To think that this is just a silly reaction on behalf of gay people?

(262 Posts)
Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 08:05:55

Don't misunderstand me, I support gay people having full access to same rights as opposite sex people. Always have done. As somebody has somebody close to me who is gay, I like to keep abreast of gay news.

But I don't know, isn't the following just a bit over the top:

I mean, Yes, I'm totally fine with same sex marriage, but I'm not going to take to the streets and party over it. I'm guessing that it's not that big a deal to the majority of us-this doesn't mean that anybody's against it at all, but that it really IS no big deal. So why are they expecting the news channels to give it much coverage?

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/19/whitehall-questions-why-equal-marriage-was-largely-ignored-by-bbc-channel-4-and-other-media/

Catsize Mon 22-Jul-13 19:20:29

jess, believe me, I do. You were the one discussing the possible concept of adultery in same-sex marriage, and deeming it irrelevant. You didn't even countenance heterosexual relations outside a same-sex relationship as a possibility earlier on, but you seem to now. That is what I was addressing.
I find your patronising tone quite amusing at least.
And no, marriage and CP are not the same.
For the record, the problem with adultery is not the person with whom it is committed; it is the person against whom it is committed. Historically, the definition has been that the person wronged was of the opposite sex. That is why adultery does not feature in CPs. Just in case you should think I know nothing about this...
My view is that adultery should be ditched from all civil marriages, but there we go. Hardly anyone petitions for divorce on grounds of adultery nowadays, as with adultery, the third party has to be named and served with the papers. Not so with 'unreasonable behaviour', which is more commonly used in adulterous situations. Adultery is a religious concept belonging in religious marriage. They are formed differently, so can end differently. Just my opinion.

MarmaladeTwatkins Mon 22-Jul-13 16:05:42

"It's really ironic you accusing me of ignorance Catsize because clearly you don't even know the basic differences between civil partnerships (as they stand) and same sex marriage."

Neither do you, it seems, since you're hellbent on claiming that CPs have already been achieved ergo no need to give a shit about equal marriage.

Honestly though, I'll hand it to you, you've the hide of a rhino.

Lavidaenrosa Mon 22-Jul-13 11:53:36

Orchard congratulations to your brother and his fiancé! I have lots of gay friends and I am looking forward to be invited to a wedding. I agree with the posters saying this is equal in importance to women getting the vote or black civil rights.

Lj8893 Mon 22-Jul-13 11:12:30

Oh my god Op!!! Not one person has agreed with you, get over it.

Jesssime Mon 22-Jul-13 09:59:17

It's really ironic you accusing me of ignorance Catsize because clearly you don't even know the basic differences between civil partnerships (as they stand) and same sex marriage.

Jesssime Mon 22-Jul-13 09:56:53

You don't seem to understand, Catsize, I don't think same sex marriage in this country is a big achievement.

We've had civil partnerships which gave most of the rights of marriage anyway, people informally call people in cp's 'married' as it stands: all that's really changed is the nomenclature.

As Philip Hensher pointed out, 'Against gay marriage? We've got it already'.

May I point out to you that you are being ignorant as regards the civil partnership issue?

Let me be clear: there is no mention of adultery at all in a civil partnership; the concept of adultery (specific definition of penis in vagina sexual intercourse) does not exist in a civil partnership. Only unreasonable behaviour can be used as reason to dissolve a cp if the other partner has sexual relations with another person. And it makes no difference what gender the unfaithful person strayed with.

For somebody who is writing an essay on this, you really ought to know that.

So it doesn't matter what a person's sexual orientation is in a civil partnership, they can't cite adultery anyway! They can only say 'I want to dissolve this civil partnerships owing to the fact that my partner has had sex with another adult' (the gender of that other person is irrelevant).

I am talking about same sex marriage and saying that the specific concept of adultery -being penis in vagina sex- is hardly likely to be of use to the majority of same sex couples who will usually be purely homosexual. Just as the majority of opposite sex couples are purely heterosexual.

Catsize Sun 21-Jul-13 20:23:07

OP, OP, OP...

As someone who is writing 15,000 words on this topic at the mo, I can assure you that lots of people from all different quarters (not just those pesky news-dictating homos) think this is a big deal.

We should be proud of what we have acieved, and send a message to the countries that hang and stone people for homosexual acts.

What I'm most definitely NOT for is one group of people thinking they've the right to dictate what news stories the media publish.

Think you will find that nobody is dictating, and the whole point of the story is this... Is an interview with a kid about the not-yet-born royal baby of more importance? Of course not.

What about the sports news? Or the weather?

Your ignorance shines when you suggest that someone in a CP would not have heterosexual sexual intercourse. Obviously, no bisexual would enter a CP, would they OP?

It seems that various people on this thread think the story of significance, whatever their background.

Pesky heterosexuals, always deciding what's on the news. When they aren't doing rude things to make baby gay people. It is all their fault. They breed the news dictators...

ANormalOne Sun 21-Jul-13 18:23:19

I don't get the big issue with LGBTs asking why the Marriage Bill didn't get more coverage.

Oh noes 'teh gays' are telling us what should be in the news?

You mean like the hundreds of other campaigns that constantly try to get more coverage in the news, like Bottle Stop, the people trying to get tougher sentences for owners of dangerous dogs, Irish feminists challenging the Irish abortion law, or pretty much every big public campaign....ever?

Why are you focusing on gay marriage? hmm

gordyslovesheep Sun 21-Jul-13 17:06:58

well to be fair it hadn't 'been going' for almost 24 hours grin

LemonPeculiarJones Sun 21-Jul-13 17:05:24

Gay marriage: a triumph over discrimination.

Worth celebrating, worthy of report.

It's a no-brainer. Unless deep down inside you're a little bit prejudiced yourself and a part of you thinks, 'good! Why should I be told to celebrate that massive breakthrough!'

MissMarplesBloomers Sun 21-Jul-13 16:14:33

Fucking hell is this still going?!!

Yes it was me who used the word bigot/bigotry and I am well aware of what it means and believe me I don't use it lightly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

About sums you up I feel, but just MHO.

Have a good Sunday all .

gordyslovesheep Sat 20-Jul-13 18:08:32

pmsl do you understand what dictate means - every single person on the PLANET has the right to complain if they are not happy with something on TV ...it doesn't mean anyone has to do anything

Dictating is not what you mean ...you mean 'expressing an opinion' and if you don't think people have the right to do that you are a fool

please do go now x

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 17:50:33

I don't think you can force the media to do anything.
But you can raise questions and ask people why they did not feel it was newsworthy.

The LGBT lobby cannot tell the media what to do - but it, like anyone else, can ask questions.

There is so much stuff that is ignored by the media - we should ask why rather than passively accept it.

You still brought it up first, and I am not psychic enough to see what people would do after me.

LGBT*+ people (this does not just affect "gay people") are not the monolith you are trying to create. We have a wide opinions on the issue, we are a very diverse group actually. I already posted on how it isn't the end all and be all, but we have more legitimacy than a straight person trying to tell us what about ourselves we should and should not care about and how we should fight our fight. Quoting one lesbian doesn't mean you are apart or an ally to our fight (and hint: the mainstream news media is pretty much run by straight people. they're the ones deciding it's a big story, we get little say in the matter actually). There is no gay conspiracy trying to tell you what is important or that you must celebrate or be labelled a bigot.

Though your erasure of bisexuals, pansexuals, and several other groups affected by this issue, trying to make us a monolith that onloy does one thing, and you deciding we should listen to you does have an dominant oppressive ring to it .

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 17:48:54

It would have been newsworthy had:

a, Civil partnerships not existed

b, It was exactly the same as straight marriage

As it is, they've only effectively renamed civil partnerships 'marriage'.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 17:47:12

But there wasn't. So what's the solution, then? FORCE the media to print news that we think is newsworthy?

kim147 Sat 20-Jul-13 17:46:31

jesssime The LGBT community have been fighting for ages to get this through Parliament. There's been loads of debate about it.

Don't you think it should be mentioned in the news when it becomes law?
Even if you think it's no big deal?

And as you seem to be totally ignoring my previous posts - do you think any changes where people become more equal should be newsworthy?

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 17:43:37

The entire point of my post to begin with is that gay people now think they have the right to tell the media what stories it should/should not cover. That's really dangerous territory, really.

For about the 5th time now, not just gay people believe there should be some kind of news coverage.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 17:40:25

LittleSporksBigSpork

Actually, somebody did just accuse me of bigotry here.

The entire point of my post to begin with is that gay people now think they have the right to tell the media what stories it should/should not cover. That's really dangerous territory, really.

And, Jamie my view is not wholly original about it being an own goal-I am paraphrasing that well known lesbian 'bigot'* hmm Julie Bindel.

*NOT my view of her, but if I am a bigot she must be, too, for holding that view.

Lj8893 Sat 20-Jul-13 17:37:16

OP, you just seem to me very ignorant and short sighted and unwilling/unable to look at the bigger picture.

You seem to have only picked up on comments that you are able to find a loose argument back to, and ignored the comments you are unable to find a response to.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Sat 20-Jul-13 17:35:19

Bigger. Bloody ipad

JamieandtheMagicTorch Sat 20-Jul-13 17:34:50

Btw.

We are all a bit bigoted about something. It takes a biggere person to admit it.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Sat 20-Jul-13 17:33:18

OP your words:

"Actually, if I may do a little sidestepping here, same sex marriage is a bit of an own goal from a strategical viewpoint as there's a risk that society will think, 'Well they've got equal marriage now, what are they whingeing about'?

Which is probably what I'm guilty of doing here to a certain extent

I'm not saying this is right at all but how people are"

You admitted in the post above that you are allying yourself with people who are unreasonable. Therefore Yabu and I don't think you are fully aware of your own bigotry because you appear to not understand the implications of what you said in that post

No one called you a bigot - you are the one who brought up bigots.

You "don't care" you just want to, as a straight person, tell the rest of us how we should react. That we're not very important and should keep any feelings we have the topic to ourselves. That you, the straight person, are the decider of all of that is important in the world and the LGBT*+ community that is part of it.

You have every right not to care - no one is trying to make you care - you just don't get to tell other people whether or not they should care.

Jesssime Sat 20-Jul-13 17:10:05

Yes, well the thing is, Lj8893, I don't like being called a bigot because I'm not that bothered about same sex marriage.

Not caring about it and being a bigot are two different things.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now