about your posting style.
 
and they'd doubtless
spend the whole of the night,
deciding what was right,
and who did what,
and with which, and to whom..........
 
Organnyx said:
and they'd doubtless
spend the whole of the night,
deciding what was right,
and who did what,
and with which, and to whom..........
Click to expand...

...amid the orgy, a knock at the door.
The Vicar's voice: "is there room for one more?"
 
Last edited:
ho hum, here we go into the lion's den......Because I don't believe that all aspects of this are born out of love, but some are born of selfishness - I accept that people of the same sex can have a loving relationship, and that the state should recognise that fact (civil partnerships), but am not at ease with the "fudge" presented by the present bill (churches are "exempt", but for how long?), and I am yet to be convinced that children brought about by surrogacy are being accorded their rights.......
If a rich pop star wants to buy an ocelot, he can do so, if he wants to "buy" a surrogate child, he can also do so, and can bring the child up with his homosexual partner - so what of that child? His mother was happy to "sell" that child, presumably denying the child the comfort and good health conferred by the intimate contact with his birth mother and natural breast milk (for perhaps a couple of years) - to me that is putting the desires of the couple above the rights of that of the child, so as others have said, gay marriage is not "the same" as heterosexual marriage - where children are concerned, they are a natural outcome in one, and not the other - I am yet to be convinced that this aspect has been properly thought through.
 
Organnyx said:
ho hum, here we go into the lion's den......Because I don't believe that all aspects of this are born out of love, but some are born of selfishness - I accept that people of the same sex can have a loving relationship, and that the state should recognise that fact (civil partnerships)
Click to expand...

1. How can two people wanting to be married be born out of selfishness?
2. Why is it only gay couples marrying that can be born out of selfishness?
 
because in my opinion, surrogacy is selfish to the child - if we grant "equal rights" on the matter of children, I fear we are allowing people's selfishness in wanting a child in a relationship which would not naturally produce one to override the child''s rights to stay with his natural mother. I certainly couldn't do it to a kiddy, why should other people do it in the name of "equality"?

Again as others have said, it's not "the same" - children are not born from gay relationships.
So if people of any orientation want to live together as a loving couple, that's absolutely fine, but I have grave reservations about the rights of kids involved, and the ongoing rights of churches to choose not to allow gay marriages in their churches.........
 
I wasn't talking about children. I'm talking about marriage. Please re-answer not mentioning children.
 
Organnyx said:
ho hum, here we go into the lion's den......Because I don't believe that all aspects of this are born out of love, but some are born of selfishness - I accept that people of the same sex can have a loving relationship, and that the state should recognise that fact (civil partnerships), but am not at ease with the "fudge" presented by the present bill (churches are "exempt", but for how long?), and I am yet to be convinced that children brought about by surrogacy are being accorded their rights.......
If a rich pop star wants to buy an ocelot, he can do so, if he wants to "buy" a surrogate child, he can also do so, and can bring the child up with his homosexual partner - so what of that child? His mother was happy to "sell" that child, presumably denying the child the comfort and good health conferred by the intimate contact with his birth mother and natural breast milk (for perhaps a couple of years) - to me that is putting the desires of the couple above the rights of that of the child, so as others have said, gay marriage is not "the same" as heterosexual marriage - where children are concerned, they are a natural outcome in one, and not the other - I am yet to be convinced that this aspect has been properly thought through.
Click to expand...

I cannot fathom your twisted view on surrogacy at all. It is not about selling babies, it is about helping people who cannot conceive (whether they are gay or straight) have the children they long for.
Many women do not breast feed anyway, so that is barely any argument at all.
And presumably you are ok with a lesbian couple having their own child, via IVF?
 
But you can't divorce the two (deliberate pun) - if we allow "gay marriage" then kids WILL be involved - it's part and parcel of marriage - now if you were to propound that gay couples had all the same rights in marriage, except that they couldn't have any kids as they weren't a natural outcome of that union, could you imagine the fuss?
 
You do realise that gay couples can bring up children right now don't you? Being married is irrelevant.
 
Organnyx said:
But you can't divorce the two (deliberate pun) - if we allow "gay marriage" then kids WILL be involved - it's part and parcel of marriage - now if you were to propound that gay couples had all the same rights in marriage, except that they couldn't have any kids as they weren't a natural outcome of that union, could you imagine the fuss?
Click to expand...

but straight couples adopting isn't a 'natural outcome of that union' so do you feel that is wrong too?
 
My view on surrogacy is simple - children are not a commodity to be bought and sold (whether for straight or gay "parents") - and there is no doubt that "breast is best", as is staying with your birth parents wherever possible.

I'm not in favour of any IVF - if nature can't naturally provide a child, then adopt one, there's enough unwanted kids.........
 
Organnyx said:
My view on surrogacy is simple - children are not a commodity to be bought and sold (whether for straight or gay "parents") - and there is no doubt that "breast is best", as is staying with your birth parents wherever possible.

I'm not in favour of any IVF - if nature can't naturally provide a child, then adopt one, there's enough unwanted kids.........
Click to expand...

OK, so you have no problem with gay couples adopting then? your issues lie with surrogacy and ivf?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top