So?
Printable View
So it's not the same.
In some ways it's the same, in other ways it's different.
Do you have a problem with other words being different when, say, it's a man or woman doing the same role?
Do you have a problem with the words 'gay' and 'straight'? If not, why not? If it's the same why have different words?
Still don't see what the fuss is all about.
It's like there's some fear that they'll suddenly start taking over the world, like it'll spread like a disease just because they can call themselves "married". It's going to have so little effect on the vast majority of people.
Still, if Cameron wants to tear the Tory party asunder over it, then he can go right ahead...
You argue well, mate. Plus it needs to be recognised that this issue has been manipulated by politicians. Further, I can't help thinking that there is something aggressive about wanting to attack the traditional institution of marriage that is disproportionate to how much this really matters to those concerned. I would far rather the government concentrated on the really important issues...
It's not about gay marriage, it's about attacking the foundations of traditional family - something the establishment has been busy at for decades, at least since that psycho Thatcher was in office (probably longer). The family unit doesn't fit with the new utopian model of homogenised "diversity" - no shit, have you noticed how the advocates of "diversity" want everything to be the same? Everything reduced to the lowest denominator in the interests of "fairness"? You bust up the family and Thatcher's dream of the helplessly isolated individual totally reliant on the state takes a big leap forward. Religion is another target, basically any tribes that exist, atomic or extended, outside nanny's direct grasp.
There are other reasons too but some get offended when they are even mentioned.
The trick is not to look at one issue but at the collection of issues and find the common purpose (no pun intended much).
Precisely. And if a bender at work gets marr...sorry, a 'civil partnership'. What do you think the 99% are going to say? "Congrats on getting married!" "where did you get married?" etc. or "where was this civil partnership?". The 1% of the Letters' can have the technicality. Nobody's going to pay any attention to any pedant* that points it out.
*token 'label' as I am a normal politically correct nut and therefore do need to label/attack those with differing opinions, of course.
You have to watch what they do, not what they say. Thatcher was a staunch authoritarian. She was 100% in favour of personal liberty provided it was practised in unwavering compliance with her own views on what that meant. She ran her government that way, she ran the nation that way. The confusion arises because the whole state vs liberty debate has descended into a stupid argument about benefits and social services. If the blue team trims it means they are for small (as in massive) government. If the red team invests (our money) they are for large (as in massive) government. But it's shop dressing so the illusion of a two party system can be maintained. The ultimate proof is Europe. Look at that and you'll see nobody has been for liberty or independence for decades. It has always been about centralised power and the self sustenance of that power. Maggie was as red as the rest, she only looked blue within the extremely narrow confines of the British (western) political spectrum.