(May 20, 2013 at 3:13 pm)ideologue08 Wrote:(May 20, 2013 at 3:04 pm)apophenia Wrote: Actually, if you read the article carefully, it only states that Stonewall,"said it would be a 'terrible pity' if the legislation got 'bogged down' and urged MPs from all parties not to 'play politics' with it." While it may be true that Stonewall is against civil partnerships for heterosexuals, nothing in the article actually indicates this.In English, when you say to someone not to get "bogged down" with something, it means that you don't want them to make progress with it. This is from the Collins English Thesaurus: If you get bogged down in something, it prevents you from making progress or getting something done.. So, in plain English, it means Stonewall do not want progress on the heterosexual civil partnership cause. It's the exact same phrase used by our defence secretary when he justified his reasoning for opposing the gay marriage cause sighting other more worthy causes, they shouldn't be "bogged down" on gay marriage.
I'm going to be charitable here and presume that English is not your first language. Nor your second. Or even your third. Matter of fact, I'm guessing your education in the English language came in some place after "how not to accidentally burn toast so that it might inadvertently be interpreted as an attempt to create an image of the prophet (praise be upon hizzass)."
You have things exactly ass backwards.