A little bit of extreme prejudice for your Sunday

Cavehill Red

wonderfulname wrote: »

Go on, show me how.

I already did. It contradicts the extant meaning of the terminology. It's akin to demanding the right to describe a gay sex act as 'vaginal penetration' because not to do so would be 'prejudicial'. Well, on the one hand if you feel it's prejudicial if you can't call it vaginal penetration, then it is, at least to you. On the other hand, it will seem a contradiction in terms to many other people, and will reduce your argument for equality by equating the equality demand with a risible category error. Which is why I insist it's the RIGHTS not the terminology that matter.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Or divorce, or interfaith, interracial, civil, open, shotgun, convenience... I could go on.

Well, we could get boring about history here, but pretty much all of those forms of marriage existed in different societies going back a very long time (apart from the shotgun one, which presumably required the invention of the shotgun first.)

wonderfulname wrote: »

Already countered, no need to repeat yourself. I don't disagree with you.

In which case, you presumably accept that a gay relationship isn't identical to a straight relationship? It's equal but different? Hence why can't it have equal rights and a different term, one all of its own, redolent of the culture from which it stems? This is 99% of the problem, I believe - the fact that there is no accepted gay term for a long-term relationship which could substitute for marriage.

wonderfulname wrote: »

I'm not convinced you know what a discussion is, for starters, twisting my point beyond all recognition and throwing it back at me does not qualify.

Nor does misrepresenting my argument. I guess we're back at square one. Is this where you say I'm prejudiced and dishonest again?

wonderfulname wrote: »

Ritual? This is new, so you too are working off the religious definition of marriage, and not the legal agreement affording certain rights and responsibilities to couples?

No, I'm referring to the adoption not only of the hetero term but also the mimicking of hetero rituals. Why should gay people do the suit and white dress thing just because straight society does? Why not generate a gay format for celebrating the union of a couple? I'm delighted for those who make lifelong commitments to each other, but can't help cringing when they do the 'groom' and 'groom' thing. It's imitative. It's derivative. It suggests that homosexual relationships need to borrow legitimacy from the culture of heterosexual ones to be valid.

wonderfulname wrote: »

And the term relationship, lets get a new word for that and all, what about sex? I mean that one is actually somewhat different, that should definitely have a totally separate word, I mean god forbid people go to the effort of understanding polysemes.

Except those were always polysemes in the English language. Marriage as a term was not historically polysemic.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Yup, didn't understand that point in the slightest, I guess it must contradict your reality.

I'll take that as admission that you're not prepared to engage in a discussion until you can demonstrate otherwise.

wonderfulname

murraykil wrote: »

I am unsure about the difference between a civil union and a marriage, legally speaking.

If you're interested...

murraykil wrote: »

It is obvious discrimination if heterosexual unions are performed in a registry office and it gets to be called a marriage, while a homosexual union in the same office is distinguished as a civil union. Is there any difference between them legally, other than the legal title?

There are differences, as in the above link, but your point is still valid, as you may have noticed from this thread there are two different schools of thought on what constitutes equality.

murraykil wrote: »

I would be surprised if any study could show that a homosexual couple would be less suitable than a heterosexual couple to adopt a child if they met what should be strict criteria for being eligible.

You're right in your assumption, none of them do.

murraykil wrote: »

The marriage thing, I don't really get; I don't think it's the place of the state to tell any religion or church that they must let homosexual marriages in the church,

Don't worry, they won't, freedom of religion is as important as any equality.

murraykil wrote: »

It is probably teens like this kid who suffer most from the distinctions made between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and media articles like this are an attempt to keep some distinctions in place a while longer.

Yes, most certainly, especially when for some what they see in the media is all the information they get regarding perceptions on sexuality.

murraykil

Cavehill Red, how, in the rest of what I hope will be a long and happy life for you, will it matter to you one bit or effect you one bit if homosexual couples can get married?

This is what I really don't understand about people who object to it, I for one don't see how I can object to something which I cannot see having a negative affect on anyone, especially me!

There are plenty of negative things in society which you could spend your time objecting to if you fear for the future of yourself of your children.

Health care, education, crime . . .

Plautus

You know, the sting in this article was in the tail - I think.

Up until then, he's labouring under the illusion that David Quinn et al. just want heterosexual parenting to be accorded token primacy. Quinn was falling over himself to be so reasonable in the face of Bacik's harpy like cries to upend the natural order.

Except, that isn't Iona's position much at all - they don't want homosexual parenting to be given its own explicit legal framework or protection for fear of encouraging it. The children would surely suffer for this desire by 'the gays' to acquire kids as mere baubles of fashion and status. Gays almost never have any sincere desire to parent. They're just playing house; they'll get bored (for 'the gays' are fickle) and the kids will turn out haywire.

And, predictably, apart from breast-feeding (sure, aren't there benefits to that - but what mother is obligated to breast-feed? mine didn't) he hasn't exactly moved us far beyond naturalistic fallacy and 'in my gut, with the lads down the pub, I know a kid raised by gays is a wrong'un. Lib-rul Meeja, PC-police, rah rah.'

That's nothing spectacular. Just how boring are his comments tarring everyone who is gay as promiscuous without heed to the fact that if I'm straight I can have an active sex life, and/or have slept around back in my youth (and have access to sex-chat lines and prostitutes too) and it won't be used against the peer group, let alone me, if I want to have children.

---

What is actually the really insulting bit is the offhand comment toward the end about LGBT encompassing bisexuals and transgender issues. He seems to think that bisexuality is some kind of 70s-style free love experimentation and has done all but call it 'selfish', implying it is mere indecisiveness and not a 'proper' sexuality. We've 'broadened out' by including it, i.e. we're diluting our issue base by including a fake sexuality. It's clear-cut biphobia, however much the rest of the article can claim to be in a grey area.

Meanwhile, Transgender people on the board can tell us themselves what they think about someone saying you don't belong in the tent.

---

Finally: the title of the piece. He seems to be inferring some kind of normative implication to being a minority. Abnormality, hence immorality. Do what you like in your own home, and I suppose we won't kill you or lock you up (thanks), but don't you dare ask for anything more than that. That's uppity, and it's really annoying all of us down the pub.

Feck off Eamonn.

CrystalLettuce

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Except you neither addressed my point, never mind 'debunked' it...

Yes, I did. I tackled it on every level I could. Just because I didn't concede your obnoxious, ridiculous and unnecessary point does not mean I did not address it.

First pause here - my analogy highlights this exact aspect of the gay marriage problematic - to many people it literally makes no sense because to them it is physically impossible for a gay couple to marry.

Marriage is not a "physical" concept but a metaphysical one. Invalidated. People who cannot physically have sex can still get married.

Whether or not it makes sense to them is irrelevant. Their lack of education should not dictate others' rights.

The historical definition for literally centuries is so heteronormative that the idea of gay marriage is akin to the idea of gay male vaginal penetration - a category error. This is hugely important for gay marriage activists to grasp. The opposition isn't prejudicial; it's definitional.

Again, - appeal to tradition. The history of gay marriage does not dictate whether or not it should exist now. It is a logical fallacy. And the definition itself of marriage has changed, and there have been homosexual unions in the past.

Also, if you're seriously telling me that the majority of people oppose gay marriage out of some honest intellectual, historical context you're either lying or delusional.

Firstly, see the paragraph above. Secondly, it is perfectly arguable that there is no need to adopt a heterocultural term to describe gay relationships at all.

What word would you suggest you use instead? The problem is that culturally, anything you use will draw attention to it being "different" to straight marriage.

The problem is you're making this distinction of gays being this "Other" when they're not. Gender itself is not a binary thing. There are intersex, transgenders etc. so you cannot draw this imaginary absolutist wall between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The love between those of the same sex is the same as the love between those of opposing sex. Bisexuals will tell you this. Homosexuals are not seeking to reinvent the wheel completely. Aside from Procreation which is not a constant, love between two people is roughly the same no matter their gender.

Your flawed way of thinking in of itself shows the importance of calling it "marriage".

In fact, some see it is restrictive, imitative, and limiting. This is, as no doubt you realise, a matter of some debate within the gay community.

No, it isn't.

It seems to me, given the lack of consensus within the gay community

You're just talking **** now. I'm an LGBT activist, I know very well how the gay community feels.

and the simple fact of historical continuity of the marriage concept coupled with opposition from heterosexuals who otherwise would support equality in all forms but the terminology, that the easiest method for resolving all of this would be to quit seeking to mimic hetero structures and self-define a term that encompassed the same RIGHTS (which is what ultimately is important) as heterosexual marriage. Anything else is needless provocation for the sake of it.

No, it isn't. I've explained to you a valid case for homosexuals trying to lay claim to the label of marriage, and you paint them as trouble makers instead of even accepting the possibility my reasoning is correct.

This is quickly teetering over the edge into outright homophobia.

And stop trying to look progressive by using words like "Heteronormative". It sounds like you're appropriating a lot of feminist rhetoric too substituting the values of a Patriarchy with "heteronormative" ones. I do not appreciate this. You are not one of us.

Rights is not just the issue for marginalised groups and never was - privileges are too. Even in countries with equal rights - heterosexuals have more privileges, more opportunities, more positive life experiences overall.

Actually, I think you called me intellectually dishonest simply because you didn't like the points I made nor did you understand them (at least in part.) But I'll forgive you this once.

Feck off.

CrystalLettuce

Can you please just drop your example and at least try to come up with a new one so I don't feel so f*cking ridiculous arguing with you? Please? Don't blame others for not being taken seriously if you use an example that fails on multiple counts. We're not saying you can't disagree or make an argument - just concede that point before we all go insane. Please.

Cavehill Red

murraykil wrote: »

Cavehill Red, how, in the rest of what I hope will be a long and happy life for you, will it matter to you one bit or effect you one bit if homosexual couples can get married?

This is what I really don't understand about people who object to it, I for one don't see how I can object to something which I cannot see having a negative affect on anyone, especially me!

Who said I objected? I'm trying to make what ought to be a very simple point here - the concept of equality has become inextricably entwined with a debate over terminology. This terminological demand is actively delaying and preventing the implementation of equal rights because it is perceived by sectors of society as provocative.
I've tried to explain why that is. It's not based on prejudice, at least not in many people's cases, since they would happily see the advent of equal rights without batting an eyelid. It seems to me counter-productive to insist on a heteronormative terminology which offends, given that doing so prevents the introduction of equality in areas that matter.

murraykil wrote: »

There are plenty of negative things in society which you could spend your time objecting to if you fear for the future of yourself of your children.
Health care, education, crime . . .

Because I'm not agreeing doesn't mean I'm automatically objecting. Rather, I'm trying to suggest that the response to the likes of the Delaney article or the opposition to gay marriage is oftentimes poorly constructed.

wonderfulname

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I already did. It contradicts the extant meaning of the terminology. It's akin to demanding the right to describe a gay sex act as 'vaginal penetration' because not to do so would be 'prejudicial'. Well, on the one hand if you feel it's prejudicial if you can't call it vaginal penetration, then it is, at least to you. On the other hand, it will seem a contradiction in terms to many other people, and will reduce your argument for equality by equating the equality demand with a risible category error. Which is why I insist it's the RIGHTS not the terminology that matter.

*Facepalm*, ref. posts 49,50,53,54,58, let it lie, you're not doing yourself any favours.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, we could get boring about history here, but pretty much all of those forms of marriage existed in different societies going back a very long time (apart from the shotgun one, which presumably required the invention of the shotgun first.)

What a wonderful witty remark, let me dissect that. You have equated a relatively modern word, and the most common usage of that word, with a considerably older act which now goes by the same name, I'd advise googling shotgun marriage. Can I trust you to apply this information to your assumptions on marriage?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

In which case, you presumably accept that a gay relationship isn't identical to a straight relationship? It's equal but different? Hence why can't it have equal rights and a different term, one all of its own, redolent of the culture from which it stems? This is 99% of the problem, I believe - the fact that there is no accepted gay term for a long-term relationship which could substitute for marriage.

The term "life partner" sickens me, you can have yours, but I'll go with wife thanks.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Nor does misrepresenting my argument. I guess we're back at square one. Is this where you say I'm prejudiced and dishonest again?

I never did, I guess that means I can now?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, I'm referring to the adoption not only of the hetero term but also the mimicking of hetero rituals. Why should gay people do the suit and white dress thing just because straight society does? Why not generate a gay format for celebrating the union of a couple? I'm delighted for those who make lifelong commitments to each other, but can't help cringing when they do the 'groom' and 'groom' thing. It's imitative. It's derivative. It suggests that homosexual relationships need to borrow legitimacy from the culture of heterosexual ones to be valid.

It's also personal, it's not what is being campaigned for, it is not what is meant by the word "marriage", personally I don't want it, I just want the marriage cert thanks, I don't even want some new fangled ritual especially for the gheys, just the right to marry, it's kind of all that is important.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Except those were always polysemes in the English language. Marriage as a term was not historically polysemic.

It is one now, using it for equally officially recognised same sex relationships (as is already being done elsewhere anyway) does not change that in the slightest, can you not grasp that language evolves?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'll take that as admission that you're not prepared to engage in a discussion until you can demonstrate otherwise.HMPH!

No, merely an observation, I am engaged in discussion with you, but that wasn't what I was talking about was it?

CrystalLettuce

The other problem with Cavehill Red's argument is that he wishes to enforce HIS definition of marriage on others. Gay Marriage being legally recognised does not change your right to disagree with the idea of Gay Marriage. However, gay marriage not being recognised in law means that LGBTs don't have access to THEIR marriage. There is no reason for definitions to stay static in that manner.

But it's when you phrase it like that that you realise it's not really about definitions at all - just being a prat.

murraykil

Cavehill Red wrote: »

...

Ok, sorry if I misunderstood you. Is your only objection so that the term marriage might be used to describe a legal union between a homosexual couple?

If that's the case I think that is even more ridiculous!

Marry, marriage, married etc. are words used to describe many types of unions, not just between people.

For example married is used in the airline industry to indicate flight segments which combine to make connecting flights. It's a very versatile word and very apt to describe a legal union between couples.

wonderfulname

murraykil wrote: »

For example married is used in the airline industry to indicate flight segments which combine to make connecting flights. It's a very versatile word and very apt to describe a legal union between couples.

If jebus is offended imagine how airbus feel :eek:

murraykil

wonderfulname wrote: »

If jebus is offended imagine how airbus feel :eek:

It could explain why the airline industry has taken such a knock! :pac:

marienbad

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

The other problem with Cavehill Red's argument is that he wishes to enforce HIS definition of marriage on others. Gay Marriage being legally recognised does not change your right to disagree with the idea of Gay Marriage. However, gay marriage not being recognised in law means that LGBTs don't have access to THEIR marriage. There is no reason for definitions to stay static in that manner.

But it's when you phrase it like that that you realise it's not really about definitions at all - just being a prat.

The main problem with Cavehill Red's argument , CrystalLettuce is you just don't recognise he has one. Your posts and those of wonderfulname are so infused with selfrighteousness you fail to see that the questions asked are those that most people who normally would'nt give a **** about this issue would like asked now that it has become an issue.

So you have a choice (a) stay up on your high horse and remain a victim
or (b) take people at face value and try to convince them of the fairness of the case. In certainly worked on me.

CrystalLettuce

marienbad wrote: »

The main problem with Cavehill Red's argument , CrystalLettuce is you just don't recognise he has one. Your posts and those of wonderfulname are so infused with selfrighteousness you fail to see that the questions asked are those that most people who normally would'nt give a **** about this issue would like asked now that it has become an issue.

So you have a choice (a) stay up on your high horse and remain a victim
or (b) take people at face value and try to convince them of the fairness of the case. In certainly worked on me.

The problem with THIS post is that it's made completely ignorant to the content of either person's posts. It's just the typical contrarian argument used by both conservatives and "feel good" Liberals & Centrists - the "It's just because you DISAGREE" type post that doesn't make a point at all.

I've already pointed out the enormous logical flaws in his "argument". I had the respect to do that instead of just screaming in his face or leveling a post at him that was pure ad hominem - which you are doing now. Attempting to make the argument about me instead of gay marriage.

How do you even quantify this "Self righteousness"? And isn't it a bit convenient that those defending marginalised groups are being accused of it? Just because not everyone has the patience for bigots you do doesn't mean we're wrong. Ironically you end up attacking the people who need the most defending more than those who challenge our rights in the first place!

Whether or not I'm "self righteous" doesn't make his argument any more valid anyway.

Why is it that people like you always sink to posting like this? The fact that you do shows the failure of (b) as you don't get it at all. The "remain a victim" thing is particularly disgusting, especially when LGBTs are far more likely to meet with genuine abuse. It's easy for you to defend gay marriage when convenient and then attack it's proponents because we actually dare to uphold intellectual principles in a debate.

As a supposed ally - you don't get to set the terms for what that means - we do. If you want to be supportive, that means not attacking people for standing up for themselves and their rights, criticising their methods without putting yourself in their shoes. I don't think anyone much here will agree you're a good ally after reading that post.

Annasopra

I have Infracted crystallettuce for personal attacks, cavehill red for Soapboxing on a point and refusing to listen to others, marienbad for personal attacks. Send me a pm with any questions or comments. This won't be discussed on thread.

apache

well jeez you guys really went to town on that opinion piece didn't yas :rolleyes:

stephen_n

An inherently right wing journalist, writes a piece to pander to inherently right wing people and in the process annoy a minority grouping and he succeeds. People like him thrive on the attention this sort of writing brings, it fills him with an unjustified sense of importance. The people that will accept his points as being valid already believe them anyway and I doubt he would influence anyone with the intelligence to see through his poor and shoddy excuse for journalism. The worst thing you can do to a bully is ignore them as it strips them of their power.

Barna77

Ah here we go again blahddy blahdy blah

I'm not bothered at all after reading it, I could even agree at some points. But people like to make a fuss about anything.

ninty9er wrote: »

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.

+1



On a side note.... can anyone explain me the connection between gay guys and the stupid moustache?? It's everywhere ffs!
Maybe I should become a scenester to understand it
:pac:

CrystalLettuce

stephen_n wrote: »

An inherently right wing journalist, writes a piece to pander to inherently right wing people and in the process annoy a minority grouping and he succeeds. People like him thrive on the attention this sort of writing brings, it fills him with an unjustified sense of importance. The people that will accept his points as being valid already believe them anyway and I doubt he would influence anyone with the intelligence to see through his poor and shoddy excuse for journalism. The worst thing you can do to a bully is ignore them as it strips them of their power.

A ridiculous oversimplification. The majority of Irish people wouldn't be knowledgeable of the paper or this man's political leaning or indeed about such matters in general.

My Dad is not "right wing", but he has been swayed by such ridiculous pieces against transsexuals in the past, and he would normally be an intelligent man.

Marginalized folks shouldn't always have to be "the bigger persons"Marginalized folks shouldn't always have to be "the bigger persons"

floggg

God, I can't read all this. No offence, but some of these arguments are ludicrous.

As for the whole vaginal intercourse/heteronormative thing - your argument is a little bit absurd. Essentially, because marriage has traditionally been associated with straight people, gay people can't meet societal expectations of what marriage is. Obviously it's associated with straight people. Gays have been excluded but that doesn't mean there is any reason to continue to exclude it.

If for the next 100 years only people with vaginas could vote, then you could rightly say men don't meet the cultural epectation of what a voter is, and thins should never be allowed vote.

Can anybody against gay marriage answer me this - how exactly would two gay men marrying affect you in anyway. and how would if differ in its impact if they were just civilly partnered. Because you can argue bibles, historical standards etc all day, but unless you can actually point to a reason why two gay people getting married would actually negatively impact you, then there is o reason to be against it.

Anyway, what I found most insulting about that article wasn't the marriage thing, because he's entitled to his opinion. It was the way gay people were seen as one single block of nefarious evil doers with a common agenda and platform, with depraved sex practices and unstoppable libidos Bisexuals were esentially dismissed as sluts. and we all have out there fashion tastes apparently.

It's not the politics of his argument that we should be offended about, it's the baseless and outdated cliches and stereotypes that he bases his views on.

L.Jenkins

Most are traditionalists and don't like to upset such an institution. I'm all for both Civil and Marriage, but why not work on drastically improving what we have at the moment to include the rights we currently don't have.

CrystalLettuce

apache wrote: »

well jeez you guys really went to town on that opinion piece didn't yas :rolleyes:

A deeply privileged remark to to make. You don't have to put up with "Opinion pieces" directed at YOUR sexuality, or at least your friends you learned that line from don't.

CrystalLettuce

Also, Marienbad(and everyone else) really needs to read this article -

http://www.whattamisaid.com/2009/09/marginalized-folks-shouldnt-always-have.html

It's not our duty to be the "bigger person".

stephen_n

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

A ridiculous oversimplification. The majority of Irish people wouldn't be knowledgeable of the paper or this man's political leaning or indeed about such matters in general.

My Dad is not "right wing", but he has been swayed by such ridiculous pieces against transsexuals in the past, and he would normally be an intelligent man.

ns"[/URL]

Your point is a contradiction of itself to be honest! Normally intelligent people do not read opinions of other people without question. It's normal for humans to first violently reject ideas or beliefs that run contrary to their own before being able to assimilate them or moderate their view point to accept them. If this is not the case then it suggests that the opinions concur with pre-existing ones even if they were not overtly expressed. There is nothing ridiculous about my statement at all the vehemence of your counter to it underlines my following point.

apache

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

A deeply privileged remark to to make. You don't have to put up with "Opinion pieces" directed at YOUR sexuality, or at least your friends you learned that line from don't.

err errr wrong!
i'm gay. lesbian. i hear it a lot as i am fully out. just because i agree with a few of his points is it because maybe i'm too "mainstreamed"? what do you think or maybe because i believe his arguments were done in a constructive manner? which is more than i can say of the drivel that was posted here!
hackles up straightaway.

the whole piece was worded badly. i think he is asking these questions out of frustration more than anything else. i don't believe he has an agenda. its from a straight guys point of view. these are the questions you will be asked. if you can't deal with them and get all offended the divide will only widen and we will undo all the good work that has been done. i certainly agree with him on that point!

glic71rods46t0

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

....How do you even quantify this "Self righteousness"? And isn't it a bit convenient that those defending marginalised groups are being accused of it? Just because not everyone has the patience for bigots you do doesn't mean we're wrong. Ironically you end up attacking the people who need the most defending more than those who challenge our rights in the first place!...

The concept of gay marriage and the follow on issues of parenting/adoption are about extending rights that don't currently exist.
Using language like "defending marginalised groups" or "challenge our rights in the first place" highlights a lot of what is wrong with the debate from the proponents side.
Honestly, reading such posts would make you think that the government had come along and steamrolled over existing rights and outlawed gay marriage!

Get some perspective on the debate. Its about extending rights which do not currently exist. Try to persuade the public as to why the rights should be extended!
The "tell me why these rights shouldn't be extended" style of debate is immature and politically, its a nonrunner. Time for the LGBT community to engage in mature political debate.

Annasopra

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

The concept of gay marriage and the follow on issues of parenting/adoption are about extending rights that don't currently exist.

No it's not - in the case of marriage it's about seeking equal rights. The right to marry exists already - proponents are looking for equal rights. In the areas of parenting and adoption it is much more complex. There is obviously no right to adopt but most LGBT activists would be calling fir the right to apply to adopt. Parenting of course has to take the rights of the child into account. It could certainly be argued that where a child is being raised by a same sex couple they should have a right to have a legal relationship to both parents.

glic71rods46t0

mango salsa wrote: »

No it's not - in the case of marriage it's about seeking equal rights. The right to marry exists already - proponents are looking for equal rights.

I referred to gay marriage. Of course the right to marry already exists - any gay person over the legal age can marry someone of the opposite sex. In what way does this further your point????????
I thought the issue at hand was gay marriage i.e. extending rights to include marrying someone of the same sex!

mango salsa wrote: »

In the areas of parenting and adoption it is much more complex. There is obviously no right to adopt but most LGBT activists would be calling fir the right to apply to adopt. Parenting of course has to take the rights of the child into account. It could certainly be argued that where a child is being raised by a same sex couple they should have a right to have a legal relationship to both parents.

I agree, its quite complex. Regarding the rights of the child, the problem is that in a same sex union, ther can only be, at most, 1 parent of the child.

The problem with gay marriage is that there would be a knock on effect on the legal definition of "family" and a host of constitutional rights and obligations. I think that this in itself would need to be debated with the involvement of constitutional experts

Annasopra

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

I referred to gay marriage. Of course the right to marry already exists - any gay person over the legal age can marry someone of the opposite sex. In what way does this further your point????????
I thought the issue at hand was gay marriage i.e. extending rights to include marrying someone of the same sex!

No it is not about extending anything. It is about seeking equal rights.

wonderfulname

mango salsa wrote: »

No it is not about extending anything. It is about seeking equal rights.

Calm down there mango, there's sense being spoke. There is a right to marry in this country already, no? We all have the right to marry, but there are terms and conditions about who we marry that don't quite suit us all, equal rights is getting those terms and conditions changed, hence extending the right to marry to include same sex relationships.

So you guys are both right, how awesome! Doesn't it make you all warm and fuzzy inside?