Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Sexuality
Vol. 6:1 (2017) ► pp.30–60

Unnatural acts lead to unconsummated marriages

Discourses of homosexuality within the House of Lords debate on same-sex marriage

 | University of Oxford, UK
In June and July 2013, the UK House of Lords debated, and ultimately accepted, a Bill to legalise same-sex marriage. Following the model of Baker’s (2004) work on a set of earlier Lords debates relating to homosexuality, this study uses a corpus-based keywords analysis to assess the main lexical differences between those arguing in favour and those arguing against a change to the marriage laws. In so doing, it sheds light on the ways in which discourses relating to homosexuality are constructed and accessed by the Lords. In general, it is shown that supporters of reform take advantage of their hegemonic liberal position to construct a simple line of argument in contrast to the opponents, who are forced to use more subtle and elaborate lines of reasoning by the limited discursive space available to those espousing anti-LGBT sentiments.
Keywords: discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, marriage, homosexuality, politics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Same-sex marriage in the UK
    • 2.2The House of Lords
  • 3.On the notion of ‘discourse’
  • 4.Literature review
  • 5.Data
  • 6.Keywords
  • 7.Discourses of homosexuality
    • 7.1Homosexual acts, but gay identities?
    • 7.2Supporters of the Bill: A classical liberal discourse of freedom
    • 7.3Opponents of the Bill: A discourse of due process
    • 7.4‘Unintended and unanticipated consequences’
    • 7.5‘It changes the nature and meaning of marriage’
    • 7.6‘The stability and complementarity of different sexes’
  • 8.Discussion
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Legislation mentioned in text
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 22 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.6.1.02fin
References (45)
Legislation mentioned in text
Local Government Act 1988, Chapter 9. Available at: [URL]
Gender Recognition Act 2004, Chapter 7. Available at: [URL]
Civil Partnership Act 2004, Chapter 33. Available at: [URL]
Equality Act 2006, Chapter 3. Available at: [URL]
2010, Chapter 15. Available at: [URL]
Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013, Chapter 30. Available at: [URL]
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, asp 5. Available at: [URL]
References
Anthony, Laurence. 2011. AntConc (Version 3.2.4) [computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. <[URL]>
Aston, Guy & Burnard, Lou. 1998. The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things With Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bachmann, Ingo. 2011. Civil partnership – “gay marriage in all but name”: A corpus-driven analysis of discourses of same-sex relationships in the UK Parliament. Corpora 6(1): 77–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Paul. 2004. ‘Unnatural acts’: Discourses of homosexuality within the House of Lords debates on gay male law reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(1): 88–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Sexed Texts. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2003. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Baunach, Dawn Michelle. 2011. Decomposing trends in attitudes toward gay marriage, 1988–2006. Social Science Quarterly 92(2): 346–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloor, Michael & Wood, Fiona. 2006. Keywords in Qualitative Methods. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burr, Vivien. 1995. An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.Google Scholar
. 2003. Narrow Church? Critical Quarterly 45(4): 109–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004. BYU-BNC. <[URL]>
Eckert, Penelope & McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 211: 461–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1972 [1969]. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
. 1979 [1976]. The History of Sexuality: Volume 1. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics: Volume 3, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
House of Commons. 2013. Making Laws. Guides to Parliament: People, Events and Places. London: Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons. <[URL]>
House of Lords. 2011. Role and Work. House of Lords Briefing. London: Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords. <[URL]>
Lave, Jean & Wenger, Etienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louw, Bill. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Text and Technology, Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, Robbie & Baker, Paul. 2015. The hate that dare not speak its name? Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 3(1): 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2006. Why defining is seldom ‘just semantics’: Marriage and marriage . In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, Betty Birner & Gregory Ward (eds), 217–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son.Google Scholar
Moscowitz, Leigh M. 2010. Gay marriage in television news: Voice and visual representation in the same-sex marriage debate. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 54(1): 24–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, David. 2011. Neoliberal homophobic discourse: Heteronormative human capital and the exclusion of queer citizens. Journal of Homosexuality 581: 742–757. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, Jonathan. 1997. Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally-occurring talk. In Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, David Silverman (ed), 144–160. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Rogers, Robert & Walters, Rhodri. 2006. How Parliament Works. 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike. 1999. WordSmith Tools Help Version 3.10.425. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shell, Donald. 2007. The House of Lords. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sunderland, Jane. 2004. Gendered Discourses. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talbot, Mary. 2010. Language and Gender: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Tatchell, Peter. 2009. Gordon’s sexual apartheid. The Guardian (guardian.co.uk). <[URL]> (August 31, 2016)
van der Bom, Isabelle, Coffey-Glover, Laura, Jones, Lucy, Mills, Sara & Paterson, Laura L. 2015. Implicit homophobic argument structure: Equal-marriage discourse in The Moral Maze . Journal of Language and Sexuality 4(1): 102–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Paterson, Laura L. & Mark McGlashan
2024. Same-sex marriage, gay marriage, or equal marriage?. Journal of Language and Sexuality 13:2 ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo
Cousson, Anne
2022. Reinventing the House of Lords for the XXIst century. Revue LISA / LISA e-journal :vol. 20-n°54 DOI logo
Jones, Lucy
2021. Queer linguistics and identity. Journal of Language and Sexuality 10:1 ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Phillips, Robert
2021. A corpus-assisted analysis of the discursive construction of LGBT Singaporeans in media coverage of Pink Dot. Journal of Language and Sexuality 10:2 ► pp. 180 ff. DOI logo
Kania, Ursula
2020. Marriage for all (‘Ehe fuer alle’)?! A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of the marriage equality debate in Germany. Critical Discourse Studies 17:2 ► pp. 138 ff. DOI logo
Paterson, Laura L. & Georgina Turner
2020. Approaches to discourses of marriage. Critical Discourse Studies 17:2 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Turton, Stephen
2020. Redefining realness. Journal of Language and Sexuality 9:2 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Żuk, Piotr & Paweł Żuk
2020. ‘Murderers of the unborn’ and ‘sexual degenerates’: analysis of the ‘anti-gender’ discourse of the Catholic Church and the nationalist right in Poland. Critical Discourse Studies 17:5 ► pp. 566 ff. DOI logo
Coffey-Glover, Laura & Rachel Handforth
2019. Discourses of (hetero)sexism in popular music. Journal of Language and Sexuality 8:2 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Monahan, Martin
2019. ‘Tory-normativity’ and gay rights advocacy in the British Conservative Party since the 1950s. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 21:1 ► pp. 132 ff. DOI logo
Motschenbacher, Heiko
2018. Corpus linguistics in language and sexuality studies. Journal of Language and Sexuality 7:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Paterson, Laura L. & Laura Coffey-Glover
2018. Discourses of marriage in same-sex marriage debates in the UK press 2011–2014. Journal of Language and Sexuality 7:2 ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.