A little bit of extreme prejudice for your Sunday

Richard Cranium

I'm sickened. There are so many things wrong with this article (and the fact that it was allowed to be published) that I just don't know where to begin.

Increasingly, it seems as if the homosexual community has forgotten that it is the minority, writes Eamon Delaney (Sunday Independent).

AS the cliche goes, some of my best friends are gay. I used to live in a very gay area, the West Village in New York. Indeed, enjoying their nightlife and cultural atmosphere, I was even accused of 'trading' off the fun, with my copycat denim jacket and tartan shirt, while not actually joining them.

However, like many, I've recently begun to get impatient with the endless trumpeting of gay 'identity', and the growing appetite for more and more rights and privileges.

I'm not being reactionary and I'm all for gay rights and an end to prejudice and discrimination, and always have, but at this stage it seems as if the tables have turned and a minority community -- the gays -- want to increasingly change mainstream culture to suit them.

For example, why is civil partnership not enough, and why do gays also want marriage, a surely traditional heterosexual facility, which gays used to see as patriarchal, and 'straight'?

Many gays also feel this way and resist the increasing politicisation and institutionalising of gay life. Last week, in the Guardian, a newspaper almost obsessed with things gay and 'progressive', columnist Suzanne Moore objected to gay marriage on the basis that it was a conservative 'selling-out'. Being gay should be edgy and experimental, she said.

But isn't this part of the problem? Many gays want to have it both ways. Thus gay magazines are full of ads endorsing late-night gyms, sex lines and a freewheeling sexual activity which would be dismissed as sleazy in heterosexual culture. But we also have articles that suggest a yearning for bourgeois respectability.

Likewise, travel books, such as the trendy Rough Guides, scold the mainstream 'meat-market' discos of foreign capitals but provide plenty of details for gay pick-up spots. Many red-blooded straight men might wish that society would endorse their own ambitions with such PC gusto.

Also, on the issue of gays adopting, it makes many of us uneasy and impatient with the idea that raising a child with homosexual parents is totally equivalent to a child being raised by its natural heterosexual parents. It patently is not, and it is a crazy concession to PC culture to say that it is.

I watched a Frontline programme recently on the topic and I thought I was seeing things when I heard Ivana Bacik refusing to be happy with a societal acceptance of gay adoption but insisting on full equality with heterosexual parenting. David Quinn gave the other perspective, but he was almost falling over himself to be reasonable about it, just looking for that concession that the natural, or heterosexual, parents were not just the same as gay parents.

Those expressing opposition or even concerns were shouted down in the television studio. However, from where I was watching, in a local bar, the viewers were all of the contrary opinion, and were amazed by this departure in opinions but also blankly accepting of it as part of the growing gulf which now exists between mainstream society and the liberal elites and quango-led experts who want to change and improve our lives.

For example, the Guardian now has a feature called The Three of Us in its family section, a weekly diary by one of two gay men raising a child with their female friend, the natural mother. Two dads, one mum -- one family is the sub headline.

I don't know about you but this strikes me as strange.

And the counter-argument that divorced kids often have three parents knocking around is fatuous and nonsense. A child has two parents, whether separated or not. However, it is one thing to have such a diary, but it also seems almost designed to offend and irritate those who do not agree with this new radical departure in parenting. Thus, last week, the writer Charlie Condou questioned the whole convention of women being seen as naturally connected to their children. (Not for nothing is the Irish Independent's weekly supplement called Mothers and Babies.)

But no, Charlie went to the Alternative Families show in the UK and saw all the gay dads with their children. It's just the same for him, it seems, and, he "stood around and chatted about the absurdity and irrelevance of the 'biological question'". Oh, please. What about breastfeeding?

And there are other things about the growing gay rights movement which make outsiders impatient and uneasy. Like, when did the gays and lesbian community become the 'LGBT', an acronym that also includes Bisexual and Transgender?

Sorry, but this is broadening the boundaries in a way that makes many of us understandably sceptical.

Bisexual? Isn't that reminiscent of the loose Seventies sexual experimentation? How many bisexuals are there? And will the plain people of Ireland be happy with legalising rights for, and spending money on, all of this?

The new Human Rights Commissioner for Northern Ireland, Michael O'Flaherty, is a gay rights advocate and says that he sees all of this as part of his rights agenda. Again, I raise all these things, not out of reactionary resistance but just to question the direction and motivation of the whole sexual rights agenda.

There is also the danger surely that this insatiable demand for more and more recognition and identity (gay quotas?), will eventually alienate mainstream opinion and undo some of the valuable gains made in this country by, for example, David Norris and others, in eliminating prejudice and discrimination.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/loud-and-proud-gays-want-to-take-over-rest-of-society-2920975.html


Was I just naive in thinking that this level of anti-LGBT bile had been consigned to Ireland's past?

byhookorbycrook

Eamon Delaney (Sunday Independent).

Nuff said

baby and crumble

I was coming here to post this. I think at this point the Independent needs to be flooded with letters, emails, phonecalls, and I think that in all honesty there needs to be some kind of complaints to the equality authority, because surely this 'journalism' breaches something somewhere? Seriously.

I am seething right now, and I was in a ****ty mood today to begin with. :mad::mad:

I have to say though, I am heartened by the thread in AH. MOst people copping how messed up it is.

Cavehill Red

"Extreme prejudice"? Really?
If this is what you consider extreme prejudice, how do you describe the criminalisation of homosexuality or gay bashing?

Slang_Tang

"I'm all for gay rights and an end to prejudice and discrimination..."

But then:

"why is civil partnership not enough, and why do gays also want marriage"

"on the issue of gays adopting, it makes many of us uneasy and impatient with the idea that raising a child with homosexual parents is totally equivalent to a child being raised by its natural heterosexual parents. It patently is not, and it is a crazy concession to PC culture to say that it is."

Why does he say he's for gay rights and end to prejudice? He's not. What a hypocrite.

Richard Cranium

There are no words for just how awful those things are. As far as I'm concerned, this article in what purports to be a quality broadsheet newspaper (lol :rolleyes:) is so far beyond the pale that it can be regarded as extreme prejudice.

In any case we're on the same side Cavehill Red, let's not forget that.

Cavehill Red

He's not exactly advocating extermination, is he? I just don't think the hyperbole is helpful. Whatever about the quality levels, perceived or otherwise, of the Sunday Independent or indeed this particular author, it's reasonable to assume, given the paper's sales across Ireland weekly, that what they print often is intended to appeal to the opinion of 'Middle Ireland'. These opinions are widespread, and seeking to scream them down as 'extreme prejudice' rather than argue them soberly with facts will convince no one of your viewpoint, and in fact could erode support for it, because to many people, this article is demonstrably not 'extreme prejudice'.

Richard Cranium

Cavehill Red wrote: »

He's not exactly advocating extermination, is he? I just don't think the hyperbole is helpful. Whatever about the quality levels, perceived or otherwise, of the Sunday Independent or indeed this particular author, it's reasonable to assume, given the paper's sales across Ireland weekly, that what they print often is intended to appeal to the opinion of 'Middle Ireland'. These opinions are widespread, and seeking to scream them down as 'extreme prejudice' rather than argue them soberly with facts will convince no one of your viewpoint, and in fact could erode support for it, because to many people, this article is demonstrably not 'extreme prejudice'.

Point taken.

However I do think that calling me up on my use of the word "extreme" rather than Eamon Delaney on, say, getting "impatient" with gay people demanding the equal rights to which they are entitled is a bit surprising. Extreme or not, widespread or not, these opinions are indeed prejudiced and should not be tolerated by anyone as far as I'm concerned.

ninty9er

I read it earlier and thought there was somevalidity to his opinion. Not that I was entirely happy with some of the views around parenting, but he's paid for his opinion and that's what he's given.

Cavehill Red

Richard Cranium wrote: »

Point taken.

However I do think that calling me up on my use of the word "extreme" rather than Eamon Delaney on, say, getting "impatient" with gay people demanding the equal rights to which they are entitled is a bit surprising. Extreme or not, widespread or not, these opinions are indeed prejudiced and should not be tolerated by anyone as far as I'm concerned.

We all have different senses of entitlement. Some welfare recipients seem to feel entitled to an entirely funded life at the taxpayer's expense, which is an entitlement that others, specifically some taxpayers, would disagree with. Delaney makes a couple of, to my mind, fair points. There is a disparity between societal (and media) acceptance and approval of promiscuity among heterosexual and gay men, for example. There is no precedent in modern history for gay marriage. To feel an 'entitlement' to such things is not a sufficient argument to shout the likes of Delaney down any more than erroneously claiming him as an extremist is.
I'm sure you understand that most people harbouring prejudices of whatever form don't actually see themselves as prejudiced and hence will exempt themselves from your suggestion that they do not tolerate prejudices. They likely already think they don't tolerate prejudices. Their definition of prejudice differs from yours, or from mine.
Delaney's opinions will inevitably come across as reasonably argued to many people, just as David Quinn's do. The challenge is to meet that with a like reasonability and a superior argument. The danger in seeking to dismiss such arguments as extremism and prejudice is that such a response in itself could end up being seen by Delaney's readers as the 'extreme' one.

baby and crumble

I wrote them a letter. Like it says, I doubt I'll get a response, but oh well..

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am sitting here, in my apartment, after finding an article on your website which I believe was printed in your newspaper today, Sunday 30th October 2011. This 'article' (and I use the term loosely) discusses how 'Loud and proud gays want to take over the rest of society'. I have read this article a number of times now, and I simply cannot stand by and not voice my strong objections to a number of points made in the article. These objections are spread across the author of this article, Eamon Delaney, and you, as editor.

For the record, I am a gay woman. I spent a large part of my youth figuring this out about myself. It is really only in the past few years of my 20's that I have become comfortable with who I am. I am lucky, in that all my family and friends have been incredibly supportive throughout this period of self-realisation. Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1993, the year before I went to secondary school, and only a few years before I began thinking that I might be gay. I heard the debates around this decriminalisation, I heard and read what people were saying. Years later, when I realised I was attracted to women, I remembered the vitriol and comments I had heard, and I thought I was wrong. That there was something fundamentally wrong with me, with who I was. It was many years before I became comfortable enough to be honest with myself and others around me about my sexuality.

I don't think you understand how harmful it is for a national newspaper to spout the ill-formed, hateful and bigoted opinions which you have given a platform. I have no problem at all with someone believing that homosexuality is wrong, or abhorrent. I may think that person is mis-informed, bigoted, and wrong, but I am fully behind people having opinions. What is NOT acceptable is giving those opinions such a high profile platform. Young people in Ireland have it hard, and young gay people are amongst the most bullied in society. Your paper, by publishing opinions such as Mr. Delaney's, perpetuated this by making it acceptable for gay people to have less rights that other members of society.

I would like to point out that if Mr. Delaney were advocating the denial of the basic human rights of marriage (which is very different from Civil Partnership- there are over 100 differences), raising a family, and equality to another minority in Ireland, such as Protestants, members of the Travelling community, the Muslim community, or indeed people who are not primarily caucasian, there would rightly be outrage. The simple idea of there being a hierarchy of groups who 'deserve' rights is abhorrent to most of us, and rightly so. 100 years ago black people could not marry white people, nor legally create a family with them. 50 years ago, the rights of women to work after marriage didn't exist. I'm sure that at that time, 'mainstream society' was perfectly happy with these arrangements. However, just because middle Ireland thought that wives should be at home at all times to make dinner for their husbands, didn't make it right, and didn't mean it was not a denial of their rights to work and earn money. Rights are not relative, they are absolute.

I could continue on this vein for a long time. I am under no illusion that I will receive a reply to this email, as I'm sure I will be brushed aside as some kind of lesbian liberal crackpot. At least I can hold my head up high, look myself in the mirror and feel I am doing right by my fellow mankind. I wonder if you can do the same?

Regards,

Baby And Crumble (Obviously used my real name!!!)

apache

i read the article. its hardly "extreme prejudice". its an opinion piece. he is entitled to his opinion. some of his points i tend to agree with.

jaffacakesyum

Things like this never get me fuming but it is clearly a ridiculous piece of 'journalism'. While I disagree with him, I do think he's allowed his opinion, however wrong I may think it is. That said, he can have his personal opinion but it's a bit ridiculous it got published in a supposedly non-tabloid 'high quality' newspaper.

apache wrote: »

i read the article. its hardly "extreme prejudice". its an opinion piece. he is entitled to his opinion. some of his points i tend to agree with.

Which points would those be, do you mind me asking?

Untense

Richard Cranium wrote: »

I'm sickened. There are so many things wrong with this article (and the fact that it was allowed to be published) that I just don't know where to begin.

Thankfully most people see this 'opinion' as utter drivel. Nonetheless, a newspaper has some responsibilities. There are many impressionable people out there who read anything a paper prints as having authority and based on some sort of fact. Even 'opinion' pieces.
It is inexcusable for any minority group to be targeted like this in a newspaper in the 21st century - even if it is framed as 'opinion'. Whether they're travellers, Eastern European, black, gay, etc. It is the editor's responsibility to ensure that anything printed, including opinion pieces are ethical, and meet the principals laid out in the Press Ombudsman's Code of Practice:

Principle 8 − Prejudice
Newspapers and magazines shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

You could begin by writing a letter of complaint to the editor: independent.letters@independent.ie requesting an apology and a reply within 2 weeks.

If you feel your complaint has not been adequately addressed and you were personally affected by the article, you can take your complaint to the Press Ombudsman.


When crap like this is printed, we can take action by throwing a bit of flak back at the paper's editor. If they get a lot of complaints they will at least think twice before signing off on another P.O.S article like it in the future. Also, on a more obvious note - don't buy their paper. With luck we'll have done with these rags in another decade or two.

Newsite

Richard Cranium wrote: »

I'm sickened. There are so many things wrong with this article (and the fact that it was allowed to be published) that I just don't know where to begin.

Was I just naive in thinking that this level of anti-LGBT bile had been consigned to Ireland's past?

Guys, your reaction is on the level of someone advocating the extermination of an ethnic group.

Marriage is, has been, and will always be the coming together of man and woman. The dogs in the street would tell you that. Why do you feel the need to hijack this? Why indeed can you not be happy with civil partnerships?

And it is alarming how quickly you come out with the 'prejudice' card when someone voices their opinion in a considered way.

the fact that it was allowed to be published

'allowed to be published' - are you serious?!

foggy_lad

Marriage to me will always involve a man and a woman so how can i as a gay man get married? If I wanted the right to get married I would see about having myself straightened out:) but I do believe that a civil partnership should include all the same legal and hereditry rights etc as hetrosexual marriage

RiseToMe

Things like this always result in myself and my wife discussing us moving out of Ireland full time.

When somebody so narrow minded can be published in such a mainstream and somewhat respected newspaper it just disheartens me so much.

I actually have no words for an article like this. My wife and I have been together through thick and thin, we waited for ANY kind of legal recognition to come in so we could secure eachother should anything happen. Our CP was encased by family and friends and anything monetary received was 50% to us and the other 50% to charities.

For this person to write something like this that could influence somebodies thinking on the lgbt community is just beyond me.

I want to rant and rave and attack this article but tbh I'm sick and tired of feeling like I have to constantly defend who I am and who I'm spending the rest of my life with.

This country and the calibre of what passes as journalism just leaves me feeling deflated and only encourages my wife and myself to take our professions elsewhere.

Newsite

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am sitting here, in my apartment, after finding an article on your website which I believe was printed in your newspaper today, Sunday 30th October 2011. This 'article' (and I use the term loosely) discusses how 'Loud and proud gays want to take over the rest of society'. I have read this article a number of times now, and I simply cannot stand by and not voice my strong objections to a number of points made in the article. These objections are spread across the author of this article, Eamon Delaney, and you, as editor.

For the record, I am a gay woman. I spent a large part of my youth figuring this out about myself. It is really only in the past few years of my 20's that I have become comfortable with who I am. I am lucky, in that all my family and friends have been incredibly supportive throughout this period of self-realisation. Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1993, the year before I went to secondary school, and only a few years before I began thinking that I might be gay. I heard the debates around this decriminalisation, I heard and read what people were saying. Years later, when I realised I was attracted to women, I remembered the vitriol and comments I had heard, and I thought I was wrong. That there was something fundamentally wrong with me, with who I was. It was many years before I became comfortable enough to be honest with myself and others around me about my sexuality.

I don't think you understand how harmful it is for a national newspaper to spout the ill-formed, hateful and bigoted opinions which you have given a platform. I have no problem at all with someone believing that homosexuality is wrong, or abhorrent. I may think that person is mis-informed, bigoted, and wrong, but I am fully behind people having opinions. What is NOT acceptable is giving those opinions such a high profile platform. Young people in Ireland have it hard, and young gay people are amongst the most bullied in society. Your paper, by publishing opinions such as Mr. Delaney's, perpetuated this by making it acceptable for gay people to have less rights that other members of society.

It's unfortunate, and I am sorry that you were the victim of vitriol, as that is unacceptable.

But are you advocating we introduce some sort of media censorship, or police state? I could understand an article being banned on grounds of common decency, vulgar language/sentiment, etc - but this man is voicing the opinion of many, and his own opinion is a very reasonable way.

I would like to point out that if Mr. Delaney were advocating the denial of the basic human rights of marriage (which is very different from Civil Partnership- there are over 100 differences), raising a family, and equality to another minority in Ireland, such as Protestants, members of the Travelling community, the Muslim community, or indeed people who are not primarily caucasian, there would rightly be outrage. The simple idea of there being a hierarchy of groups who 'deserve' rights is abhorrent to most of us, and rightly so. 100 years ago black people could not marry white people, nor legally create a family with them. 50 years ago, the rights of women to work after marriage didn't exist. I'm sure that at that time, 'mainstream society' was perfectly happy with these arrangements. However, just because middle Ireland thought that wives should be at home at all times to make dinner for their husbands, didn't make it right, and didn't mean it was not a denial of their rights to work and earn money. Rights are not relative, they are absolute.

Except your logic is flawed above because why shouldn't Travellers marry, or Protestants, etc? They are made up of men and women, right?

At least I can hold my head up high, look myself in the mirror and feel I am doing right by my fellow mankind. I wonder if you can do the same?

Breathtaking. Do you mean you speak for everyone then?

Sonics2k

I just can't be bothered to reply to it any more at this stage.

I've said my part, and there will always be homophobia, but blatant ignorance for the sake of ignorance is what truly bother's me.

Newsite

RiseToMe wrote: »

For this person to write something like this that could influence somebodies thinking on the lgbt community is just beyond me.

Person writes article which may influence reader's opinion on a particular topic shock horror?

RiseToMe wrote: »

This country and the calibre of what passes as journalism just leaves me feeling deflated and only encourages my wife and myself to take our professions elsewhere.

Saudi Arabia? Iran? How about North Korea?

Untense

Newsite wrote: »

Guys, your reaction is on the level of someone advocating the extermination of an ethnic group.

If you are going to use that analogy it would be more accurate to say the reaction is on the level of an ethnic group whose extermination is being advocated. But either way it's ridiculous hyperbole. You have the reaction of people who have been personally offended by a person who has misrepresented them. You might have the same reaction if you read an opinion piece on The Guardian that Irish immigrants are a bit silly and a bit annoying to have in England.

Marriage is, has been, and will always be the coming together of man and woman.

It has been, but it won't necessarily always be. There was once a time when Marriage was strictly a partnership between people of the same ethnicity, and there were people just like you who were appalled that blacks and whites might want to hijack marriage by wanting to marry. And those were the kind of people who would make statements like, "it has been and always will be..."

Why do you feel the need to hijack this?

Hijack marriage? Black people have, women have, and every country that has legalised divorce have. Why not gays. There is nothing being hijacked really, what you have is changes as a result of equality - and equality is always good.

Why indeed can you not be happy with civil partnerships?

If that is an actual question and not just rhetorical, you can easily find many gay people who will happily answer that question for you in detail. You can even google it if you genuinely want to know why some people might be unhappy. There are many points in which 'civil partnerships' which are unequal to marriage. If civil partnership was equal before the law, there might be less of a problem. It's not. It's unequal, and people don't like inequality. That is why people are not happy with it.

And it is alarming how quickly you come out with the 'prejudice' card when someone voices their opinion in a considered way.

Prejudice is not a 'card' that you hold up. It's a word, a very valid word which describes an opinion given without much knowledge, reason or thought.
The opinion given in this opinion piece is not considered, it is prejudiced. It is prejudiced because it lacks knowledge, reason and thought. In fact it is simply wrong on many points, starting with the headline. "Loud and Proud Gays Want to Take Over the Rest of Society". Before you even read further, it's a bit of a stretch to assume this opinion is going to be a 'considered' one.

Try this paragraph:

...like many, I've recently begun to get impatient with the endless trumpeting of gay 'identity', and the growing appetite for equal rights and privileges.

Read that paragraph again. Then replace the word 'equal' with 'more and more' since that's how it was originally written, and you'll get an idea of the prejudice contained within this opinion piece.

I'm not being reactionary and I'm all for gay rights and an end to prejudice and discrimination, and always have, but at this stage it seems as if the tables have turned and a minority community -- the gays -- want to increasingly change mainstream culture to suit them.

This one is hilarious, in the same paragraph he contradicts himself by saying he is 'all for' gay rights and is not being reactionary. He also (in a reactionary manner) misrepresents the motivation of the people he's talking about, who are not looking to change mainstream culture to suit them, but are looking for equal rights for themselves. ie: Gay rights. In effect, when you take apart his construed argument, he implies that he's 'all for' gay rights as long as they are not equal rights. Which is not 'all for'. That is prejudice, and is both misleading - using poor and actually false arguments to sway people in to an inflammatory point of view. A good editor will spot that, and it should not be allowed in an ethical newspaper. Particularly if the arguments are being used against a minority.

RiseToMe

Newsite wrote: »

Person write article which may influence reader's opinion on a particular topic shock horror?



Saudi Arabia? Iran? How about North Korea?

Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

And no, clearly not those countries.

Newsite

Untense wrote: »

If you are going to use that analogy it would be more accurate to say the reaction is on the level of an ethnic group whose extermination is being advocated. But either way it's ridiculous hyperbole. You have the reaction of people who have been personally offended by a person who has misrepresented them. You might have the same reaction if you read an opinion piece on The Guardian that Irish immigrants are a bit silly and a bit annoying to have in England.



It has been, but it won't necessarily always be. There was once a time when Marriage was strictly a partnership between people of the same ethnicity, and there were people just like you who were appalled that blacks and whites might want to hijack marriage by wanting to marry. And those were the kind of people who would make statements like, "it has been and always will be..."



Hijack marriage? Black people have, women have, and every country that has legalised divorce have. Why not gays. There is nothing being hijacked really, what you have is changes as a result of equality - and equality is always good.



If that is an actual question and not just rhetorical, you can easily find many gay people who will happily answer that question for you in detail. You can even google it if you genuinely want to know why some people might be unhappy. There are many points in which 'civil partnerships' which are unequal to marriage. If civil partnership was equal before the law, there might be less of a problem. It's not. It's unequal, and people don't like inequality. That is why people are not happy with it.


Prejudice is not a 'card' that you hold up. It's a word, a very valid word which describes an opinion given without much knowledge, reason or thought.
The opinion given in this opinion piece is not considered, it is prejudiced. It is prejudiced because it lacks knowledge, reason and thought. In fact it is simply wrong on many points, starting with the headline. "Loud and Proud Gays Want to Take Over the Rest of Society". Before you even read further, it's a bit of a stretch to assume this opinion is going to be a 'considered' one.

Try this paragraph:

Read that paragraph again. Then replace the word 'equal' with 'more and more' since that's how it was originally written, and you'll get an idea of the prejudice contained within this opinion piece.




This one is hilarious, in the same paragraph he contradicts himself by saying he is 'all for' gay rights and is not being reactionary. He also (in a reactionary manner) misrepresents the motivation of the people he's talking about, who are not looking to change mainstream culture to suit them, but are looking for equal rights for themselves. ie: Gay rights. In effect, when you take apart his construed argument, he implies that he's 'all for' gay rights as long as they are not equal rights. Which is not 'all for'. That is prejudice, and is both misleading - using poor and actually false arguments to sway people in to an inflammatory point of view. A good editor will spot that, and it should not be allowed in an ethical newspaper. Particularly if the arguments are being used against a minority.

Given that you are probably still a bit upset about this article (which is perfectly fine, obviously), I'll overlook this racist slur and sweeping remark on 'people just like me' (hello, prejudice?!?) on someone you've never met.

Moving on, you trot out the equality argument, the 'equal rights' argument. You talk about black people being discriminated against, putting the 'denial' of being granted the rights to the institution of marriage with the genuine hardship and extreme persecution endured by blacks over centuries of slavery and intolerance. For real like? And before you say that 'gays haven't been persecuted, and aren't being persecuted'? - of course I recognise that this happens, and is very wrong.

But the reason that comparing blacks being denied marriage rights with gays being denied marriage rights is wrong (and quite possibly grossly insulting to blacks/racial minorities), is that denying it to blacks is racism, but denying it to gay people is down to the fact that marriage is for one woman, one man!

Newsite

RiseToMe wrote: »

Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

And no, clearly not those countries.

Typo - I meant 'person writes article which may lead to someone's opinion being influenced, shock horror?!

Sonics2k

Newsite, just stop.

This won't end well for anyone, and will probably get you some form of ban.

You're entitled to your beliefs, as are others, so just let it go.

If people choose to rant and bitch and give out about homophobia, then let them. It doesn't affect you.

Meesared

Sonics2k wrote: »

Newsite, just stop.

This won't end well for anyone, and will probably get you some form of ban.

You're entitled to your beliefs, as are others, so just let it go.

If people choose to rant and bitch and give out about homophobia, then let them. It doesn't affect you.

Thank you, some logic at last, I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, as it probably would have ended in my getting an infraction.

Annasopra

Newsite wrote: »

Guys, your reaction is on the level of someone advocating the extermination of an ethnic group.

Infracted for attacking other posters

RiseToMe

Newsite wrote: »

Typo - I meant 'person writes article which may lead to someone's opinion being influenced, shock horror?!

Fine by me, all articles influence somebodies opinion, however, influencing somebody to buy or not to buy a piece of technology or what restaurants are good, in comparison to having people influenced by this frankly offensive and almost homophobic article, are worlds apart.

Newsite

mango salsa wrote: »

Infracted for attacking other posters

Hi Mango Salsa,

Can you let me know here or via PM where I attacked other posters. My quote clearly referred to 'the reaction' of posters, and nowhere on thread did anyone comment on this.

'Attack the post, not the poster' is what I did, as per Boards.ie guidelines.

If you let me know where I attacked posters and not the first few posts let me know. Not seeking to insult anyone.

Cheers!

Newsite

RiseToMe wrote: »

Fine by me, all articles influence somebodies opinion, however, influencing somebody to buy or not to buy a piece of technology or what restaurants are good, in comparison to having people influenced by this frankly offensive and almost homophobic article, are worlds apart.

Is expressing an opinion on principle that marriage is for one woman and one man equal to homophobia? How can the journalist express their opinion then?

What I will say is that the language used in the article is somewhat clumsy, but let's not go down an ultra-PC road (or further down it).

Newsite

Sonics2k wrote: »

Newsite, just stop.

This won't end well for anyone, and will probably get you some form of ban.

You're entitled to your beliefs, as are others, so just let it go.

If people choose to rant and bitch and give out about homophobia, then let them. It doesn't affect you.

So only opinions which fall in line with the PC, liberal majority are allowed? Everyone else needs to 'just stop'?

I'm not here to insult anyone, but this man voiced a very legitimate opinion, and he is entitled to it. Why is it that when someone declares their opinion that marriage should be for a man and a woman only, that they are immediately labelled as homophobic and prejudiced?

Genuine q like!

Sonics2k

Newsite wrote: »

Is expressing an opinion on principle that marriage is for one woman and one man equal to homophobia? How can the journalist express their opinion then?

What I will say is that the language used in the article is somewhat clumsy, but let's not go down an ultra-PC road (or further down it).

Here's an update for you.

Marriage has little to do with it, it's just a media focus and "Hot button" for a lot of people.

What gay couples want is equality, fully and completely, to match those of heterosexual couples in legal relationships.

As it currently stands, inheritance rights under the current Civil Partnership are extremely limited, and un-equal to those in a straight marraige.

All that's being asked for is basic equality between Heterosexual people (such as myself) and Homosexual people in terms of legal rights.

Is it so much to ask for, that a gay couple who have been in a loving, caring relationship for over 20 years, cannot legally pass on their property to eachother, and can't even become legally recognised as joint-parents to a child.

Newsite

Sonics2k wrote: »

Here's an update for you.

Marriage has little to do with it, it's just a media focus and "Hot button" for a lot of people.

If that's truly the case, well then shame on the Sindo.

Sonics2k wrote: »

What gay couples want is equality, fully and completely, to match those of heterosexual couples in legal relationships.

As it currently stands, inheritance rights under the current Civil Partnership are extremely limited, and un-equal to those in a straight marraige.

All that's being asked for is basic equality between Heterosexual people (such as myself) and Homosexual people in terms of legal rights.

Is it so much to ask for, that a gay couple who have been in a loving, caring relationship for over 20 years, cannot legally pass on their property to eachother, and can't even become legally recognised as joint-parents to a child.

Well then, as I've said, why not campaign for greater rights under civil partnership?

Sonics2k

Newsite wrote: »

So only opinions which fall in line with the PC, liberal majority are allowed? Everyone else needs to 'just stop'?

I'm not here to insult anyone, but this man voiced a very legitimate opinion, and he is entitled to it. Why is it that when someone declares their opinion that marriage should be for a man and a woman only, that they are immediately labelled as homophobic and prejudiced?

Genuine q like!

My advice was simple, this is an LGBT forum for people to discuss the matters at hand. It's also a privately owned forum, so you're freedom of speech is virtually non-existent on this subforum.

You could always post in the After Hours thread, which is frankly, more suited to debating the topic, but not here where people will take offence.

I love a good debate, but trust me when I say this is not the forum for it on this particular topic.

Sonics2k

Newsite wrote: »

If that's truly the case, well then shame on the Sindo.



Well then, as I've said, why not campaign for greater rights under civil partnership?

People are campaigning.

What holds it back are people like the writer of this article that spreads nonsense and lies, which unfortunately people will believe because it's in the paper.

@mods, my apologies if I've gone too offtopic.
Newsite, I'll only discuss this further on p.m. so we don't send it more offtopic.

Annasopra

Newsite If you have any questions or comments about moderation you should ALWAYS send them by pm. The charter is very clear on this. Your behaviour on this thread is skating on very thin ice. Again I will not discuss this warning in the thread.

Newsite

Sonics2k wrote: »

My advice was simple, this is an LGBT forum for people to discuss the matters at hand. It's also a privately owned forum, so you're freedom of speech is virtually non-existent on this subforum.

You could always post in the After Hours thread, which is frankly, more suited to debating the topic, but not here where people will take offence.

I did post in AH. And I'm not here to incite anything or provoke anyone. I'm here to voice a point of view in a respectful way, which I have been doing.

Sonics2k wrote: »

I love a good debate, but trust me when I say this is not the forum for it on this particular topic.

What you're saying here is that 'anyone who disagrees with you isn't welcome'. Would that be a fair assertion?

I've spent the past week or so posting on a thread in Christianity ('David Quinn and...'), where various folks who are non-Christian have been taking potshots and throwing insults, without engaging in debate (which I am patently doing). They are merely there to trot out their own opinion. With that in mind, are you really saying I shouldn't be here?

I'm a Christian, and I'm also concerned about the rise of the PC society. I have zero, zilch, nada against gay people as people, and it's a sad indictment of society that people on this forum might automatically jump to the conclusion that the opposite is the case, simply given that my opinion doesn't line up with the prevailing one on here.

Untense

Newsite wrote: »

Given that you are probably still a bit upset about this article (which is perfectly fine, obviously), I'll overlook this racist slur and sweeping remark on 'people just like me' (hello, prejudice?!?) on someone you've never met.

It shouldn't be hard to overlook the racist slur, since there was none. Unless you mean saying 'blacks' is a racist slur. The sweeping remark on 'people just like you' is an accurate one - when I say people just like you, I mean people who were using your arguments and holding a similar 'position' in terms of progress and equality. There were people who opposed equal rights for others throughout the ages, using similar arguments as you did:

.... denying it to gay people is down to the fact that marriage is for one woman, one man!

"Marriage is for one white woman, one white man!", "Marriage is down to one woman, one man - till death do they part!


But aside from that, I think many gays would be happy to have 'civil partnership' hold equal rights to marriage. At the moment it does not, which is why it's not enough for many and why they are unhappy.

Moving on, you trot out the equality argument, the 'equal rights' argument.

A valid one, since this is about equal rights: at the moments gay people don't have equal rights.

You talk about black people being discriminated against, putting the 'denial' of being granted the rights to the institution of marriage with the genuine hardship and extreme persecution endured by blacks over centuries of slavery and intolerance. For real like?

You've mistaken my point. My point has nothing to do with the degree of suffering or hardship gays have had compared to blacks, but was to do with unequal rights in marriage for black people, which is as legitimate and analogous for comparison as other forms of inequality. This is not to see who is suffering more, but simply about equal rights before the law. Gay people don't have equal rights in marriage/civil partnership before the law, because the civil partnership bill does not give equal rights.

In terms of equality, (and not degrees or severity of oppression) black people were discriminated against in regards to the institution of marriage, and so are gay people today. With similar arguments presented.

And before you say that 'gays haven't been persecuted, and aren't being persecuted'? - of course I recognise that this happens, and is very wrong.

This isn't about persecution but about inequality, which is very straight forward and can be looked at rationally without drawing emotional ideas in to it.

But the reason that comparing blacks being denied marriage rights with gays being denied marriage rights is wrong

It's quite legitimately analogous. There was a time when blacks were denied marriage with eachother, because at that time black people were not considered equal. It is for the same reason that gay marriage is not allowed today.

(and quite possibly grossly insulting to blacks/racial minorities)

To find out if that assertion was true, you would need to go around and speak with every black person or racial minority in the world, and ask them their opinion. For it to be true, it would require every last person you spoke with to agree that it was insulting. But regardless of whether every black person or person of ethnic minority on the planet found it insulting, the analogy I made would still be valid.

is that denying it to blacks is racism, but denying it to gay people is down to the fact that marriage is for one woman, one man!

Actually, the reason given for why blacks shouldn't marry was not that 'it was racism'. If you asked white people why they didn't want blacks to marry, they would not have said, "oh, because we're racist!". They would have said, "Because that's the way it's supposed to be." Or, "one white man, one white woman!". Back then it wasn't called racism, it was 'how it is supposed to be'.

To give you more perspective, here is a quotation given by a judge in a trial of an interacial married couple in the USA, who were convicted and sentenced to prison for one year:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Basically, the argument used by this judge to punish this couple for marriage, was that "that's the way it's supposed to be".

Races were 'put' on different continents so therefore they shouldn't mix. Today we would find this argument archaic and simply wrong. Most people today would be offended at the idea that people of different races could not date, or marry or have children together.
In comparison, today it seems odd to many that a woman would want to couple with a woman, because women shouldn't like women. Because a man is for a woman, and a woman is for a man. Right?

You have exactly the same thing going on now, because it is never about race, or sexuality, or whatever: it is about fixed, unquestioned ideas of what should or should not happen, that are found to simply be untrue and a bit silly when you look at them.

Untense

Newsite wrote: »

I'm not here to insult anyone, but this man voiced a very legitimate opinion, and he is entitled to it.
Genuine q like!

He is entitled to his opinion, and I defend his right to say whatever he wants to say.

I don't think that's why people are upset. We have all heard these opinions in the pub, or on the street. But this is a newspaper which, while also entitled to free speech, has some basic standards it is expected to uphold, including not inciting hatred or causing offense to minorities.

Principle 8 − Prejudice

Newspapers and magazines shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

They published a very inflammatory opinion on a paper, which means it will be regarded with some sort of 'weight' or authority by many readers. When things are published on media, it is legitimised in the minds of many people. He has every right to have his opinions, but his opinions are factually incorrect starting from the headline, and in fact almost every paragraph is misleading and/or misinformed. Including his citations which are basically quotes of other people's misinformed opinions used to back his own misinformed opinions.

Newsite

Untense wrote: »

It shouldn't be hard to overlook the racist slur, since there was none. Unless you mean saying 'blacks' is a racist slur. The sweeping remark on 'people just like you' is an accurate one - when I say people just like you, I mean people who were using your arguments and holding a similar 'position' in terms of progress and equality. There were people who opposed equal rights for others throughout the ages, using similar arguments as you did:


"Marriage is for one white woman, one white man!", "Marriage is down to one woman, one man - till death do they part!


But aside from that, I think many gays would be happy to have 'civil partnership' hold equal rights to marriage. At the moment it does not, which is why it's not enough for many and why they are unhappy.


A valid one, since this is about equal rights: at the moments gay people don't have equal rights.



You've mistaken my point. My point has nothing to do with the degree of suffering or hardship gays have had compared to blacks, but was to do with unequal rights in marriage for black people, which is as legitimate and analogous for comparison as other forms of inequality. This is not to see who is suffering more, but simply about equal rights before the law. Gay people don't have equal rights in marriage/civil partnership before the law, because the civil partnership bill does not give equal rights.

In terms of equality, (and not degrees or severity of oppression) black people were discriminated against in regards to the institution of marriage, and so are gay people today. With similar arguments presented.



This isn't about persecution but about inequality, which is very straight forward and can be looked at rationally without drawing emotional ideas in to it.



It's quite legitimately analogous. There was a time when blacks were denied marriage with eachother, because at that time black people were not considered equal. It is for the same reason that gay marriage is not allowed today.


To find out if that assertion was true, you would need to go around and speak with every black person or racial minority in the world, and ask them their opinion. For it to be true, it would require every last person you spoke with to agree that it was insulting. But regardless of whether every black person or person of ethnic minority on the planet found it insulting, the analogy I made would still be valid.


Actually, the reason given for why blacks shouldn't marry was not that 'it was racism'. If you asked white people why they didn't want blacks to marry, they would not have said, "oh, because we're racist!". They would have said, "Because that's the way it's supposed to be." Or, "one white man, one white woman!". Back then it wasn't called racism, it was 'how it is supposed to be'.

To give you more perspective, here is a quotation given by a judge in a trial of an interacial married couple in the USA, who were convicted and sentenced to prison for one year:


Basically, the argument used by this judge to punish this couple for marriage, was that "that's the way it's supposed to be".

Races were 'put' on different continents so therefore they shouldn't mix. Today we would find this argument archaic and simply wrong. Most people today would be offended at the idea that people of different races could not date, or marry or have children together.
In comparison, today it seems odd to many that a woman would want to couple with a woman, because women shouldn't like women. Because a man is for a woman, and a woman is for a man. Right?

You have exactly the same thing going on now, because it is never about race, or sexuality, or whatever: it is about fixed, unquestioned ideas of what should or should not happen, that are found to simply be untrue and a bit silly when you look at them.

You said that 'people like me' would have opposed marriage based on race grounds 'back then'. So what you're saying is that my Christian belief now that marriage is man+woman would equate to my being racist back then. Agree?

The reason you can't equate the two is because not approving a marriage between a black person and a white person is racism. It's wrong because you have no grounds for not approving it. But based on the belief that God created marriage for a man and woman together, it's perfectly right and just not to approve it for same sex couples.

So - not prejudicial, just standing up and defending our belief that marriage is for one man, one woman, for life.

Untense

Newsite wrote: »

You said that 'people like me' would have opposed marriage based on race grounds 'back then'. So what you're saying is that my Christian belief now that marriage is man+woman would equate to my being racist back then. Agree?

No, I don't agree. I didn't know you were Christian, when I said 'people like you', I meant people with your particular argument would have used the same type of argument against inter-racial marriages back then. That still stands as I had originally meant it.

The reason you can't equate the two is because not approving a marriage between a black person and a white person is racism. It's wrong because you have no grounds for not approving it.

Yes, we see it as wrong today. Though had you lived 90 years ago, you would likely have agreed with that US judge when he imprisoned the inter-racial couple with the reason that, 'God put people of different races on different continents for a reason.'

But based on the belief that God created marriage for a man and woman together, it's perfectly right and just not to approve it for same sex couples.

If you believe in your particular God, but that is why the State is to be separated from Religion. I don't think you would like to have to obey Sharia law, or have Viking law imposed upon you by the state you live in. Since you don't believe in those particular ideologies. By what right should others be permitted to force those beliefs on you.

Equally, nobody is going to stop you from believing that there is a God, and you are entitled to believe that this god created marriage for a man and a woman. But those are personal beliefs, which ideally in democracy should have no bearing on law and equality, they were designed to be separate.

If you can separate your personal beliefs from law, as you might distinguish Sharia law from our own, you cannot argue that at the moment there is a legal inequality. Even if your reason for supporting that inequality still stands.

So - not prejudicial, just standing up and defending our belief that marriage is for one man, one woman, for life.

Whether you think it a good thing or not, it is still prejudice based on a belief. Prejudice is defined as, 'Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.'

Religion by its very nature is not based on reason. And clearly you do not have experience of these matters either. But since you've brought up that your point of view is based on the fact you're Christian, this discussion can go no further without going even further off topic. Let's leave it at that.

Newsite

Untense wrote: »

No, I don't agree. I didn't know you were Christian, when I said 'people like you', I meant people with your particular argument would have used the same type of argument against inter-racial marriages back then. That still stands as I had originally meant it.

K fair enough, sorry. I was jumping the gun a bit there with that comment. Besides, I wasn't offended Apologies.

Untense wrote: »

Yes, we see it as wrong today. Though had you lived 90 years ago, you would likely have agreed with that US judge when he imprisoned the inter-racial couple with the reason that, 'God put people of different races on different continents for a reason.'

No. For the reason that I would have seen through what the judge was saying and would have recognised his opinion for what it was - racist. There is no basis for his argument in Scripture.

Untense wrote: »

If you believe in your particular God, but that is why the State is to be separated from Religion. I don't think you would like to have to obey Sharia law, or have Viking law imposed upon you by the state you live in. Since you don't believe in those particular ideologies. By what right should others be permitted to force those beliefs on you.

Equally, nobody is going to stop you from believing that there is a God, and you are entitled to believe that this god created marriage for a man and a woman. But those are personal beliefs, which ideally in democracy should have no bearing on law and equality, they were designed to be separate.

If you can separate your personal beliefs from law, as you might distinguish Sharia law from our own, you cannot argue that at the moment there is a legal inequality. Even if your reason for supporting that inequality still stands.

Ok, I was unclear. I don't mean 'approve' in the sense of a legal approval - I mean it in the sense that I couldn't approve of gay marriage, and my opinion is reflected in such.

Untense wrote: »

Whether you think it a good thing or not, it is still prejudice based on a belief. Prejudice is defined as, 'Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.'

Religion by its very nature is not based on reason. And clearly you do not have experience of these matters either. But since you've brought up that your point of view is based on the fact you're Christian, this discussion can go no further without going even further off topic. Let's leave it at that.

As per the above.

Slang_Tang

foggy_lad wrote: »

Marriage to me will always involve a man and a woman so how can i as a gay man get married? If I wanted the right to get married I would see about having myself straightened out:) but I do believe that a civil partnership should include all the same legal and hereditry rights etc as hetrosexual marriage

No, the Christian concept of marriage involves a man and a woman.

Marriage has a rich and varied history, one that pre-dates Christianity. Same-sex unions have existed in various forms for centuries. If you're not a practising Christian, you need to re-think why marriage should be limited to a man and woman.

Some bedtime reading: John Boswell, Same-Sex Union in Pre-Modern Europe.

CrystalLettuce

Cavehill Red wrote: »

"Extreme prejudice"? Really?
If this is what you consider extreme prejudice, how do you describe the criminalisation of homosexuality or gay bashing?

He is writing off gays as promiscuous, fringe practitioners of weird sex. You do know what "Prejudice" MEANS right?

And I would describe those as unquestionably immoral.

Why does foggy_lad even post here? If someone mades an ignorant post, you can be sure to see his name in the "thanks from" field.

CrystalLettuce

Newsite wrote: »

So only opinions which fall in line with the PC, liberal majority are allowed? Everyone else needs to 'just stop'?

Poor oppressed you, able to marry the person you love and avail of a lengthy list of privileges?

And stop falling back on "PC" as an excuse for comments that would be considered bad regardless.

In this context, the conceit that “political correctness” constitutes a violation of free speech is particularly zany; as though society’s marginalized groups wield oppressive power over the dominant mainstream. Actually, as far as I’m concerned you’re free to call me “chink” and I’m free to call you “racist loser” (and more if necessary, but I’ll leave that aside for now in the interest of false civility). Free speech is the straw man of choice for intellectual bums of all stripes too fragile and vacuous for critical engagement. Calling someone who says or does bigoted things “a bigot” isn’t censorious, it’s descriptively accurate, like calling a bad movie “a bad movie”, even if the bigot didn’t intend to come off as bigoted and the movie didn’t intend to come off as bad.

http://zuky.tumblr.com/post/2827066832

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that people who rail against Politically Correct speech are those who do not want to have to be polite or civil to folks different from them. They see nothing wrong with using the language they grew up with or that they’ve come to use. They do not care if the language they use is hurtful to others because, after all, the most important thing is that they get to do what they want when they want. This is the prevailing attitude of people with privilege.

http://theangryblackwoman.com/2007/04/12/in-defense-of-political-correctness/

It's about civility. Normally if someone is uncivil, rude, vicious or cruel, we call them on it. But if they're uncivil, rude, vicious or cruel towards a member of a marginalised group, we cannot say anything for fear of being accused of thought control via the "PC Brigade". Which is ironically the kind of nonsense anti-PC types would claim to oppose.

jaffacakesyum

Newsite wrote: »

K fair enough, sorry. I was jumping the gun a bit there with that comment. Besides, I wasn't offended Apologies.




No. For the reason that I would have seen through what the judge was saying and would have recognised his opinion for what it was - racist. There is no basis for his argument in Scripture.



Ok, I was unclear. I don't mean 'approve' in the sense of a legal approval - I mean it in the sense that I couldn't approve of gay marriage, and my opinion is reflected in such.



As per the above.

Ah, so now we are getting somewhere. This is the crux of the matter:

You are perfectly entitled to personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and there are no exceptions. However, seeing as state and religion are/should be separate, you can offer no logical reason to deny gay couples equal rights.

Basically if you came out and said "Listen, due to personal religious beliefs of mine, I believe gay people marrying is immoral and I don't agree with it. However, this is just my personal belief and I recognise that people of other beliefs, race, creed etc. might feel differently. Seeing as religion and state are separate, gay couples should of course be allowed to marry and have equal rights to heterosexuals, even though I don't believe it is moral, personally"

If you said that I - and most gay people I think* - would have no issue. It's this superiority attitude that "I am Christian. The Bible says this. Therefore law should be obeyed according to God's word"

CrystalLettuce

Newsite wrote: »

I'm not here to insult anyone, but this man voiced a very legitimate opinion, and he is entitled to it. Why is it that when someone declares their opinion that marriage should be for a man and a woman only, that they are immediately labelled as homophobic and prejudiced?

Genuine q like!

Also, just because you agree with it doesn't mean it's "Legitimate". In what way is it valid or legitimate? None of it is based in reality at all or any real first hand experience. Nobody involved with LGBTs in a serious capacity will tell you any of it bears true. It is abstract from reality. It is not "legitimate".

Cavehill Red

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and there are no exceptions. However, seeing as state and religion are/should be separate, you can offer no logical reason to deny gay couples equal rights.

Sorry to interject, but this is something I've often wondered about: is there an entitlement under equality for example to refer to gay sex as vaginal penetration? Would denying the use of the term 'vaginal penetration' to male gay couples be prejudicial?
Because this is culturally and historically how the term 'marriage' is seen by a large segment of society, and that is perfectly understandable given the trajectory of history.
It's for that reason that I don't entirely comprehend the picking of an argument over the terminology. Argue the 100 differences between civil partnership and marriage for sure. But why seek to co-opt the word that has a distinct hetero meaning? That's clearly antagonistic.
I'd be more inclined to secure the equality rather than the terminology.

CrystalLettuce

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Sorry to interject, but this is something I've often wondered about: is there an entitlement under equality for example to refer to gay sex as vaginal penetration? Would denying the use of the term 'vaginal penetration' to male gay couples be prejudicial?

Vaginal penetration describes two physical things that have meaning outside of this context. Marriage does not refer to a pre-existing physical object and you have already been told the definition of marriage has differed throughout history and chosen to ignore it.

It is a ridiculous comparison. The reason it should be called "marriage" is that to refuse to do so, is acknowledging heterosexual love is somehow "Inferior" to homosexual love. Marriage is seen by most(until they decide to enter into an argument about gay marriage and are homophobes that is) as a seal of love & commitment. Lack of gay marriage propagates the idea that gays are promiscuous, deviant and cannot share the same level of emotional bond. This is why even if it was just an issue of name(which it isn't), that it's still an issue. The only acceptable alternative to "marriage" would be something that socially, has the same weight as it. But there isn't anything.

Why should someone even bother engaging someone so intellectually dishonest as yourself? This is my main concern here.

jaffacakesyum

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Sorry to interject, but this is something I've often wondered about: is there an entitlement under equality for example to refer to gay sex as vaginal penetration? Would denying the use of the term 'vaginal penetration' to male gay couples be prejudicial?
Because this is culturally and historically how the term 'marriage' is seen by a large segment of society, and that is perfectly understandable given the trajectory of history.
It's for that reason that I don't entirely comprehend the picking of an argument over the terminology. Argue the 100 differences between civil partnership and marriage for sure. But why seek to co-opt the word that has a distinct hetero meaning? That's clearly antagonistic.
I'd be more inclined to secure the equality rather than the terminology.

I have no idea what you're getting at with denying the term 'vaginal penetration' to male gay couples. How on earth would denying that be prejudicial seeing as it is biologically impossible for two men to have vaginal sex

As for picking arguements over terminology, I actually agree with you that the differences between civil partnership and marriage are the main issue here and not nitpicking with terminology.

However, why should marriage have a distinct hetero meaning?? This is a civil marriage we're talking about. Why on earth should gay couples not be allowed to have a civil marriage, if you are supporting full equal rights and civil partnership, as implied by your post

Why can't a man get down on one knee and propose and ask his boyfriend to marry him? Why should he have to say 'will you civil partnership me'

Cavehill Red

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Vaginal penetration describes two physical things that have meaning outside of this context. Marriage does not refer to a pre-existing physical object and you have already been told the definition of marriage has differed throughout history and chosen to ignore it.

Why should someone even bother engaging someone so intellectually dishonest as yourself? This is my main concern here.

Actually, nobody's told me any such thing. You've failed entirely to engage with my point, which is that the factual reality that vaginal penetration cannot be used as a descriptor of male gay sex is correlative to the heteronormative concept of marriage in our culture.

I would like you to either attempt to justify the unfounded allegation of intellectual dishonesty or else withdraw it. You may find you are unable to justify it.