For Martinus, CDM, Garbon etc.
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/gay-marriage-law-pass-parliament (http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/gay-marriage-law-pass-parliament)
QuoteGay marriage law to pass in parliament
Peter Stanners
June 7, 2012 - 13:13
Same-sex couples will be able to be married in Danish churches as soon as June 15 while those in civil partnerships will automatically be granted the status as 'married'
The ban on marrying same-sex couples in the Church of Denmark will be overturned in parliament today, as a majority of parties have announced their intention to support a law to make marriage gender neutral.
The law does permit vicars to decline to marry same-sex couples in their church, however. In such cases, couples would need to find another minister to perform the ceremony for them.
Same-sex ceremonies may occur as soon as June 15 should the nation's bishops, as expected, come up with a ceremony by Monday that can be used to wed same-sex couples in church.
The new ceremony was needed after bishops ruled that the current one can only be used to wed heterosexual couples. But while same-sex and heterosexual couples will be wed using different rituals, their marriage status will be equal.
In 1989, Denmark became the first country in the world to allow civil partnerships between couples of the same gender, and with the expected law change, the approximately 4,100 couples in registered partnerships will automatically be granted the status of marriage.
According to the church minister, Manu Sareen (Radikale), today's law change is "historic".
"In 1989 people were given the opportunity to register their partnership at city hall," Sareen told Politiken newspaper. "But now that we have given them the opportunity to get married, we have lifted the level of equality to a whole new level compared to 1989. Couples of the same sex will be put on the same footing as couples of different sex and that is a huge change."
Sareen added that allowing vicars to decline to marry same-sex couples meant that parliament was not infringing on the Church of Denmark's right to make its own theological reading.
"We are giving vicars the opportunity to say no. That's what's so fantastic about this proposal. On the one hand it allows same sex couples the opportunity to get married," Sareen said, adding:
"But at the same time we are reaching out to priests and saying that those who don't want to wed homosexual couples don't have to. We recognise that when dealing with theology you have to accept their will be different interpretations."
This view was not shared by the Kristendemokraterne (KD) – who currently have no seats in parliament – and who are now threatening to launch a class action law suit against the state.
"Parliament is infringing of religious freedom and in doing so violates the constitution. That is why we are working on a lawsuit against the state to protect religious freedom and protect people who feel the law infringes their right to practice their faith," Per Ørum Jørgensen, KD's chairman, said.
Overall, however, support for the legislation was overwhelming, with the prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt (Socialdemokraterne), also marking the "historic occasion" on her Facebook page.
"Today we allow homosexual couples to enter into marriage on the same footing as any others – something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for many years," Thorning-Schmidt wrote.
Among the parties in parliament, only the right-wing Dansk Folkeparti has said it will vote against the law, while party leaders from the opposition Venstre and Konservative have told their MPs they were free to vote according to their conscience. All other parties have announced their intention to vote in favour.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cphpost.dk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2F400x300%2Fpublic%2F20120311-same-sex-wedding_web_0.jpg&hash=00173b74d9c007b66fec354bc257e5c8838eca8d)
Quote from: Octavian on June 07, 2012, 07:05:22 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cphpost.dk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2F400x300%2Fpublic%2F20120311-same-sex-wedding_web_0.jpg&hash=00173b74d9c007b66fec354bc257e5c8838eca8d)
Doable
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2012, 07:18:43 AM
Quote from: Octavian on June 07, 2012, 07:05:22 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cphpost.dk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2F400x300%2Fpublic%2F20120311-same-sex-wedding_web_0.jpg&hash=00173b74d9c007b66fec354bc257e5c8838eca8d)
Doable
Agreed! Although I would require them both to participate and on my terms.
Quote"Today we allow homosexual couples to enter into marriage on the same footing as any others – something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for many years," Thorning-Schmidt wrote.
I think there is one "for" missing in that sentence. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2012, 08:28:51 AM
Quote"Today we allow homosexual couples to enter into marriage on the same footing as any others – something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for many years," Thorning-Schmidt wrote.
I think there is one "for" missing in that sentence. :lol:
No there isn't. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2012, 08:28:51 AM
Quote"Today we allow homosexual couples to enter into marriage on the same footing as any others – something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for many years," Thorning-Schmidt wrote.
I think there is one "for" missing in that sentence. :lol:
:D
:swiss:
Quote from: Solmyr on June 07, 2012, 09:38:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2012, 08:28:51 AM
Quote"Today we allow homosexual couples to enter into marriage on the same footing as any others – something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for many years," Thorning-Schmidt wrote.
I think there is one "for" missing in that sentence. :lol:
No there isn't. :huh:
Yes there is. Unless they wanted to say that, for many years, the social democrats have been fighting (against) gay marriage, the sentence should have read "something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for for many years."
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2012, 07:18:43 AM
Quote from: Octavian on June 07, 2012, 07:05:22 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cphpost.dk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2F400x300%2Fpublic%2F20120311-same-sex-wedding_web_0.jpg&hash=00173b74d9c007b66fec354bc257e5c8838eca8d)
Doable
I think the one on the right fills the man role, just FWIW.
What do people mean about the man's role when talking about lesbians?
I get it with gay men, but I've never understood what that means with lesbians.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
What do people mean about the man's role when talking about lesbians?
I get it with gay men, but I've never understood what that means with lesbians.
There just usually seems to be one that's more butch than the other.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
What do people mean about the man's role when talking about lesbians?
I get it with gay men, but I've never understood what that means with lesbians.
She shoves the cucumbers in the other one's ass.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
What do people mean about the man's role when talking about lesbians?
I get it with gay men, but I've never understood what that means with lesbians.
Are you kidding me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_and_femme
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2012, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
What do people mean about the man's role when talking about lesbians?
I get it with gay men, but I've never understood what that means with lesbians.
Are you kidding me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_and_femme
I assumed it was a sexual thing. So I meant sexually.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 03:05:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2012, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
What do people mean about the man's role when talking about lesbians?
I get it with gay men, but I've never understood what that means with lesbians.
Are you kidding me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_and_femme
I assumed it was a sexual thing. So I meant sexually.
It can. You can have a more submissive and a more dominant partner even without penis play. Just ask Mart.
To answer more seriously Shelf, I don't think lesbians are all that interested in sex.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
To answer more seriously Shelf, I don't think lesbians are all that interested in sex.
Not when they get older, apparently.
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2012, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 07, 2012, 09:38:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2012, 08:28:51 AM
Quote"Today we allow homosexual couples to enter into marriage on the same footing as any others – something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for many years," Thorning-Schmidt wrote.
I think there is one "for" missing in that sentence. :lol:
No there isn't. :huh:
Yes there is. Unless they wanted to say that, for many years, the social democrats have been fighting (against) gay marriage, the sentence should have read "something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for for many years."
Uh, no. If they whated to say that they fought against it, they would have said fought against. Instead, they said that they fought for it, many years. While saying the word "for" twice in a row would not be wrong as such, it's more elegant not to, and the above sentence is grammatically correct, because "many years" is equivalent to "for many years" in this context.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 08, 2012, 12:27:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2012, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 07, 2012, 09:38:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2012, 08:28:51 AM
Quote"Today we allow homosexual couples to enter into marriage on the same footing as any others – something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for many years," Thorning-Schmidt wrote.
I think there is one "for" missing in that sentence. :lol:
No there isn't. :huh:
Yes there is. Unless they wanted to say that, for many years, the social democrats have been fighting (against) gay marriage, the sentence should have read "something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for for many years."
Uh, no. If they whated to say that they fought against it, they would have said fought against. Instead, they said that they fought for it, many years. While saying the word "for" twice in a row would not be wrong as such, it's more elegant not to, and the above sentence is grammatically correct, because "many years" is equivalent to "for many years" in this context.
Can a native speaker resolve this? I think Solmyr is wrong.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 03:05:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2012, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
What do people mean about the man's role when talking about lesbians?
I get it with gay men, but I've never understood what that means with lesbians.
Are you kidding me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_and_femme
I assumed it was a sexual thing. So I meant sexually.
It's actually the opposite. In my experience, the reason why it doesn't ultimately make sense to talk about the "man" and the "woman" in a homosexual relationship is that, unlike the usual fare for straight couples, while homosexual couples fall within these patterns, they are never (or at least very rarely) consistent across the board.
So e.g. the stay at home person may be also more "masculine" and dominant in the relationship, but also be the bottom in sex etc.
Generally-speaking, Martinus is right on the issue because that statement is poorly written (spoken, really, since it's a quote), but due to the intricacies of the English language, Solmyr is also correct.
Solmyr's explanation that it is something they "fought for many years" assumes a momentary pause between "fought for" and "many years" to make it mean what it does.
As written, though, it is very easy to see it be misconstrued as saying that they fought against the item in question, so I would say it is clumsy writing. It makes more sense as spoken, but the quote as-is is confusing.
I only play a native speaker on TV, but my sense is that it's grammatically correct but sounds a little off. Like a line David Caradine would say in Kung Fu: "I lived in monastery many years."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2012, 01:18:55 AM
I only play a native speaker on TV, but my sense is that it's grammatically correct but sounds a little off. Like a line David Caradine would say in Kung Fu: "I lived in monastery many years."
:yes:
Well I googled "fight for for many years" and "fight for many years", and the former never showed up while the latter did.
"Fought for for many years" showed up though. In 50000 examples even. With one 'for' all the examples on the first page was for fighting against something for many years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
To answer more seriously Shelf, I don't think lesbians are all that interested in sex.
Where do you get that idea? I know its a small sample size but the 2 I know are the horniest people i know.
Quote from: sbr on June 08, 2012, 10:04:07 AM
Where do you get that idea? I know its a small sample size but the 2 I know are the horniest people i know.
I suspect lesbians are not any more or less interested in sex than non-lesbian women. Which is to say it varies wildly.
But who cares? They are not interested in sex with me.
From years of watching the L Word, I can say two things: Lesbians are horny as heck, and there is a tendency for more feminine and less feminine lesbians to pair up.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 08, 2012, 10:52:46 AM
From years of watching the L Word, I can say two things: Lesbians are horny as heck, and there is a tendency for more feminine and less feminine lesbians to pair up.
I have to say I know quite a few Lesbians but I do not really think this stereotype holds up...but then I do admit I do not know any super feminine or super masculine lesbians. They are just...erm....sorta normal.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2012, 11:08:32 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 08, 2012, 10:52:46 AM
From years of watching the L Word, I can say two things: Lesbians are horny as heck, and there is a tendency for more feminine and less feminine lesbians to pair up.
I have to say I know quite a few Lesbians but I do not really think this stereotype holds up...but then I do admit I do not know any super feminine or super masculine lesbians. They are just...erm....sorta normal.
The lesbians you know probably also have real jobs instead of whole communities working in some form of entertainment or other. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 08, 2012, 12:06:11 PM
The lesbians you know probably also have real jobs instead of whole communities working in some form of entertainment or other. :rolleyes:
It's true :(
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2012, 11:08:32 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 08, 2012, 10:52:46 AM
From years of watching the L Word, I can say two things: Lesbians are horny as heck, and there is a tendency for more feminine and less feminine lesbians to pair up.
I have to say I know quite a few Lesbians but I do not really think this stereotype holds up...but then I do admit I do not know any super feminine or super masculine lesbians. They are just...erm....sorta normal.
The fairly small sample size of lesbians I know reveals them to be fairly consistently opposed to make up, but otherwise fairly normal.
Of course half of those were Yukon lesbians...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 08, 2012, 10:52:46 AM
there is a tendency for more feminine and less feminine lesbians to pair up.
I think this is an "optical illusion".
What I mean by that, people are different, and that means different people are more masculine or feminine compared to each other. It is rare for an average guy to be more feminine than an average girl (so in heterosexual couples, in most cases the guy will be more masculine than the girl), but when you have two guys or two girls, one will almost always end up being more masculine or feminine than the other one, as it is very hard to find two people of the same gender who are exactly as masculine or feminine. This creates an illusion/stereotype that gay or lesbian pairings are based on this difference, which is not the case.
To test this theory, think about a gay pairing of two random heterosexual guys or two random heterosexual women you know - and you will realize that one will be the "butch" and the other the "femme" (and, depending on the pairing, not always the same one will have the same role).
The two lebiang couples that hang out at my boozer (one broke up a while back) come straight out of central casting. Butch has the short spiked hair and the cuffed jeans.
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2012, 02:49:17 PM
I think this is an "optical illusion".
Not so much on the show, they hardly ever put two "butch" girls together. There were a few lipstick pairings which were a sop to male viewers.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 08, 2012, 03:39:43 PM
Not so much on the show, they hardly ever put two "butch" girls together. There were a few lipstick pairings which were a sop to male viewers.
TV fails us once more :(
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2012, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 08, 2012, 03:39:43 PM
Not so much on the show, they hardly ever put two "butch" girls together. There were a few lipstick pairings which were a sop to male viewers.
TV fails us once more :(
Not nearly as badly as porn has failed us on this topic! :D
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2012, 02:49:17 PM
I think this is an "optical illusion".
Are you basing this on any actual knowledge has to how the butch/femme thing works with lesbians, or just extrapolating how it works with gay men?
All I know is that when I got stopped in San Francisco because the Dykes on Bikes ride was going along a cross street the big mean looking butch lesbians had the little lipstick lesbians behind them on their Harleys.
Ok does butch mean big and mean looking or just having spikey hair and wearing jeans and stuff? Because if it is the former I have never actually met a butch lesbian.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2012, 04:29:28 PM
Ok does butch mean big and mean looking or just having spikey hair and wearing jeans and stuff? Because if it is the former I have never actually met a butch lesbian.
They Dykes on bikes are a special breed...
Butch means masculine. Different ways of expressing it.
The lesbians I know have been pretty ordinary looking. Not "lipstick lesbians" and not noticeable "butch". More like "comfortable pants and sensible shoes lesbians". Oh and I think they all had fairly short (but not masculine) hair.