The Daily Mail Say: "Men will be 'wives' and women will be 'husbands' as British gay marriage laws r
55 replies, posted
"Muh dictionary"
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at comments anymore, let alone on Daily Mail.
pfft, like they could use a dictionary anyway
[quote]gobbledegook[/quote]
Did General Melchett write this article?
[IMG]http://www.dylanfox.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Melchett3.jpg[/IMG]
No but that article be silly, and the comments even sillier. "Can aliens beam me up" what the hell.
I bet the person who posted "They will not rewrite my dictionary" never even looked in one after school
lets just scrap marriage all together
Related
[video=youtube;RBzB1ARVTxg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBzB1ARVTxg[/video]
It's the Daily Mail.. this was kind of expected I guess.
[QUOTE=Dantai;41252344]lets just scrap marriage all together[/QUOTE]
Let's go ahead and scrap a powerful bonding label that spans across almost every modern culture, includes very important legal benefits, and is held in the hearts of billions as something that is extremely important just because of the ~chains of oppression~ it creates in the eyes of twenty somethings who haven't gotten their rocks off enough yet and vapid liberals.
That would be a [i]wonderful[/i] idea.
[editline]30th June 2013[/editline]
You see gay, lesbian, and transgender people fighting so hard to be able to marry and you don't think that it is worth anything?
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;41252731]Let's go ahead and scrap a powerful bonding label that spans across almost every modern culture, includes very important legal benefits, and is held in the hearts of billions as something that is extremely important just because of the ~chains of oppression~ it creates in the eyes of twenty somethings who haven't gotten their rocks off enough yet and vapid liberals.
That would be a [i]wonderful[/i] idea.
[editline]30th June 2013[/editline]
You see gay, lesbian, and transgender people fighting so hard to be able to marry and you don't think that it is worth anything?[/QUOTE]
why not just replace marriage benefits with the ability for 2 people, no matter who or what they are to get the benefits with eachother? and have marriage as an entirely seperate thing.
would've been even better if both entries were to show:
[b]noun[/b]
[i]look.[/i] [b]partner[/b]
[QUOTE=Bobie;41252864]why not just replace marriage benefits with the ability for 2 people, no matter who or what they are to get the benefits with eachother? and have marriage as an entirely seperate thing.[/QUOTE]
We have those, its called a civil partnership. I think its more because of religion, that they want to be together in the eyes of god.
[QUOTE=Bobie;41252864]why not just replace marriage benefits with the ability for 2 people, no matter who or what they are to get the benefits with eachother? and have marriage as an entirely seperate thing.[/QUOTE]
That's what civil unions are for, and even then, gay people and such still want to have marriage, since marriage has this whole spiritual and metasomething value behind it.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;41252986]We have those, its called a civil partnership. I think its more because of religion, that they want to be together in the eyes of god.[/QUOTE]
civil partnership tends to be restricted to same sex couples, or at the extreme minimum, a couple regardless. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835[/url]
Well, the new page bug made me late I guess.
The "worst" comments are even better
[QUOTE]Yes I'm over forty and I'm pleased with the progress this country is making on this issue. Equal Right for all. We live in a Democracy.[/QUOTE]
-179 downvotes
[QUOTE]About time- we have suffered homophobia for too long in this country![/QUOTE]
-221 downvotes
[QUOTE]In a few years time when the dust has settled, people will wonder what all the fuss was about. Change can be difficult for some people (particularly the less intelligent) but society has always evolved over time . This little change is no different .[/QUOTE]
-159 Downvotes
[QUOTE=IceyMalone;41253081]The "worst" comments are even better
-179 downvotes
-221 downvotes
-159 Downvotes[/QUOTE]It's incredible the amount of stupid people on that website.
Then again [B]Daily Mail[/B]
Exactly. Pretty sure there was an article about the Daily Mail being pissed off for a Lib Dem using constituency money for their constituency
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;41252731]Let's go ahead and scrap a powerful bonding label that spans across almost every modern culture, includes very important legal benefits, and is held in the hearts of billions as something that is extremely important just because of the ~chains of oppression~ it creates in the eyes of twenty somethings who haven't gotten their rocks off enough yet and vapid liberals.
That would be a [i]wonderful[/i] idea.
[editline]30th June 2013[/editline]
You see gay, lesbian, and transgender people fighting so hard to be able to marry and you don't think that it is worth anything?[/QUOTE]
Glad you agree
Am I the only one that doesn't understand this? Why are they literally swapping definitions of husband and wife? that just sounds stupid to do
well what's wrong with that. i would love to be someone's wife and im a dude
[editline]30th June 2013[/editline]
no homo
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41253821]Am I the only one that doesn't understand this? Why are they literally swapping definitions of husband and wife? that just sounds stupid to do[/QUOTE]
you're maybe the only one who hasnt read it:
[quote]where legislation refers to a ‘husband’ or a ‘wife’ it must now be taken to mean either a man or a woman who has tied the knot.[/quote]
they are not swapping the definitions.
Sounds like a kludge so they can work same-sex marriage into the law where it's already mentioned. It's no problem really. "Wife" and "husband" already departed from the OED definition when gay marriage came about in the first place, since you can have "his husband" and "her wife" now.
Also, I hate the phrase "destroying centuries of it being how it was". I'm sorry, but that's just not an argument. Every good change or breakthrough in civil rights ended a status quo hundreds of years old.
Screw it, I just hate tabloids and the people who read them.
[QUOTE=Uzbekistan;41251476]Sorry but what's wrong with up to date definitions?[/QUOTE]
It's not even that anyway. Basically some old legislature had seperate stuff for husbands and wives. This is a quick and dirty way of making sure that equal access happens.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;41253035]That's what civil unions are for, and even then, gay people and such still want to have marriage, since marriage has this whole spiritual and metasomething value behind it.[/QUOTE]
It's kinda funny - a lot of us are from Countries with little to no tradition of a religious marriage and marriage was generally seen as a civil thing. Sure people can also get a religious marriage, but that's only a civil one with stuff added in. As such the whole CU vs marriage was fairly confusing.
I can't help but wonder if the authors of articles such as this one are giggling like crazy as they type it. I don't think it's possible to write such blatantly sensationalist news without intentionally attempting satire, especially when they go back through the read the comments afterwards. I would be cracking up if I ever handed something like that to my editor.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41263552]I can't help but wonder if the authors of articles such as this one are giggling like crazy as they type it. I don't think it's possible to write such blatantly sensationalist news without intentionally attempting satire, especially when they go back through the read the comments afterwards. I would be cracking up if I ever handed something like that to my editor.[/QUOTE]
Its funny because to land a job at the Daily Mail you need to be a first class graduate with a fuck ton of proven experience.
Its a really hard, intense and well paid job to land.
Amazing really, that it requires such a pool of talent to peddle such shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.