Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

You gave me an answer that was based on the premise that I didn't know how to use wikipedia myself! I did look at titling conventions on wikipedia and there's no correct answer there because it hasn't happened yet. That's why I was hoping Jay or Jenn would give me an educated (beyond 'I looked on Wikipedia') response.

 

The spouse of the monarch is usually titled Duke or Duchess. I don't see why it would be different for gays.

 

That's news to me, I thought the wife generally stopped being Duchess and became Queen Consort after her husband stopped being Duke.

 

You mean like Queen Consort Elizabeth or Prince Albert?

Edit: That was to V-2.

 

You mean the Queen Mother, formerly the Duchess of York, and Prince Albert the Duke of Saxony?

Like Prince Phillip is the Duke of Edinburgh. He's royal consort by virtue of being married to the queen, obviously. The prince of Wales' wife is the Duchess of Cornwall, his son and daughter-in-law are the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, etc etc.

I don't see why the tradition would break just for homosexuals. Not sure what the relevance is either.

 

Stop hating because England and the Monarch are better than America and it's... whatever you have.

 

I'd much rather we elected a head of state to do the monarch's job. The monarch could still visit schools and factories and shake hands with awestruck monarchists if that's how they wanted to spend their time, but not on my money.

 

Yes everyone has tons of titles, but being married to a monarch means they get a Prince (if marrying a queen) or Queen (if marrying a king), as far as I'm aware. The debate arises over what would happen to a female spouse of a female monarch is a queen consort or a princess consort. I think. And these would be superior to the ducal or any other titles they may also have. That's why he's Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, and not Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh.

 

Fascinating. I doubt it would cause much of a constitutional crisis, but I see what you're getting at.

 

Please make sure your post consists of more than paste work, thanks.
And while you're at it, make sure it's on topic. - Your Friendly Senate Mod

 

Because clearly royal titles have a lot to do with homosexuality.

 

Indeed.

Everybody, please stick to the subject. Thank you.

 

A CofE priest I know who's pro-women bishops, pro-gay clergy, and generally about as progressive as a CofE priest can be, opposes gay marriage because, "the government doesn't have the right to change the definition of a word".

To me this seems like neurotic pedantry to justify an underlying bigotry. Lots of words have had their meanings changed over time. The word marriage itself does not have one singular meaning anyway.

His solution is to say that nobody should have marriage and we should all have civil partnerships, which to me seems like the reaction of a spoiled child refusing to share his football because his his side isn't winning.

I agree with the sentiments recently expressed by Will Self on Question Time; what is the point in having a state religion if the state has no say in policy? I'd add that the CofE was specifically founded because the state disagreed with the marriage policies of the catholic church, so it seems a little silly to start moaning about it now.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/u...port-of-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

I hope I did this link right, but I'm terrible at it so I probably didn't. Anyway, good article from the NYTimes about the number of prominent republicans now supporting SSM and their possible influence over the USSC with Prop 8

 

It works!

Good to see 75 Republican leaders supporting gay marriage.



The Justice Department is also making a legal case to the Supreme Court saying, basically, that they should legalize same-sex marriage nationwide:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/obama-gay-marriage_n_2783912.html

 

they don't support crap, they want votes.. Theyre as ignorant as they've always been.. This is just a gameplay change for them. Not a true mental philosophical change on their part...

They do not deserve even 1 second of adulation.

 

Yeah, everybody stop adulating the Republicans!

 

If you're talking about the Republicans, most of them are retired from office and no longer seeking office.

 

oh well that's why theyre for it, the neo cons cant pander to their religious nut jobs living 200 years in the past if they came out in favor of this.

 

Reminder as this is a Senate-tagged thread to keep this to the topic at hand - Lowbacca_1977

 

If marriage ever meant anything, we have certainly forgot it. It's just an empty tradition nowadays.

 

Current U.S. Senator Rob Portman, considered for VP in 2012, now supports gay marriage:
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...-announces-support-for-same-sex-marriage?lite

 

lol how principled of him...

 

So... people are never allowed to have a change of heart? Never allowed to have their opinions evolve over time?

 

They're allowed to, but there ought to be a better reason than "this is for my son."