Lesbians get nailed
Ubiquitous BBC link.
Okay, initially I looked at the headline and thought "yo that's pretty shit" (except i didn't think "yo", I just said that to improve the spirit of internet camaraderie we're feeling in this thread. However then I read a bit further down. Quote:
The only problem I can foresee is somewhere down the line people get really shit and try to take away some of those rights and privileges and it's easier for them to do so with the two being legislated separately. However if people did get that shit they'd be able to unentangle the two anyways so it's really a moot point. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
It does seem as if they're causing a lot of fuss over something which isn't really that important. Or at all, in fact.
They are still able to wear rings, tell their family/friends they're married and in all likelihood (especially given the amount they seem to care) then they ask to be referred to as such by people they know. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with humouring them, I certainly wouldn't want angry lesbians to have any excuse to hold a grudge against me. btw is this thread going to be a dozen odd posts saying "I agree with the judge" or shall we try and get some hot lesbian jokes in here too. Obviously we can't right away as that would be a bit too contrived but I'll set us on the right direction by subtly adjusting the parameters of the debate. Dildos. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Sometimes its not the words but the implications which are important. you are always going to get militants here and there - i agree with the decision, but im also glad that we have people challenging it, continually making sure that the balance remains about right. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Edit: What do you mean by balance? |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
My friend from Belfast says pretty much every sign that leads to londonderry, someone scores out the london, then someone else scores out the derry. Quite a few people call it "Stroke city" Quote:
By balance; (which might not have been the right word) the way i see things is.. imagine 2d graph with loads of points plotted on it... then draw a line of best fit. Consider that "policy". And then consider the slightly extreme / almost wayward points as "controllers" rather than anomalies. Im going to stop now because im going to confuse myself but do you understand what im saying :( |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
i should think that's pretty obvious. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you saying we should compromise with people who think gay people should be burnt at the stake? |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
So basically I can't see any reasonable basis for thinking the distinction should remain. In fact, if I wanted to s|k up this thread a little I'd say anyone who agrees with this ruling is an evil homophobic scum who should burn in hell for all eternity. Sadly I can't be that angry. :( |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Actually this raises other brilliant opporunities, i think we should push the civil partnership distinction to include marrying a man and a woman at the same time, or 5 different women etc
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
PS: homophobic is such a shit word. PPS: i would make a strong statement here about how government should never use the word 'marriage' at all but i guess i'm too late to be :cool: like that |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
The basic problem is that homosexuals asked for the right to get married, and the government refused. They provided civil partnerships basically as a way to say "we care about your rights, but not enough that we'd upset people to secure them." Homosexuals are the last social group to still face legal discrimination; its nowhere near as bad as it was under the tories, what with harmonisation of consent laws, the repeal of section 28 and, yes, civil partnerships - but the fact that the most sympathetic government the homosexual community in the UK has ever had is not prepared to actually make an effort on our behalf is what burns.
The term "marriage" means very little - but given that, why would they refuse us it? |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Im sure that in 20 years time the term marriage will have been used so widely to describe gay union that it won't raise a fuss when they legally call it marriage. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
"They get to ride on the bus, even if they have to sit at the back"
(edit: I'm analogising, I'm not saying the scale is in any way comparable.) |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
I do sympathise, actually. Steering clear of semantics, I think the legal distinction between child-producing couples and otherwise is the most significant thing to come out of this. I'm guessing a lot of you wouldn't necessarily agree with this - I think I do, though.
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Seems pretty straight-forward to me. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
To be honest I just wanted to prove Deepflow's implied assessment of this thread wrong when he thought it might be 'a dozen odd posts saying "I agree with the judge"'. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Albeit an enormously and pointlessly large number of words by that point. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Precedent is set by the ratio decidendi of a case - the reasoning behind a decison. It is the point in the case that determines the judgement. For example, Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I don't like linking to wikipedia for this, but most law databases require special access, usually via Athens for us students. The judgement for the lesbians' case can actually be found here. I've skimmed through to look for the ratio: Quote:
Quote:
It's easy really! |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
I know all this stuff. I was simply going on this: 'But the judge told the couple they faced "an insurmountable hurdle" in trying to have a same-sex marriage recognised in English law. Giving his ruling on Monday he said the majority of people and governments across Europe regarded marriage as an "age-old institution". Marriage was, by "longstanding definition and acceptance", a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children, he said. ' Forgive me, I simply couldn't be bothered to look up the stuff. Thanks for doing it for me and for the great lashings of condescension. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
The insurmountable hurdle refers to s.11(c) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Actually having thought about this, i agree with Phang, im deeply uncomfortable with the 'seperate equality' that arises in situations like this. Im not saying it is apartheid but it certainly gives an air of that. We can see the idiocy in saying black people and white people should have equal rights but are inherently different and that difference should be recognised in law yet we seem ok with saying that when dealing with sexual orientation.
Im still working this out in my head but as an example lets say biblical terms are taken to say that races shouldn't intermarry. White people can marry white people and black people can marry black people, but a white person can only have a 'civil partnership' with a black person. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
It's an interesting situation over here in canada. When the legislation went in, there's still a load of fuss over various rights and priviledges... and from what I've been hearing, there's a province or two fighting it.
It gets more interesting, as the government who put the legislation into the fray in the first place, is no longer in power (liberals), and we now have a conservative {tory, but not anywhere near the extent of UK tories apparently} government in power who in their platform said they would publically try and abolish the gay marraige laws. At some of the gay bars around here, there were a helluva lot of posters up calling Stephen Harper a satanist amongst other things. I'm not surprised they're having a nasty time with their union in the UK, as they're still having quite the interesting time over here. Yay politics! |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Another brilliant coup!!! The only 'point' to address is that nothing you said was correct: "the legal distinction between child-producing couples and otherwise" - There is no distinction, legal or otherwise, between child producing and non-child producing couples. "is the most significant thing to come out of this" - Nothing has 'come out' of this case. But hey! Here's an idea, why don't you go on posting meaningless shit and pretending that you weren't wrong. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Shouldn't it be up to the church whether or not homosexuals can get married?
It is their phrase after all. Any rights given by the state should depend on a legally binding agreement between two people, whether they are male or female is irrelevant. that the church has any involement at all is stupid and pointless and mostly the only reason people get married in a church is because they want the 'big white wedding' and religion doesn't come into it. It still strikes me as bizarre why anyone would want to join a group (religious or otherwise) that is openly hostile to a major aspect of your life. It's like a black person wanting to join the KKK. |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
I've always wondered and debated with friends over which gender created the idea of marriage. Was it the women who created it to keep the man from running off if she got pregnant, or was it the men in an attempt to be able to say that this woman is my property (keeping in mind we're talking a few thousand years ago).
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
Seeing as marriage is 'the union or man and women in the eyes of God' it kind of makes sense that each religious group should have the choice of who can participate in this ceremony. that said, this ceremony should be just a ceremony and whilst it might be binding in the eyes of God it should not be legally binding in the eyes of the law. I would argue that the legally binding agreement should not be called marriage as this links the state to Christianity and I believe in the separation of church and state. Dante, the phrase 'non-Christian countries' is something I dislike. Britain should not be considered a 'Christian country' rather it should be seen as a country where most people identify themselves as Christians. there should be no promotion for one religion over the other. I know that is because of the head of state and all that but that would be side-tracking |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
In Ye old times people got married to have kids. The debocle is can lesbians or gays have kids. The real answer is no unless you include adoption. I think the best way to phrase what i mean is do you call two gay partners in a "civil relationship" with adopted chidren a married family with kids. personally i believe no there more than entitled to do this if they so wish but to call it marrige is incorrect as marridge comes from church or romans and im pretty sure they didnt have gay mariges back then ( from fear of god). In summary marrige aplies to straight people |
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
|
Re: Lesbians get nailed
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:45. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018