|
22 Dec 2005, 13:04
|
#1
|
a little bit broken
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,405
|
Gay 'marriage'
today the front page of the metro showed a gay english couple getting 'married' yesterday a scottish couple and the day before and irish couple.
i am very much in favour of people getting all rights etc that go with this civil partnership lark, i think the same rights should be available for sisters or friends living together long term but i do wish they would stop using the word marriage to describe it.
my question is ... do you think it is to make gay couples seem more acceptable and legitimate (is we/they are married more paletable than we/they have a civil partnership agreement) or is it a media spin to make the legal document more understandable to the general public (call it something that it is similar too for ease of recognition)? or both?
anyway it pisses me off
__________________
i came, i saw, i made a bit of a mess
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 13:07
|
#2
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Why do you believe hetrosexual couples should enjoy a monopoly on the term 'marriage'? In any case, why does it matter?
edit : I was ambiguous about the whole thing, but I was reading the paper this morning and found all the coverage quite pleasing. If nothing else, it'll piss off a whole bunch of homophobic ****s out there. Which can only be a good thing.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 13:08
|
#3
|
Lucky
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: -
Posts: 3,830
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by madi
anyway it pisses me off
|
why?
you'd prefer a Polish situation?
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 13:09
|
#4
|
Henry Kelly
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 7,374
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Well what would you say is marriage? Does it need a religious component? Does it have to be between a man and a woman? Am I still 'married' if I have a heterosexual secular service in a registry office?
__________________
You're now playing ketchup
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 13:22
|
#5
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
all seems a bit of a fuss, tbh.
out of curiosity, can a hetrosexual couple have a civil partnership if they so wish? ie, is this gay marriage thing any different to what hetrosexuals get at a registry office?
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 13:29
|
#6
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
There are a few things that all cultures have in common. One them is the existence of marriage. However, Anthropologists can only create vague definitions for it, because it appears in so many different forms.
In some cultures in Africa, you can only own property if you have a wife. If a woman wants to own property, she has to marry another woman. I believe she can do this even she is already married to a husband. This usually only happens when the husband dies and the woman wants to own the property her husband left behind.
In the highlands of Tibet and surrounding regions there is a shortage of arable land. When a land owning family has several sons this becomes a problem, because there isn't enough land to devide among all the sons and it's not as if the other sons will find any unused land of their own if only the eldest receives the land. Their solution is Polyandry. In Tibet a woman will marry a group of brothers that can range in ages by decades.
In other words, madi, calling the union of homosexual couples 'marriage' is nothing new nor is it sinister.
Last edited by s|k; 22 Dec 2005 at 13:38.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 17:53
|
#7
|
Ball
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,410
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
There are a few things that all cultures have in common. One them is the existence of marriage. However, Anthropologists can only create vague definitions for it, because it appears in so many different forms.
In some cultures in Africa, you can only own property if you have a wife. If a woman wants to own property, she has to marry another woman. I believe she can do this even she is already married to a husband. This usually only happens when the husband dies and the woman wants to own the property her husband left behind.
In the highlands of Tibet and surrounding regions there is a shortage of arable land. When a land owning family has several sons this becomes a problem, because there isn't enough land to devide among all the sons and it's not as if the other sons will find any unused land of their own if only the eldest receives the land. Their solution is Polyandry. In Tibet a woman will marry a group of brothers that can range in ages by decades.
In other words, madi, calling the union of homosexual couples 'marriage' is nothing new nor is it sinister.
|
These won't be called marriage either, just some word that translates loosely into marriage. But anyway: are there marriages not involving women at all?
__________________
#linux
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 19:54
|
#8
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by queball
These won't be called marriage either, just some word that translates loosely into marriage.
|
That's kind of ethnocentric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by queball
But anyway: are there marriages not involving women at all?
|
I don't remember any from my studies, but I guess they exist now though. Well, there are cultures such as certain Native Americans and Polynesians that had 3 sexes. The third sex were men who took on a feminine role, a third role - I don't think they were considered women, and it may be the case that other men married them, although I'm not sure.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 20:00
|
#9
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
Well, there are cultures such as certain Native Americans and Polynesians that had 3 sexes.
|
This is the problem of defining our words before we start. Certainly to me that sentence is complete gibberish unless there's an actual genetic difference between the third sex and male/female.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 20:02
|
#10
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
This is the problem of defining our words before we start. Certainly to me that sentence is complete gibberish unless there's an actual genetic difference between the third sex and male/female.
|
replace the 'had' with 'recognised' and it's fine.
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 20:15
|
#11
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
This is the problem of defining our words before we start. Certainly to me that sentence is complete gibberish unless there's an actual genetic difference between the third sex and male/female.
|
I'm sorry I should have used the word 'gender.' Anyhow, even biological sex is a continuum with two destinct opposites, not a destinct set of only two categories that every human being falls in, it's possible to create a third category for people who fall into the middle of the continuum and have sexual traits of each extreme. It's not as rare as you may think.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 13:57
|
#12
|
a little bit broken
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,405
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
i dont think it is sinister, but it is an incorrect name for the agreement.
the media description includes a pair of ' which is why i did in my title, as the union is actually a civil partnership agreement. the agreement doesnt need to be witnessed in public, there is no marriage licence or wedding.
and it pisses me off because i dislike the misrepresentation of things.
__________________
i came, i saw, i made a bit of a mess
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 14:16
|
#13
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by madi
and it pisses me off because i dislike the misrepresentation of things.
|
There are lots of misrepresentations in the media every day, I doubt you get pissed off about most of them.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 14:20
|
#14
|
a little bit broken
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,405
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
There are lots of misrepresentations in the media every day, I doubt you get pissed off about most of them.
|
actually i do, and tend not to read or watch the news too much because it is so annoying
i spend a lot of time pissed off
(and a registry office is public, with a public notice being posted so that objections can be made, i know as i had one)
__________________
i came, i saw, i made a bit of a mess
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 14:23
|
#15
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by madi
i spend a lot of time pissed off
|
My (implied) point was that you're thread was pretty specific and I don't recall seeing many other threads you've made about how the media misrepresented punk rock or whatever.
I realise you're probably not, but it's easy to read threads like this as homophobic, by implication. I seem to remember a similar thread where people like Deffeh said marriage was a Christian institution but wasn't particularly forthcoming as to where that monopoly stemmed from.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 15:27
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I seem to remember a similar thread where people like Deffeh said marriage was a Christian institution but wasn't particularly forthcoming as to where that monopoly stemmed from.
|
I've seen it argued that Christmas is still technically a Christian holiday even though a lot of people celebrate it for purely secular reasons. So there's no obvious reason why you couldnt say the same about marriage. Anyway, the things most people associate with marriage do generally tend to involve religious things such as church, and the specific practices have generally emerged out of the Christian tradition throughout our history. Also, you cant ignore the role that Judeo-Christianity has played in shaping our attitudes towards monogamous relationships in general.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 14:00
|
#17
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
gay people can't get married but there's something vry close to it which serves the same purpose. who gives a shit if they call a spade a spade?
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 16:03
|
#18
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,313
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phang
gay people can't get married but there's something vry close to it which serves the same purpose. who gives a shit if they call a spade a spade?
|
When the spade is infact a trowel.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 14:03
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
my question is ... do you think it is to make gay couples seem more acceptable and legitimate (is we/they are married more paletable than we/they have a civil partnership agreement) or is it a media spin to make the legal document more understandable to the general public (call it something that it is similar too for ease of recognition)? or both?
|
I doubt this will a causal impact on how people view gays, but the fact that this law has been passed with very little controversy does imply that gay peoples are becoming more and more accepted (compare to America). View it is being a symptom of a deeper social trend rather than something thats likely to have a direct affect on attitudes.
Quote:
the media description includes a pair of ' which is why i didnt in my title, as the union is actually a civil partnership agreement. the agreement doesnt need to be witnessed in public, there is no marriage licence or wedding..
|
Theres nothing to stop a gay couple having a big wedding at church with a cake and dancing if they can find a church thats prepared to marry them. Anyway, theres no legal requirement that m-f couples get married in public either - you can have registry office 'weddings' (I've been to one I think).
edit: can I use the word symptom in a value-neutral way or does it always imply the thing is a disease?
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 14:20
|
#20
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
edit: can I use the word symptom in a value-neutral way or does it always imply the thing is a disease?
|
I'd say it usually has a negative connotation but given the context of your overall post it's all OK and you won't be reported to Peter Tatchell for re-education.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 14:40
|
#21
|
Born Sinful
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
This picture made me laugh.
Grumpy old gits.
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 17:10
|
#22
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by madi
toda
my question is ... do you think it is to make gay couples seem more acceptable and legitimate (is we/they are married more paletable than we/they have a civil partnership agreement) or is it a media spin to make the legal document more understandable to the general public (call it something that it is similar too for ease of recognition)? or both?
|
I think its all for older people (in general, there are always exceptions).
I find most people I know under about 35 really just dont care.
It tends to be older people that ahve a view on it.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 17:43
|
#23
|
Lord Denning
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: City of London
Posts: 2,548
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
It annoys me, but only because I'm a pedant. If they had passed a law creating/allowing (depending on which way you look at it) gay marriage, I'd be quite happy to call it that (and the gay marriages in some other countries obviously are marriages), but they didn't, it's not, and I wish the media would stop being wrong about everything all the time.
__________________
Please bear in mind when reading the above post that I am always right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
He was crowned in York Cathedral as 'Expert in the West' by Pope Urban III in 1186.
|
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 18:28
|
#24
|
Next goal wins!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proteus
It annoys me, but only because I'm a pedant. If they had passed a law creating/allowing (depending on which way you look at it) gay marriage, I'd be quite happy to call it that (and the gay marriages in some other countries obviously are marriages), but they didn't, it's not, and I wish the media would stop being wrong about everything all the time.
|
typical lawyer: "something can only exist if its on the statute"
edit: hey, at least you arent a mathematician though! :win:
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 20:29
|
#25
|
Generic funny comment.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Basingstoke, UK
Posts: 136
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Why shouldn't mentally ill people be able to 'marry'?
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 20:37
|
#26
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Rozenski
Why shouldn't mentally ill people be able to 'marry'?
|
I think homophobes are mentally ill.
|
|
|
28 Dec 2005, 18:53
|
#27
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Rozenski
Why shouldn't mentally ill people be able to 'marry'?
|
Apparently they can. Congrats s|k!
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 21:17
|
#28
|
Destroyer of Worlds
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Would a child calling his foster parents 'Mum' and 'Dad' piss you off too?
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 21:25
|
#29
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Would a child calling his foster parents 'Mum' and 'Dad' piss you off too?
|
If you're talking to me, only if that statement was used to justify a comment about one child having more than two parents. And WRT your physics example, those are fairly obviously two different uses of the word "power", used in different arguments in different context. Noone tries to measure a politician's power in watts, and the debates are seperate.
[edit] WW righty ho
Last edited by MrL_JaKiri; 22 Dec 2005 at 22:51.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 21:23
|
#30
|
Destroyer of Worlds
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Oh, and in answer to your question:
I think that the reason it's called marriage is because gays have been fighting for the right to marry for ages, and now they've been given something that for all practical purposes is the same as a marriage. So they consider themselves to be married. I consider them to be married. I'm sure 'marriage' has a very well-defined legal meaning, but 'power' has a very well-defined meaning in physics, and I don't go off on one every time someone is described by a tabloid as 'powerful'.
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 22:40
|
#31
|
Destroyer of Worlds
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
No, it was to the OP.
Basically, gay people are now able to have a union recognised legally, and if that means the same to them as marriage, why can't they consider themselves married?
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
|
|
|
28 Dec 2005, 19:12
|
#32
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
No, it was to the OP.
Basically, gay people are now able to have a union recognised legally, and if that means the same to them as marriage, why can't they consider themselves married?
|
The OP didn't seem to complain about the individuals considering themselves married but rather seemed aimed at the popular press defining it as a marriage.
The dictionary in my office does not define marriage as between persons. I talks of "the institution whereby meen and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."
Language is important to a lot of people. Legalities are important to a lot of people.
I have friends who are lesbians who refer to each other as husband and wife and to themselves as married. They had, what they refer to, as a marriage ceremony. All of this is fine with me. However, by definition they are not husband and wife, they are not married and they did not have a marriage ceremony.
Marriage may, one day, be redefined. But until that day, one does not have to be a homophobe to be annoyed with the press, or anyone else, playing fast and loose with the definition which had existed in the ENGLISH SPEAKING world for ages. And please remember that marriage is an English word and what other cultures use to define relationships may equate to the English term marriage it in no way redefines the English concept of marriage.
I hope, in the US, that they make marriage the word used to define all relationships with equal legal ramifications for all. As it is, I pay several thousand dollars a year in taxes more than I would if my wife and I were not married. The gay marriages have gotten away with side stepping this tax for long enough. Give them the right to be married and tax the buggers like everyone else. They would be happy to pay and I should feel better about it as well.
Also, as an attorney, the increased work load for handling of gay divorces would make the legal community richer and that can only be a good thing, surely?
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
28 Dec 2005, 19:17
|
#33
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
Marriage may, one day, be redefined.
|
Definitions are made by usage of words. The dictionary usually reacts to an alteration in usage - it very rarely (if ever) instigates such alterations. There is no official body managing the English language, and thank the Lord for that. Words are constantly in flux as usage changes amongst the pool of people called collectively 'english speakers'.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 22:45
|
#34
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Saying that 2 people can have a church wedding, exchange vows, and then have all the legal benefits of a married couple without actually 'being married' is bordering on incoherent. What actually is 'marriage' over and above these things?
|
|
|
28 Dec 2005, 12:19
|
#35
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Saying that 2 people can have a church wedding, exchange vows, and then have all the legal benefits of a married couple without actually 'being married' is bordering on incoherent. What actually is 'marriage' over and above these things?
|
well isn't it "defined" as "a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others" in the little blurb that you have to say to the registrar? Sure this definition is arbitrary and could be redefined, but at the moment, that's what it is at the very least.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 23:04
|
#36
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
I've not heard of that, but I'm guessing its because the number of features characterising each sex are sufficiently few in a 'simple' creature that talking about a continuum starts to make sense?
Last edited by Nodrog; 22 Dec 2005 at 23:16.
|
|
|
22 Dec 2005, 23:09
|
#37
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
I've not heard of that, but I'm guessing its because the number of features characterising each sex are sufficiently few in a 'simple' creature that talking about a continuum starts to make sense?
|
It's due to the way that sex is determined in them, and errors in meiosis. I'm not sure if it's an upshot of them being simpler, I'm not a geneticist. And I can't remember which lecture this example appeared in.
|
|
|
28 Dec 2005, 20:08
|
#38
|
Tiny Dancer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 355
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
dda brings up an interesting point, i wonder when the first gay divorce will be
__________________
[16:09] <eJohn> im still standing
|
|
|
28 Dec 2005, 23:57
|
#39
|
Destroyer of Worlds
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
|
Re: Gay 'marriage'
I don't hear anyone complaining when Noel Edmonds abuses the word 'decimate' on Deal or No Deal. If there are only 4 thingys left in the red, it is not *possible* to decimate the red side, because the minimum number of red chunks of cash you can remove (other than nothing) is one quarter.
But yeah, words are defined by their usage. Go go gadget Dante.
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:02.
| |