When did homosexuality stop being illegal? 1967 in the UK? Could that have been the driver for change ie when the law was set up it was illegal man-o-man (or woman-o-woman) hence wasnt needed when marraige act was drafted in the 40's? And isnt the colour-sexuality thing is a red herring which makes it easier for those who want change to latch on to a widely unacceptable practice of hating for colour?
my step sister is a foster mum, and does a wonderful job and has saved many a child from the most terrible circumstances..they have been prevented from adopting a great 11 yr old lad due to red tape..he has basically brought up his little sister (who they also fostered but was recently re-homed to a specialist foster carer because of her behaviour issues)...Youd think that the brother would be lost without her..he sees her every day at school and has blossomed at my sisters, and adores my brother in law..and has even called him Dad which throws up another load of issues as they arent allowed to adopt him (unbeknown to the lad)... 2 loving parents are the way to go, be they gay or straight...some of us are behind the zeitgeist, others in front, so little Billy seeing his daddy humping his other daddy is probably no more disturbing than seeing daddy humping mummy..it would be disturbing to a child because they wouldnt understand it, it all depends on the adults reaction... Fathers are totally under rated imho..its a society thing, and as men, we were often brought up to repress our feelings..by BOTH parents...'big boys dont cry'....well, they do. the great thing about fathers is that they engage in more physical play than mums generally, and expose kids to risk and safety..such as when a dad throws his kids in the air and catches them..dad is the safe pair of hands, but the kids get the exhilaration of controlled danger...my mates 5 yr old whizzes about on a quad..throttle is restricted and he looks like an alien in all of his safety gear...sometimes my mate sits on the pillion when they go buzzing around the fields..his lad loves being 'in control' and responsible...being the man....and he loves it when his dad chucks him on the back of the quad..they are equals during play time..best mates...thats what a good dad brings to the party.. as long as a child has love and has positive male and female role models, my heart tells me that the sexuality of its parents is secondary.. When we destigmatise homosexuality, then we wont have adults living a lie and struggling with their personal identities..only to move in with the milkman/woman when the kids are 18...shattering families, their childrens identity and delivering the ultimate hammer blow to their spouse , whom they probably love deeply...the spouse has to spend years trying to comes to terms with it all and wondering what they did to deserve this, as do the children.. I know this to be true, because this is what happened when my late mother left my dad...there, ive said something that only a tiny handful of people know, and ive said it on a public forum... It destroyed our lives, lead me into 5 years of depression and i never saw my mum again..she 'moved on'... You will never know the pain of wondering who your mum was, questioning whether she really loved you, or your Dad who was smashed to bits...you turn over every stone and every event of your life forever... She died of cancer in 2007 and my brother and i didnt even know..we never got to reconcile with her and she abandoned us... So, i could be full of anger at 'queers'....i'll always be angry with her, but im in favour of gay liberation because we should all be who we really are...the reason why there is a closet in the first place is because society has been so full of ignorance and hate... Hiding in the closet destroys more lives than you may care to realise.
i think im right in saying that female homosexuality was illegal until the 80's...this is probably because the majority of law makers are men and obsessed with male homosexuality.. ironic really, as most of them are ex etonians, where buggery is practically on the curriculum. the race issue is not a red herring..its the same argument with all of the exact prejudices and distortions, and the inevitable invocation of religion, and biblical quotations with references and interpretations of the invisible, celestial dictator.... why is it, that the most right wing in our society also tend to be the most meddling, judgemental, prejudice, religious, intolerant, racist and ignorant? weird that...its also a fact that fascism was born directly from the far right catholic church..to that end, fascism can be considered to be the political wing of the church..sound extreme?? look up Franco, Mussolini and Hitler..oh and Pope Pius XII...all catholics and all haters and murderers...jews, gays, gypsies, the disabled were all meat to the grinder. The assertion that it (gay marriage) didnt become a 'problem' until it became legal, and thus started us down a slippery slope is abominable, if ive interpreted the assertion correctly.
Theres never been an atheist evil person, eh...and i'm not convinced colour and sexuality are linked as much as some say. And I'd say meddling left wingers, who drive change to allow difference but not freedom, are easily to blame as much as the right wingers for society's ills of today
This is about equality and inequality. We inherited from ancient times social structures which had permanent inbuilt inequalities. Whole categories of people, arbitrarily defined, were discriminated against legally, socially and economically. Categories such as women, racial minorities, and gays were systematically disadvantaged. The past 250 years has been a history of progressive introduction of fairness, integration and equality, and the abolition of discrimination. That process is now nearing its endgame, with marriage equality being one of the later items. My guess is that with a good deal of luck another 50 years should see the Enlightenment project brought to a glorious conclusion. I don't understand where you think the red herring comes into it.
In comparing the fight for rights to freedom and equality of half the world, i.e. non white, is the same as those of a minority, couple % of the world population, really?
Are you now saying that if a group comprises only 2% of a population, there is no need for their rights to be protected, and no need to do anything about them being oppressed? That only if a group comprises 50% of a population are their interests worth protecting? Or is this a wind-up?
Where did I say that? Would you compare the death of 5 at the hand of a maniac with the millions who died at the Nazi masters hands? Or those who have a view on the difference between the two?
You've lost me now. I have no idea what point you think you're making, bradders. Feel free to explain yourself, if you wish.
I'm drawing some context on the relationship between what Ant and others are saying, the ridiculous face of racism in the 40's etc in the States, and that of the vastly different objection some have to same sex marriage. And to add some further context, the connotation of marriage and civil partnership in many is the same. Except...you can have a CP as a hetro but will soon be able to marry as a homo. Some feel gay is wrong end of, either unnatural or against the law of God or for whatever reason, it doesn't sit well with them. And before I'm accused....I'm not bothered either way. Just feel that freedom cuts both ways; and right now society is at risk of losing sight of that.
Sorry, I still have no idea what point you're making. Your post seems to be incoherent - or perhaps it's just me.
It's very straightforward, Pete. Unless they have been enslaved or discriminated against on the basis of the colour of their skin, homosexuals have no business complaining about not having the same rights that heterosexuals have. The issue of racial discrimination is serious and has rightly been addressed by society, because of the numbers of individuals involved. There are fewer people affected by the sexual orientation discrimination issue, and it's only "gay marriage" we are talking about after all. It's not as if it's an important issue, so there's no comparison. So some gay folk cannot pretend to be married, so what? Is that about right? [A degree of sarcasm may very well have crept into this post, I wonder if anyone will notice.]
The comparison I'm making is that what is accepted as the norm now, is not likely to be the norm in the future, especially when it comes to narrow-minded bigots oppressing a minority, however small that minority may be, just because they "don't like it". The answer is even simpler: if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
well after hearing a lot od discussion on here...my own view is that marraige is between a man and a woman only and can only ever be. its not right that politicians are messing about with laws to appease a minority they can do what they like - live and let live and all that. but call it a marriage- no
...except that you're not letting " live and let live" though are you - because you're not letting "the gays" get married like they want.
