Nick Clegg retracts 'bigot' attack on gay marriage opponents

[mushroom25]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/.../uk-politics-19555757

Why has he done that?

he was right of course - wasn't he?

[sp1814]

mike1111

And I know at least four couples who have put off their civil partnership ceremonies (what a mouthful - 'marriage' is so much a better word) because they'd rather get married if/when it becomes law.

I suppose it's who you know.

By the way - this makes interesting reading. The sneaky spin the Daily Mail put on the story is predictable but hilarious:

http://www.guardian.c...arriage-reality-check

Clegg was wrong to use the word 'bigot' to tar everyone who is against marriage equality - the issue is more complicated than those who are against interracial marriage.

[Nibble]

Surprised that this hasn't been added to the mix, as a Green Party councillor is being removed from the group for supporting the status quo on Legal Marriage,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...gland-surrey-19552004

Seems to be one law for some, but don't expect them to be happy if you disagree with their fatwas.

[pdq1]

They can indulge in any ceremony that suits them. However marriage they say is made in heaven so gay marriage would not be acceptable at a higher level.

[modeller]

I haven't so far answered on this subject because on the one hand I don't care but on the other hand the term marriage just doesn't feel right.
Civil partnership makes sense because it solves various legal issues like inheritance, property rights and responsibility for any adopted children etc. but the word marriage has an emotive feeling to it and has meant a man and a women for several thousand years.
Although I'm an atheist I can understand why clerics would object to a gay marriage in a church.

[sp1814]

Nibble

I saw this story earlier today. The reason she's being removed is explained in the second paragraph to the end. She'd signed a declaration supporting the party's position on equal rights, then reneged on it.

[Ellipsis]

> Since 2005, same-sex couples have been able to enter into civil partnerships, which confer broadly similar rights and responsibilities to married couples.
> However, at the moment, only a man and a woman can be legally married.

That's just stupid semantic games. Attitudes have changed, and word meanings can grow and adapt too. See for example eight words which have completely changed their meanings:

http://writinghood.co...ir-meaning-over-time/

Blake wrote of "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". The marriage of gin and tonic makes a nice drink. The word can be used in a wider context than a man and a woman.

I agree that within a religious context, marriage has to mean what that religion wants it to mean. But within a secular civil context, it can mean whatever we all want it to mean. If we want to carry on playing semantic games, then so be it, but I fail to see the point.

[Ellipsis]

As for Clegg withdrawing the word "bigot" - yes, he was right to.

[joggerjayne]

I see it as a personal thing.

Different people have different views, and no one should be castigated (right word???) for their views on a subjective issue.

I have a totally " neither here nor there" view on the subject. If gays want to call their relationship a " marriage", then hey ho ... why should anyone else get upset?

A lot of gays are against the concept of "gay marriage" because they don't want to feel as though they are being forced to conform to a lifestyle that they have rejected. WE are what WE are ... don't try to turn us into what YOU are.

So I don't see rights and wrongs here. And I don't see it as an "equality" issue. If I was gay, I wouldn't want to be equal ... I'd want to be myself.

And whether people are for it, against it, or neutral, I don't think they should be insulted. Especially not by politicians who won't declare their real views, and just get told by their press office what they should "think".

(groan) sorry, I'm just getting down off this soap box.

[mike11111]

I tend to agree with JJ and will repeat a joke which is so old that the connotations may well escape some people; though it addresses the current theme:

During an industrial dispute during the 1930s the shop steward of the shipyard called all the men out for a mass meeting.

Just as he was about to speak a fleet of limousines could be seen taking the senior management of the yard out to lunch.

"See what I mean, brothers! said he, all we want is 6d an hour more. Will they give it us? No!

See them, floating out, smoking their big fat cigars, whislt you lot have to put up with raggy Woodbines! I tell, you, brethren, come the revolution, YOU will be all smoking cigars!"

"Little Bobby pipes up and says, "'Scuse me shoppy, I quite like Woodbines and don't like cigars"

The shoppy replied, "Listen, brother, come the revolution you'll smoke what you're bloody well told to smoke!"

[joggerjayne]

Very good, mike.

There are just so two sides to this issue.

Some of the gay community want to have everything the same as the "normal" community.

That's a reasonable desire.

Others in the gay community don't want to get married and live in Hove. They want to have a partner, and live in Kemp Town, and drink in neon bars, and have street parties.

And, what they want most of all is for people in suits in Whitehall to leave them alone, and stop using them as political footballs.

[ludwig]

Some dictionary definitions to ponder...

"A person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race" (Collins)

"Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others" (Oxford)

"A person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong" (Cambridge)

Interesting, because the first two of those imply that someone pro gay marriage can be just as bigoted as someone who's anti it. Even the last one's ambiguous because who's to decide what's unreasonable or not.

[humbersloop]

Jj should't that be Hove Actually ;)

[youngmafbog]

Clegg has lost the plot. Trying to name call (typical Noo Labour Policy) and twist to get away from fixing real problems shows him and his party for what it is.

[EDDIE51]

JJ has put it perfectly.
This should not be a political issue, I can never see the mainstream Church being in favour but if a same sex couple want to call their union 'Marriage' then let them. Plenty of very nice non church wedding venues now.