Poetry Forum

Full Version: British Lawmakers Approve Gay Marriage
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

rowens

Well they can stink in the right places. When you're in the mood, they could have under arm hair, don't matter. Under arm hair is a delicacy in France.

I am pretty sweet on Kate Middleton though. I just wish she was a bit more fleshy.

All of this might be inappropriate for a gay marriage thread. But this is what gay marriage makes me think of. So sue me.
(02-06-2013, 10:19 AM)benthejack Wrote: [ -> ]See its funny though, words are subjective. For a gay/lesbian couple marriage simply means a life-long commitment to each other. Religious folk like to add that it's "between a man and a woman". (similarly I'm sure certain folk would like add that it's between two similar coloured people if they had as much clout as the church.) Although words have definitions, they are often blurry and disputed, I say by all means the govt has a place to cement the definition in a way that makes for more freedom for those involved.

It's not just about the word though. My Mum moved to the US to live with her female partner; she had to go through 8 years of leaving the country every three months due to not being able to get a visa. If she was straight she would simply get married and hey presto be granted the rights of a straight person. But because she is a lesbian she gets sub human residency status. She is married now, but because it is a state by state law, it still isn't recognised by the govt. It is a matter close to gay people because it actually directly affects their lives in meaningful ways.
It's very sad that something so intensely personal requires government intervention -- and as Abu notes, the lobbyists can alienate certain elements of society who perhaps otherwise wouldn't have given it a second thought. It's also sad that the separation of Church and State, meant to be absolute, is a fair load of bollocks. And it's downright hypocritical for conservative politicians to oppose something we know most of them are doing behind closed doors anyway. I can only assume that their objection stems from the fact that they really get off on doing something a little bit naughty.

rowens

I don't think Jesus would mind a gay couple getting married. A lot of Catholics get downright old testament Jewish about these things.
Funnily enough... aside from my mum, who's an Olympic level bigot, every Catholic I've spoken to is in favour of or indifferent to the idea of gay marriage.

It's those uppity tightlaced Proddies who can't deal with it Hysterical

rowens

And ignorant Americans that have never read the Bible, and don't know a Baptist from a Eucharist, but just refuse to believe that they were evolved from monkeys like the darkies.
and say Jesus was a Christian Hysterical

rowens

There was only one Christian and he died on the cross. An Antichrist said that. Or antiChristian.


Poets are of the Devil's party. A poet said that.

And gays throw good parties. Sometimes they're awfully persuasive too.
(02-06-2013, 10:19 AM)benthejack Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 08:35 AM)abu nuwas Wrote: [ -> ]It is, I submit, as some MP said, a step into Alice in Wonderland. As of when does the government get to assignnew meanings to words? Can they say that gherkin means tomato? The United nations is henceforth 'arse'? Poetry is to be termed 'bollocks'? Really, do these little men have such power? Why have they been able to change the meaning, without quite knowing what they were changing it to? Why duck adultery? Is x to be know as 'husband' and 'y' to be known as 'wife'? Are people to be banned from enquiring whether a 'married' couple are husband and husband, or husband and wife? What on earth is the purpose? I realise that the gay lobby -- highly represented in the media, indeed over-represented -- feel a need to carry on campaigning for something-- but what is achieved? And what will the next great target be, which will be rammed down my throat day after fucking day?

No, I am not for it.

See its funny though, words are subjective. For a gay/lesbian couple marriage simply means a life-long commitment to each other. Religious folk like to add that it's "between a man and a woman". (similarly I'm sure certain folk would like add that it's between two similar coloured people if they had as much clout as the church.) Although words have definitions, they are often blurry and disputed, I say by all means the govt has a place to cement the definition in a way that makes for more freedom for those involved.

It's not just about the word though. My Mum moved to the US to live with her female partner; she had to go through 8 years of leaving the country every three months due to not being able to get a visa. If she was straight she would simply get married and hey presto be granted the rights of a straight person. But because she is a lesbian she gets sub human residency status. She is married now, but because it is a state by state law, it still isn't recognised by the govt. It is a matter close to gay people because it actually directly affects their lives in meaningful ways.


You cannot say that you speak for all gay people; I have just been listening to a man who is dead-set against it.

Nor can you say that gay people think that marriage means a life-long commitment. If they did, they would have nothing to be arguing about. But when was this idea that a long-term commitment meant marriage? I do not think it anything more than the latest step, and dreamed up fairly recently. Do you suppose Bosie thought he was married to Oscar?

As to your mum, I suppose she has the same chance of getting a green card as I do. I am not married. So is it unfair that I can't get in by the back-door?

You are talking about discrimination, and second-class citizens. I don't know if anything the British government can do will affect the US; forget that. But the country is littered with second-class citizens. Who? Well, let's see.

Suppose a person has a Polish mum, US Dad and is born here. They are certainly entitled to two passports, if not three. How is that important? Well, they can choose to play sport for different countries, which I could not have. That makes them privileged, right? Suppose they get in trouble in some other country, with which the UK does not have diplomatic relations, but the US does . They can avail themselves of the US Consular service--I cannot. More privilege, right? But I have skipped an important step: education. In this case, s/he has one extra GCSE/ A-Level in the bag, therefore better University chances, therefore better job. Serious privilege, eh? And in fact, there are many people from the Franco-phone Zone who speak, say, French and Arabic. Two in the bag. Do you ever hear people fighting to correct these imbalances and discriminations? Do you? Now I put it to you, that there are many more such pieces of unfairness than afflict the gay community.

I have also noted the curious case of the European Court of Human Rights. At back of any decision where there is an apparent clash between people's religious beliefs -enshrined in the Convention - there seems to be a simple principle, dragged up from nowhere, the gay trumps all. Why?

Now you have probably formed views about my real reasons for writing all this. Perhaps I am the devil you imagine, but, on here, we try to remain friendly, no matter what. Smile

(02-06-2013, 10:47 AM)rowens Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think Jesus would mind a gay couple getting married. A lot of Catholics get downright old testament Jewish about these things.

There is a bit in Timothy and Matthew about men not lying with men. That's more what you might call New Testament, I reckon. And you can say Jesus would have gone along with anything. Remember his view that he had not altered the Law by a jot or a tittle. Especially the tittle. Wink
Disagreeing doesn't make you devilish in the slightest, abu. At a very basic level this is an argument of semantics. I am not married either, for all sorts of reasons, but I refer to "my husband" regularly. We have the same legal standing as if we were married. We do get annoyed when people continually ask us when the wedding is. I suppose the biggest difference is, if we want to get married then we can.

I was married. Having a wedding most definitely did not make me feel as if everything was all ok. It was an unequal relationship and I certainly never felt it was the partnership that I have now. (It was all about the tittles Wink)

Much is made of the "sanctity of marriage". Much wrong has been excused by virtue of it "happening within a marriage". Will allowing marriage make people more committed? No. Will allowing marriage make everyone equal? No. Will allowing marriage rid relationships of fear, mistrust, resentment, infidelity, violence and pain? No.

But not allowing it doesn't make a whole lot of sense either, when the moral highground is most often occupied by a kind of lowlife.
I am making a post in this discussion although for the most part I think it is a total waste of time. (So I’ll make it a decent one and then shut up and go away). Most people don’t actually want to discuss the real issues. For the most part,… (with the exception of what Abu and Tectak posted – both of whom I applaud and thank for their ability to at least make objective and rational comments concerning what is under discussion),…so far I have only seen posts containing regurgitated, media generated (funded) suppositions. This is the nub of what is wrong with this discussion and the countless others that are fuelling this so called reform in my opinion. No one is prepared to actually discuss the real issues and the back agendas that are driving this supposed “equality” issue forward.
Once this process (or any other of similar import) is started where does it end? Should it now be Ok for all other, (even smaller) minority groups to have the ability to push sweeping legislation through that ignored the thoughts and opinions of the majority. How about allowing brother and sister to marry. Or what about a father to marry his daughter[s]. (See the bullet point below concerning the definable point on what would constitute consummated)
I need to stop before I go into a full on rant. This whole consultation and setting out of this policy has been a sham and profoundly undemocratic from start to current farce – not that the Uk is widely consider a democratic country as defined of many countries. Perhaps some of you would care to consider and discuss some of the following points in your discussion.
• The question must still be addressed of whether radically redefining a major public social institution is the correct means of overcoming attitudes of prejudice.
• The Civil Partnerships Act in 2004, principle aim was to “mirror as fully as possible the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by those who can marry, and that uses civil marriage as a template for the processes, rights and responsibilities that go with civil partnership.” The Civil Partnerships Act, in other words, has already delivered legal equality for same-sex relationships. That was its purpose.
What does extending marriage to same-sex couples add?
• Why is it not reasonable to exclude same-sex couples from the institution of marriage, given that marriage is a conjugal institution, one designed to encourage and foster the union of a man and a woman who have the possibility of begetting and rearing their natural children? (Our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage. Ie between a man and a woman)
• When these issues were being discussed recently advocates of gay / same sex marriage could not or would not speak of or offer any definition of just what would constitute the act of conjugal joining that would make the marriage “consummated” and thus hold water in any subsequent legal / court action of separation. So this has been pushed through to the next stage without a definition being given. If this is then played out to the ultimate conclusion, these to be newly “married” couples will therefore be above the law, in that they will be unable to be brought under the current charge that can be levied and sanctioned against heterosexual couples, this being adultery…. Of course this is no discriminatory or unjust towards those heterosexual couples that are and will continue to be held to such a charge. so this is in no way reflects the equality and the rights of these individuals, as is the common parlance currently.
Where do you think this is going to lead? What other changes do you think it will be acceptable for the (a) government to force through against the majority consensus on the tail of this act? Where should the line be drawn? (The same advocates of same-sex marriage openly support also changing the law to permit polygamy..is this Ok as well?)

Think it will end here? Well here are some occurrences in other places where this law has been changed.
In Holland, same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001. Since then, three-way relationships
have been given legal recognition through a “cohabitation agreement”
Mexico City introduced same-sex marriage in 2009, and now two-year fixed-term marriages
have been proposed. Instead of divorce the two-year marriage is not renewed.
In Canada, Same-sex marriage legislation in 2005 replaced the term “natural parent” with “legal parent” in Canadian law. In January 2007 an Ontario appeal court ruled that a child
can legally have three parents. In British Columbia there are major attempts to legalise
polygamy through the courts using the precedent of same-sex marriage



• Have a discussion to consider who you think is currently driving and funding this massive international event? What or who is behind and funding of the massive media coverage of this issue? Or do you really think it is just a coincidence that this has become a major discussion in the Uk, France and America because the very small % of the population represented in each of these countries just happen to bring this at the same time and despite their small number they have managed to generate the vast resources needed to get this to this stage?
• Do you all actually believe and swallow the media “facts” as they are presented? Why do people (and in this I particularly refer to the UK) just accept whatever is on the TV or in the papers without ever engaging their brains and looking any deeper that what has been spoon fed (on the new and approved plastic spoon licensed and sponsored by who knows who)….come on people wake up please!
I’ll finish with this:
I make lots of comments to the effect that I’m not very bright….because it is true. My IQ is not that great. My ability to hold and digest new information is phenomenally slow compared to others. Hell I don’t understand half of the jokes and comments made in the threads on this site. I don’t speak Latin or Greek or even a second language. In fact I’m stunningly ignorant about many things. But even I can see, (ignoring and putting to one side my simple and naive faith based beliefs for a moment) that this is a load of horse shit. We are being fed half truths from all angles. The most shallow investigation will show that the numbers are being twisted and misrepresented. Come on all you intelligent people, wake up and ask yourself why? Who will actually gain from all of this? What are the real issues on the table? Where is all this going?
I might not be able to see the whole picture, or hold all the facts to be able to banter back and forth in brisk debate, but if I can understand and see enough to be disturbed, then better those equipped people need to stand up and start thinking and speaking, or they will most likely not be happy with the logical outworking of this and where this will all end.
AJ.

(I'm off ot to work...today i'm mucking out the horse pens and filtering the dead yeast crap out of the cider....normally i'm reluctant to leave the site...but today real horse shit is looking good)
Hysterical

you're to be applauded aj, though i do believe any couple should be allowed to have a civil contract of marriage. i also believe that the church must have the decision on who or why it allows marriage. i have no idea who's pushing this though i suspect votes will be at stake. i see no harm in two people publicly being recognised as being in a contractual partnership.
Things are evidently different in the UK. There have been several parliamentary votes in Australia over the past ten years on this subject, both at state and federal level. Same sex couples are accorded the same rights as de facto heterosexual couples when it comes to social security, division of property, tax etc. In many states, including Queensland (where I live) there is recognition of civil partnership in a relationship register but no actual "marriage".

There is no "adultery" law in Australia. We have a "no fault" divorce system, so what goes on in and outside of a marriage is private and not the business of the courts. There is a mandatory 12 month separation period before filing, which may only be waived in extreme circumstances, eg. domestic violence.

I have read the Hansards of several parliamentary debates on this subject over several years and in Australia there has never been any mention of polygamy and certainly even the opponents have never suggested that gay marriage would lead to legalising incest or any such thing. Clearly we are not as complex as the British.

rowens

The laws of a country have nothing to do with love or sex or marriage. If every person doesn't make a conscious effort in every moment of his life to help others and to cause the least bit of suffering and abuse of other individuals and living things here now and in the future, then no man or woman has any business saying who or what one can or cannot have sex with or love. And don't look at me!---It's not even sensible. And someone that truly loves someone else wouldn't care about having the right to benefit from a culture or a civilisation where it's even a question whether their love is allowed or not. Whether they're allowed to be together or not.

And if you bring in the religious aspect: And if you narrow it down to Christianity: Or worst yet: The Catholic Church...The Catholic Church is on the same level as the Church of Scientology when it comes to reality. Even when it comes to the reality of faith. Christ was a man, and nothing more than a man; at one and the same time he was God. And if you believe, then he is still God. If it doesn't make sense, it doesn't have to.

The law is about making sense. And love has little, if anything, directly to do with making sense.

So what is my position? It's none of my business. It's nobody's business who I'm with except that person. But if I wanted to marry a man, I wouldn't hide it, and I wouldn't have to go through any legal system to do it.

As for those among homosexual men and women that want equal rights in their country, that's their problem. Life isn't very long, and a love relationship is a long and hard road to travel as it is.

People talk about being politically correct: Whether you're supporting gays, or bashing them, or just agreeing or disagreeing with someone... whatever... whatever it is has nothing to do with being correct or incorrect. It was love that had Christ embrace the sinners and speak to them not as being correct or incorrect, but as human beings in a world of sin. It's politics that killed them all.

Hell is here and now. If you don't know that, it's because you're too busy loving. That's the only salvation there will ever be.
(02-06-2013, 08:38 PM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]Things are evidently different in the UK. There have been several parliamentary votes in Australia over the past ten years on this subject, both at state and federal level. Same sex couples are accorded the same rights as de facto heterosexual couples when it comes to social security, division of property, tax etc. In many states, including Queensland (where I live) there is recognition of civil partnership in a relationship register but no actual "marriage".

There is no "adultery" law in Australia. We have a "no fault" divorce system, so what goes on in and outside of a marriage is private and not the business of the courts. There is a mandatory 12 month separation period before filing, which may only be waived in extreme circumstances, eg. domestic violence.

I have read the Hansards of several parliamentary debates on this subject over several years and in Australia there has never been any mention of polygamy and certainly even the opponents have never suggested that gay marriage would lead to legalising incest or any such thing. Clearly we are not as complex as the British.

I did not realise. It seems you are at the stage we are with the Civil Partnerships thing. I think I just don't like politicians arrogating power to themselves which I do not think they have -- but more especially, as this was not in the manifesto of either Conservative or Lib-Dem parties before the last election, nor was it in the Coalition Agreement. If they were vaguely honest, they would put it to a referendum. But I'm not sure that this debate is very fruitful. Smile
Truly, I don't understand why anyone would get so het up about a contract that traditionally is nothing more than transferring ownership of the bride from her father to her new husband.
(02-07-2013, 08:16 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]Truly, I don't understand why anyone would get so het up about a contract that traditionally is nothing more than transferring ownership of the bride from her father to her new husband.

There is something absurd about obsessing about other people's intimate or other relationships. It would all be simpler, as I think you said somewhere, if it were not something into which the state needed to poke its nose. Then again, I often wonder what would happen if Parliament passed no laws for a few years, save for dealing with the budget. A five-year moratorium, while Ministers could concentrate on running their ministries well. One can dream....Wink
This is what happens when you have incompetents sitting in Parliament:

"Well we've buggered up the budget and our foreign policy is shot to hell, how can we distract the public so they don't notice until after the next election?"

"Let's get them all thinking about bum sex."
''We are going to throw them out of their tied cottages, ant cut their no-hoping benefits. The NHS is going down the toilet. What shall we do?''

''It's a bum-chum situation''

I think a very large part of what pisses me off, is exactly that. This government started with huge problems. It is still talking about what it might one day do about the banks. On the NHS, which Cameron swore before the election he would not tinker with, was immediately launched into the biggest change since it began. And as for the Armed Forces, subject to a Defence Review by a fucking GP, subsequently sacked, oh, it's just too tragic. I must stop. i try now to concentrate on thosewho are close to me, where perhaps I can make a difference. Sad
Our government is quite lucky actually. Senator Penny Wong and her partner have not long ago had a baby.

"We promised a surplus but we're actually going to be a couple of billion into the red. Our carbon tax isn't working. We haven't fooled anyone with our free money handouts. Quick, bring out the lesbian family."
What a piece of luck! And God must be smiling on your government --- fires like never, floods, and, just in the nick of time, A National Sporting Scandal. Good time to sneak out bad news. Who gives a stuff about deficits, if a question mark is hanging over Shane and the boys? Do we now know the reason for Ponting's little piggy eyes? Or was he the last man standing? These are the important questions --AND the druggers must have been a bit rubbish if it has touched cricket.....

I should love someone to tell me why it is important that our -and your -carbon emissions be restricted, so that we can buy carbon fueled manufactures from China. How is that better? Smile
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6