Tory Party fractures open up over gay 'marriage'

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm no bigot - I once fought a gay boxer, says Tory MP David Davies

Conservative MP David Davies has claimed he cannot be prejudiced against homosexual people because he once "fought a gay boxer".


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02422/David-Davies_2422980b.jpg
David Davies, the Conservative MP for Monmouth


David Davies, a Tory MP for Monmouth, denied he was bigoted, after he was criticised for saying “most parents” would prefer to not to have homosexual children.

The MP made the controversial comments on BBC Wales on Sunday, as he argued that plans to allow same-sex marriage are "barking mad".

The remarks were attacked by gay rights activists and a number of celebrities but Mr Davies today told campaigners to "calm down" and "listen to other views".

On his Twitter account, the MP said he respects, likes and trained with a gay boxer after they fought in the ring, so he cannot be bigoted.

The MP said he was not suggesting parents do not want their gay children and urged activists to stop "condemning" him for things he did not say.

Mr Davies also posted a video of himself fighting the boxer, known as Charles 'Pink Pounder' Jones.

He said: "I think most people are very tolerant and have no problem at all if people are gay but, and I hate to say this in a way because I expect it's going to cause controversy, but I think most parents would prefer their children not to be gay, knowing most parents want grandchildren if nothing else."

Mr Davies is one of a number of Conservative backbenchers to speak out against same-sex marriage in recent weeks.

Stewart Jackson, a Tory MP, said condemned the "arrogant" Prime Minister for pushing through plans that risk alienating the Conservative Party grassroots.

Critics of Mr Cameron’s plans say that they will actually bring the party few new votes while alienating a much larger number of its existing backers.

Mr Davies said: “We're going to lose a large number of very loyal activists who've gone out and campaigned for us over the years and who don't like this idea, so politically it's barking mad”

He said that existing laws allowing same-sex couples to have civil partnerships could be changed to ensure full equality without going as far as church weddings. “I really don't know why we need to go ahead with this at all.”

However, many Conservative advocates of the same-sex marriage plan is an essential part of changing the party’s image in the eyes of some voters, who regard Tories as intolerant.

Shock horror, Tory MP tells truth and is hounded for it. The truth? that most parents by far wouldn't want their children to be gay for a number of reasons, that they don't agree with it/no grandchildren and other reasons.

As for gay 'marriage' - it's almost as though Cameron is trying to destroy the Conservative Party and we've just had Sir John Major, 'right wing' Boris Johnson and 'right wing' Michael Gove back the proposals. In relation to social conservatives in the party, there's not much more you could do to have them leave than to force through gay 'marriage'. Back at Conference last year, an important but uncovered event occurred - a large number of the Conservative conference stood up and walked out when Cameron started talking about gay 'marriage'. Now, had this been the other way around then the media almost certainly would have covered it.

The ineffective and useless Tory Party steps closer to it's impending collapse, not that i'm complaining as it won't be missed.

Thoughts?

[GommeInc]

I'm on the fence with the gay marriage debate. From what I can tell, homosexuals have a disinterest in marriage and it just seems to be equality fanatics with too much time on their hands going on about it. Isn't marriage also dying as an "institution" (why it's still referred to one I simply do not know)? So I'm not really for or against. The proposed legislation does protect religious interests as in churches can deny a couple to marry, but the infamous Equality Act 2010 will no doubt see homosexual couples winning favour when equality is meant to be absolute, not one sided.

As for the separate debate of adoption - Better to be adopted by a same-sex couple than be left to rot in some children's home for the rest of your life. Fostering and adopting are both very low these days. It's best to ignore petty things like sexual orientation and party allegiance. That said, the educational system in this country is rubbish at the moment, and these adopted children will be hounded much like they already are for having parents of whom you weren't born from.

[FlyingJesus]

omf I once punched a gay man for sport I can't possibly hate gays, that is hilarious

Anyhoo that aside, have you got any stats to back up your "most parents" view on this or is it just from talking to other people who think the same way as you Dan? I know that a lot of poor and uneducated areas probably do have this opinion but I'm not convinced that it would make the majority, and regardless it has literally nothing to do with the gay marriage debate - except possibly to work in favour of gay marriage and other social rights by suggesting that if people are really more concerned about potentially having grandchildren than the happiness of their own kids (laughable) then surely it would make sense for gay couples to be allowed to marry and adopt and so forth, therefore giving everyone what they want.

[-:Undertaker:-]

omf I once punched a gay man for sport I can't possibly hate gays, that is hilarious

Anyhoo that aside, have you got any stats to back up your "most parents" view on this or is it just from talking to other people who think the same way as you Dan? I know that a lot of poor and uneducated areas probably do have this opinion but I'm not convinced that it would make the majority

I don't have any statistics for this but if you can find some then all the better, it's just based on personal experience and indeed I was talking with a friend about this only last night regarding attitudes - and she and her family can hardly be accused of having conservative attitudes towards homosexuality given her opinions on gay marriage, adoption and so forth.

I think it's fair to say that most people would prefer their son not to be gay rather than be gay.


and regardless it has literally nothing to do with the gay marriage debate - except possibly to work in favour of gay marriage and other social rights by suggesting that if people are really more concerned about potentially having grandchildren than the happiness of their own kids (laughable) then surely it would make sense for gay couples to be allowed to marry and adopt and so forth, therefore giving everyone what they want.

I've said before my personal opinion on this is that i'd de facto allow it by removing the state from marriage even though i'll never consider them to be anything near 'marriage', however i'm against the present proposals more for the reason that as soon as two homosexuals take the Churches, teachers or civil registers to court - then under Equality and Discrimination law we will see people being sent to prison for their religious, political and social beliefs. The B&B owners being a prime example of this.

Now the Prime Minister says this won't happen, and aside from not trusting anything that comes from his mouth - the point is that back in 2004 was it not, we were told that once Civil Partnerships were granted then that would be the end of it. It wasn't.

[FlyingJesus]

Civil partnerships aren't the end of it because they don't equate to the same thing legally - as you say, it ought to be completely removed from the state really, but seeing as how that won't happen (because it's too lucrative for taxing) it makes sense to elevate the rights of all state-sanctioned couplings to the same level. I would certainly stand by the individual preferences of the diocese to choose whether or not they allow same sex marriages to take place in their buildings but standing in the way of civil rights based on the opinions of one religion seems absurd

[-:Undertaker:-]

Civil partnerships aren't the end of it because they don't equate to the same thing legally - as you say, it ought to be completely removed from the state really, but seeing as how that won't happen (because it's too lucrative for taxing) it makes sense to elevate the rights of all state-sanctioned couplings to the same level. I would certainly stand by the individual preferences of the diocese to choose whether or not they allow same sex marriages to take place in their buildings but standing in the way of civil rights based on the opinions of one religion seems absurd

As far as i'm aware, civil partnerships offer all the same legal protections as marriage does.

[Munex]

Why is everyone getting in such a fuss over gay marriage? I find it absolutely ridiculous.

As far as I understand, the proposal is that gay marriage will be allowed to go ahead, but the churches/mosques/etc. can deny to perform them if they so wish. Under this proposal, religion and sexuality is respected. You can't force a religion to perform a gay marriage - that is completely ludicrous too.

Cameron made it categorically clear that the religious institutions will not be taken to court if they deny to perform a gay marriage. It would be wrong to do so. Loads of people that get married in church are not even Christian, they have no right to take a religion to court.

What's the problem? I have no respect for anybody that says gay marriage is not acceptable, unless it goes against your religion, in which case you can deny to perform the gay marriage. It's the perfect situation. Nobody is forcing anything.

And on the matter of what Davies said about parents not wanting gay children - I agree. I am gay, my mum loves me, but why would any parent wish the hardships of homosexuality on their children? In time, many homosexuals learn to cope, but others around them do not. It can be hard being gay; who wants that for their children? Not me.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why is everyone getting in such a fuss over gay marriage? I find it absolutely ridiculous.

As far as I understand, the proposal is that gay marriage will be allowed to go ahead, but the churches/mosques/etc. can deny to perform them if they so wish. Under this proposal, religion and sexuality is respected. You can't force a religion to perform a gay marriage - that is completely ludicrous too.

Cameron made it categorically clear that the religious institutions will not be taken to court if they deny to perform a gay marriage. It would be wrong to do so. Loads of people that get married in church are not even Christian, they have no right to take a religion to court.

What's the problem? I have no respect for anybody that says gay marriage is not acceptable, unless it goes against your religion, in which case you can deny to perform the gay marriage. It's the perfect situation. Nobody is forcing anything.

And on the matter of what Davies said about parents not wanting gay children - I agree. I am gay, my mum loves me, but why would any parent wish the hardships of homosexuality on their children? In time, many homosexuals learn to cope, but others around them do not. It can be hard being gay; who wants that for their children? Not me.

The problem is that it's hard to believe anything Cameron says and that this is the thin end of the wedge. And also to add to that, Cameron doesn't control the law in the courts, especially not at the ECJ/ECHR level - so if two homosexuals take the government to court we could end up with the prospect that we had a few years ago, where Catholic adoption agencies had the choice of being closed or being forced to adopt children out to gay couples; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-20184133

Repeal the anti-discrimination and equality laws and it'd be much easier to find a compromise.

[The Don]

Regardless of what 'most parents want' (statistics to back this up please), in a free society (which seems to be something you push at every opportunity you get) same-sex marriage should be allowed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Regardless of what 'most parents want' (statistics to back this up please)

Already stated that no statistics are possible on this matter and it's personal experience, as is yours.


in a free society (which seems to be something you push at every opportunity you get) same-sex marriage should be allowed.

Indeed, which I would allow by removing the state from marriage. However, the bonuses in terms of freedom under the current proposals are outweighed by the loss of freedom that will result from what i've already discussed concerning Churches, teachers an civic venues.

If we could remove the state from it tommorow then that would be great, but that's not whats being offered so I have to work with what we've been given.

[The Don]

Already stated that no statistics are possible on this matter and it's personal experience, as is yours.



Indeed, which I would allow by removing the state from marriage. However, the bonuses in terms of freedom under the current proposals are outweighed by the loss of freedom that will result from what i've already discussed concerning Churches, teachers an civic venues.

If we could remove the state from it tommorow then that would be great, but that's not whats being offered so I have to work with what we've been given.

Cameron's said that nobody would be prosecuted for refusing to host a ceremony so I'm not quite sure what 'loss of freedom' you're referring to...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Cameron's said that nobody would be prosecuted for refusing to host a ceremony so I'm not quite sure what 'loss of freedom' you're referring to...

Which, if you look at past examples such as gay adoption and anti-discrimination laws, people have ended up going to court. And as i've said before, Cameron promises the world yet none of his promises ever turn out to be true - not to mention that after he is gone, who's to uphold this promise?

And thats without even mentioning the ECHR and the Equality/Discrimination Acts.

[The Don]

Which, if you look at past examples such as gay adoption and anti-discrimination laws, people have ended up going to court. And as i've said before, Cameron promises the world yet none of his promises ever turn out to be true - not to mention that after he is gone, who's to uphold this promise?

And thats without even mentioning the ECHR and the Equality/Discrimination Acts.

So you'd rather we just refuse same-sex couples the privilege of marriage? love hypocrites, maybe we should revoke women's right to vote too whilst we're at it...

[Inseriousity.]

"I'm not racist, I buy a newspaper from the guy in the corner shop everyday" lolol that gay boxer thing is a bit weird.

Not entirely convinced that most parents wouldn't want a gay child. I'd say most parents would want their children to be happy and would try their hardest to accept their child's sexuality. That being said, they do exist, I'd just question the 'most' aspect of that.

As for gay marriage, I believe it should be up to churches although if marriage is defined by the state then it logically follows that they would have to do something first before churches that would accept gay marriages could legally do so?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So you'd rather we just refuse same-sex couples the privilege of marriage? love hypocrites, maybe we should revoke women's right to vote too whilst we're at it...

If it means protecting the freedoms and liberties of a higher majority who could be put at risk of losing their jobs and homes, then yes I would.

Again, i'm not the one putting the choice forward - i'd like to do the simple thing and get the state out of it.

[FlyingJesus]

I'm pretty sure there's no majority at risk of losing their jobs and homes if gay people are given the ability to marry - unless you believe that the majority of people in this country are employed as sleuths checking that gays aren't married, living in houses paid for entirely by the Archaic Nonsense Society

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm pretty sure there's no majority at risk of losing their jobs and homes if gay people are given the ability to marry - unless you believe that the majority of people in this country are employed as sleuths checking that gays aren't married, living in houses paid for entirely by the Archaic Nonsense Society

I don't mean the majority of everyone here as you know fully well, I mean all the people who would be put at risk from this sort of legislation - the numbers of teachers, civil servants and Church associated people. For example and this was given at the UKIP conference by a member, it's likely that Christian churches who oppose gay marriage will be barred from using Council venues due to them not allowing homosexual 'weddings'.

All it takes is one complaint or a court case.

[FlyingJesus]

1)If you don't mean majority then don't say majority, you can't make statements and then say "yeah well I didn't actually mean it"

2) In what way are teachers to be affected? They have nothing to do with the marriage system and it's already very much illegal to discriminate against pupils based on sexuality

3) The same goes for civil servants, and the only reason their overpaid cushy jobs might ever be at risk over this is if they're too bigoted to want to work in a government which allows freedom of choice - their fault, not the fault of people who are in love

4) Churches are not being forced to perform gay marriages, and the UKIP statement about barring churches from council venues should make absolute sense to you considering you seem to approve of letting the owners of establishments do as they will with them - if the council owns a building, they own the right to set the rules for its use

[-:Undertaker:-]

1)If you don't mean majority then don't say majority, you can't make statements and then say "yeah well I didn't actually mean it"

I mean majority as in the majority of people have their rights put at risk against the homosexual minority.


2) In what way are teachers to be affected? They have nothing to do with the marriage system and it's already very much illegal to discriminate against pupils based on sexuality

A teacher will be forced, against his or hers will, to teach that homosexual marriages are equal to traditional marriages.


3) The same goes for civil servants, and the only reason their overpaid cushy jobs might ever be at risk over this is if they're too bigoted to want to work in a government which allows freedom of choice - their fault, not the fault of people who are in love

So what about a Christian lady who works in a registry office but whom doesn't want to perfrom gay 'marriages' as its against her beliefs?


4) Churches are not being forced to perform gay marriages, and the UKIP statement about barring churches from council venues should make absolute sense to you considering you seem to approve of letting the owners of establishments do as they will with them - if the council owns a building, they own the right to set the rules for its use

Indeed, however with the state i've always argued it ought to be netural in these matters.

[FlyingJesus]

I mean majority as in the majority of people have their rights put at risk against the homosexual minority.

No-one has their rights put at risk by enabling homosexuals to marry, because no-one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex in any sense of the term. There is no majority opposition here


A teacher will be forced, against his or hers will, to teach that homosexual marriages are equal to traditional marriages.

They may be required to teach that in a secular society it is an equal option, but that's no more oppressive than a conservative philosophy lecturer having to teach socialist theory. When you teach your job is to explain the subject, not your personal views on it


So what about a Christian lady who works in a registry office but whom doesn't want to perfrom gay 'marriages' as its against her beliefs?

Again that is her problem and she is limiting herself by her beliefs. Jews don't believe they should work on the Sabbath and are thereby confined by their own faith, but they don't attempt to force everyone else to stop working, and them being unable to work a saturday job is down to their choices rather being the fault of the employer


Indeed, however with the state i've always argued it ought to be netural in these matters.

Every single building in the country if not the world has legal restrictions on what can be done inside it, state owned or private

[-:Undertaker:-]

No-one has their rights put at risk by enabling homosexuals to marry, because no-one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex in any sense of the term. There is no majority opposition here

The risk comes from the fact that once the wedge is in the door, a gay couple will take the Church to court (either the High Court or ECHR) and they'll rule that all Churches must allow weddings and not discriminate under the Equality Act. That is where the danger is.

And it's already happened with Catholic adoption agencies.


They may be required to teach that in a secular society it is an equal option, but that's no more oppressive than a conservative philosophy lecturer having to teach socialist theory. When you teach your job is to explain the subject, not your personal views on it

The difference being that the other side won't be allowed to be aired.


Again that is her problem and she is limiting herself by her beliefs. Jews don't believe they should work on the Sabbath and are thereby confined by their own faith, but they don't attempt to force everyone else to stop working, and them being unable to work a saturday job is down to their choices rather being the fault of the employer

Indeed, but given the choice between these people losing their jobs and allowing homosexual marriage which will offer no extra legal protections what so ever - given that on a personal level I find gay 'marriage' ridiculous and objectionable, i'll side with the majority over that small minority.


Every single building in the country if not the world has legal restrictions on what can be done inside it, state owned or private

Who said it didn't - but when it comes to political matters and so forth, the state ought to be neutral. For example, a Council owned civic hall ought to be allowed to be rented out to gay groups, Christian groups, Marxist groups, National Socialist groups - the lot.

But that's not to say i'd have all of those groups round at my house or my hypothetical private hall.

[FlyingJesus]

The risk comes from the fact that once the wedge is in the door, a gay couple will take the Church to court (either the High Court or ECHR) and they'll rule that all Churches must allow weddings and not discriminate under the Equality Act. That is where the danger is.

And it's already happened with Catholic adoption agencies.

Adoption agencies are different in that the church doesn't own babies, it's merely adoption agencies with Catholic heading. The church does however own its scripture and most of its buildings, and while entrance to them can't easily be restricted, access to certain ceremonies can. Even for heterosexual couples you have to do certain training and church regulated practices before getting a religious marriage approved


The difference being that the other side won't be allowed to be aired.

Because there's a whole load of legal blockade concerning schools teaching about Hinduism or Communism or the slave trade or anything else that isn't the current societal norm, right? You're just talking nonsense now


Indeed, but given the choice between these people losing their jobs and allowing homosexual marriage which will offer no extra legal protections what so ever - given that on a personal level I find gay 'marriage' ridiculous and objectionable, i'll side with the majority over that small minority.

No-one loses their jobs, it's not a majority, you're still just saying buzzwords about hypothetical situations over and over with no substance at all to cover your personal view on the subject rather than actually give a proper answer to any of these points


Who said it didn't - but when it comes to political matters and so forth, the state ought to be neutral. For example, a Council owned civic hall ought to be allowed to be rented out to gay groups, Christian groups, Marxist groups, National Socialist groups - the lot.

But that's not to say i'd have all of those groups round at my house or my hypothetical private hall.

What you feel should be the case and what is the case isn't the same thing, and since we're talking about actual effects in the real world and not what might happen in the country your closed-off little mind has created your statements on this matter are totally pointless

[The Don]

If it means protecting the freedoms and liberties of a higher majority who could be put at risk of losing their jobs and homes, then yes I would.

Again, i'm not the one putting the choice forward - i'd like to do the simple thing and get the state out of it.

What you've just said totally contradicts your view on the smoking ban.


I cannot believe the attitude of some people on here who think that they have a right to remove something which they do not like via the force of the law. It absolutely annoys the hell out of me, worse still these are the same people who talk about 'the dark days' of when homosexuality was banned - which in part is true because why should the government ban what people do in their own bedrooms or what people smoke in their own bars.

[Munex]

And can I also say, -:Undertaker:-;

You said you were gay in the sexuality thread, so how can you say gay marriage is "ridiculous and objectionable"; unless you're religious, in which case, you are doomed to hell - regardless of England's political stance on gay marriage.

[HotelUser]

As my former Prime Minister of Canada Pierre Trudeau has said: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." and so I think gay people should be allowed to be married and should receive the exact same benefits from marriage as a heterosexual couple receive.

David Davies is an idiot not because of what his opinion is, he has a right to that opinion, but because he thought telling his opinion to the world was a good idea. Politicians don't get votes by preaching their own opinions. Davies should know when to speak and when to be quiet. He's going to lose any fraction of the gay vote that he has, he'll lose supportive parents and family members who have gay relatives, he'll lose a portion of the straight population who thinks he's a bigot because of what his opinion is.

Davies admits what he said was going to cause controversy so why on Earth did he think he would benefit in the end from saying it :S

[FlyingJesus]

Gay marriage to be explicitly banned in CoE churches, regardless of the opinions of the ministers (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mp-warns-gay-marriage-disaster-tories-220034072.html)

Is that protection enough for you Dan? I know you're all for undermining freedom when it suits your own views so I imagine you'll be ecstatic about this new proposal to force churches to exclude people. You claim that multiculturalism and those inconsiderate people who want equality are to blame for the churches dying off, but frankly it's their own doing along with the government

[Inseriousity.]

As my former Prime Minister of Canada Pierre Trudeau has said: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." and so I think gay people should be allowed to be married and should receive the exact same benefits from marriage as a heterosexual couple receive.

David Davies is an idiot not because of what his opinion is, he has a right to that opinion, but because he thought telling his opinion to the world was a good idea. Politicians don't get votes by preaching their own opinions. Davies should know when to speak and when to be quiet. He's going to lose any fraction of the gay vote that he has, he'll lose supportive parents and family members who have gay relatives, he'll lose a portion of the straight population who thinks he's a bigot because of what his opinion is.

Davies admits what he said was going to cause controversy so why on Earth did he think he would benefit in the end from saying it :S

I'd rather politicians told us their own opinions rather than what they think we want to hear so that if I disagree with them I make sure not to vote for them!

[HotelUser]

I'd rather politicians told us their own opinions rather than what they think we want to hear so that if I disagree with them I make sure not to vote for them!

And in a perfect world this could happen, but in the world we live in it doesn't and Davies will lose votes because of it.

[GommeInc]

Gay marriage to be explicitly banned in CoE churches, regardless of the opinions of the ministers (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mp-warns-gay-marriage-disaster-tories-220034072.html)

Is that protection enough for you Dan? I know you're all for undermining freedom when it suits your own views so I imagine you'll be ecstatic about this new proposal to force churches to exclude people. You claim that multiculturalism and those inconsiderate people who want equality are to blame for the churches dying off, but frankly it's their own doing along with the government
He does have a point about how the equality laws do not consider absolute equality as they have to be one sided, hence a bit of a broken law which contradicts itself when two groups covered by that law conflict (or come to Court over a matter) e.g. sexual orientation subjects (homosexuals) and those of a particular faith (Christians/CofE/Catholic Church). S. 149, SS. 1 of the Equality Act 2010 is one area of current equality law which is likely to be protested, because the church is and can be considered a "public authority" in some areas and hence it loses the very characteristics that should protect it under that Act of Parliament with regards to protecting religious freedoms. The Law states that public authorities (which could incl. the Church) must promote equality, yet in doing so a Church loses the very characteristics of religious freedoms the law is meant to protect and therefore the Act isn't promoting equality, it's demoting religious views therefore suggesting a self-destructive/contradictory law favouring one part and not the other.

It's one huge problem with equality laws, as they're not actually about promoting equality - they only exist to sound nice, but in reality they demote it in groups not mentioned.

Although the proposed law says it will protect the Church when ever a same-sex marriage is blocked, there have been some circumstances where conflicting opinions usually are in favour of the other side. The European Court of Human Rights may argue that a Church is going against the rights of homosexuals to marry, but what is often forgotten when the ECHR is involved is that marriage isn't considered one of the Human Rights, BUT the interests of homosexuals under sexuality laws and laws of religious freedoms do conflict and this is one area which the ECHR may enable itself and deem a Church to be acting out of accordance with the convention.

An interesting debate none-the-less. My problem with gay marriage - is there a huge demand from gay couples to "marry" or is it just in accordance with equality ideology? Reality may suggest that there is a low interest in wanting to marry in homosexual circles, but a change in law is demanded because it feels like there should be a change.

[The Don]

An interesting debate none-the-less. My problem with gay marriage - is there a huge demand from gay couples to "marry" or is it just in accordance with equality ideology? Reality may suggest that there is a low interest in wanting to marry in homosexual circles, but a change in law is demanded because it feels like there should be a change.

Whether or not there is a huge demand for it should have no bearing on the matter. Just because one group of people are the minority doesn't make it any more acceptable to discriminate against them.

[GommeInc]

Whether or not there is a huge demand for it should have no bearing on the matter. Just because one group of people are the minority doesn't make it any more acceptable to discriminate against them.
You'd be amazed :P Many English laws are derived from societal changes - The Factories Act(s) saw to a demand for change governed by society which put an end to children working in factories (particularly cotton mills), laws prohibiting votes for women were changed because society demanded change and therefore allowed for women to vote. Demand is what drives for change, and it would be nice to see some information based on the demand for marriage by homosexual couples, because at the moment there doesn't seem to be any real demand coming from gay couples - it just seems like a lot of single homosexual men/women wanting change or heterosexual men or women which want change yet have nothing to do with the law. Then there's the debate of how important marriage is in society, with the number of marriages decreasing (Source #1 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/11/marriage-rates-uk-data#data) and Source #2 (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-39669)) and the number of divorces strangely increasing, too - particularly the number of people divorcing in those marriages.

Civil partnerships are on-par with marriage, but I share the same concerns as Undertaker with this - they're fine, but they shouldn't be forced upon the Church or other authorities currently covered by law and are allowed to prohibit. The B&B fiasco was bad enough when what should of been a private matter turned into a lynch mob with gays fighting Christians and vice versa.

[The Don]

Civil partnerships are on-par with marriage, but I share the same concerns as Undertaker with this - they're fine, but they shouldn't be forced upon the Church or other authorities currently covered by law and are allowed to prohibit. The B&B fiasco was bad enough when what should of been a private matter turned into a lynch mob with gays fighting Christians and vice versa.

How can something under a different name be deemed equal? This quote is a decent comparison as to why I find people calling civil ceremonials equal as a laughable comparison.

Its ok to force black people to the back of the bus. They all end up at the same location

And your point about the evolution of English Laws is silly, a demand for something doesn't dictate whether it's morally right or wrong. There wasn't a huge demand to abolish the slave trade originally, does that mean it should have remained legal?

This proposed change by Cameron is such a non issue it's almost unbearable to see the controversy it's causing. He's clearly stated that churches won't be forced to host same-sex weddings and won't face any legal action either so there is literally no viable excuse not to allow it.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/campaign_images/web02/2008/11/19/18/855c057a08f947b2c468ccbb2b75d859_0.jpg

[GommeInc]

How can something under a different name be deemed equal? This quote is a decent comparison as to why I find people calling civil ceremonials equal as a laughable comparison.


And your point about the evolution of English Laws is silly, a demand for something doesn't dictate whether it's morally right or wrong. There wasn't a huge demand to abolish the slave trade originally, does that mean it should have remained legal?

This proposed change by Cameron is such a non issue it's almost unbearable to see the controversy it's causing. He's clearly stated that churches won't be forced to host same-sex weddings and won't face any legal action either so there is literally no viable excuse not to allow it.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/campaign_images/web02/2008/11/19/18/855c057a08f947b2c468ccbb2b75d859_0.jpg
Call it silly, but factually many laws in the UK were created (or evolved) due to public demands or changes in society. The aforementioned laws were created because of public backing AND the backing of factory owners with regards to the Factory Act(s) because, as far as the owners saw it, you wouldn't want to be held responsible for the deaths of children. The slave trade was also partly abolished due to strong public outcry and backing, so you've either made up a "fact" to support your argument or you are unaware of the anti-slave movement and the history behind it: William Cowper and Lord Mansfield are two huge, important names with loud voices that wanted an end to trade in the British Empire, with the slave trade virtually non-existent in England at the time anyway - there's also the Anti-Slavery Society. When the laws were passed, the Royal Navy got behind abolishing slavery, setting up a squadron to suppress the Atlantic slave trade front. North/South America hated it - we were at the forefront of abolishing the slave trade and there was little to no opposition internally within the UK :P

Also, you sort of missed my point and I think Undertaker's point too. Gay marriage is fine, but there is this idea that Equality Laws will contradict themselves as they have done for quite some time. Although proposed legislation suggests that the Church will not be acting illegally if they were to not allow a gay couple to marry, there is this idea that loopholes in the legislation may allow one side to take the other to court regardless. It's a "see it to believe it moment". The B&B case is one example which has never made sense as, although it's a business and is therefore a neutral, non-discriminate entity, the B&B owners will be losing custom for disallowing couples to share the same bed - it's a policy they had which was shared with both straight and gay couples, but for some reason because they were gay it made the situation worse and suggests inequality between hetero- and homosexual couples (as they have disallowed heterosexual couples from sharing a bed before - or so they say).

So I think you're making it unbearable on yourself really. I don't particularly have any problems with any couples marrying and if homosexuals want marriage then so be it. My only concerns are with how the laws will be constructed, as Equality Laws do seem to create more inequality or never actually solve discrimination, but make it worse.

[The Don]

The slave trade was also partly abolished due to strong public outcry and backing, so you've either made up a "fact" to support your argument or you are unaware of the anti-slave movement and the history behind it: William Cowper and Lord Mansfield are two huge, important names with loud voices that wanted an end to trade in the British Empire, with the slave trade virtually non-existent in England at the time anyway

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow as i'm about to go to bed but it seems you've misread my post

There wasn't a huge demand to abolish the slave trade originally

originally being the key word, obviously when it was abolished there was huge public backing to have it outlawed but there wasn't always a majority against it.

[GommeInc]

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow as i'm about to go to bed but it seems you've misread my post

There wasn't a huge demand to abolish the slave trade originally

originally being the key word, obviously when it was abolished there was huge public backing to have it outlawed but there wasn't always a majority against it.
Your post didn't make much sense whether it said "originally" or not, since slavery wasn't supported for either :P A slave was a luxury only a few had, so support for it by the general public didn't exist originally either. It cropped up, much like the internet and the situation we have with internet laws (except this time it's an ethical war rather than a moral war).

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'd just say that I agree with everything GommeInc; has posted on the subject and he's covered my legal concerns to the full. The government may provide assurances, but Peter Tatchell is apparently already planning to take the Government and the Churches to the ECHR in order to force the Churches to wed gay people under anti-discrimination laws.

If the government had any trust or reliability on any of these topics then i'd certainly be tempted to say hey, let's legalise it.

But I don't trust them one jot.


Adoption agencies are different in that the church doesn't own babies, it's merely adoption agencies with Catholic heading. The church does however own its scripture and most of its buildings, and while entrance to them can't easily be restricted, access to certain ceremonies can. Even for heterosexual couples you have to do certain training and church regulated practices before getting a religious marriage approved

But we know, from the likes of the B&B case that if you openly say that you are not allowing gay people to take part in a service (even if it is private) then you will be taken to court under the Equality and Discrimination legislation.


Because there's a whole load of legal blockade concerning schools teaching about Hinduism or Communism or the slave trade or anything else that isn't the current societal norm, right? You're just talking nonsense now

If a teacher airs opinions that aren't politically correct on subjects like this then they risk losing their jobs - we've already had teachers lose jobs over BNP membership and it won't be long until those who disapprove of homosexuality who dare to give a Christian opinion on the topic will lose their jobs. I don't know why you're arguing against whats fact really, I doubt you support it and nor do I - but that's the kind of country we now live in where people can be persecuted for what are widely held beliefs.


No-one loses their jobs, it's not a majority, you're still just saying buzzwords about hypothetical situations over and over with no substance at all to cover your personal view on the subject rather than actually give a proper answer to any of these points

GommeInc covers the legal side quite well.


What you feel should be the case and what is the case isn't the same thing, and since we're talking about actual effects in the real world and not what might happen in the country your closed-off little mind has created your statements on this matter are totally pointless

So the Equality and Discrimination legislative acts don't exist in this world then? what about the ECHR? they're my concern.


What you've just said totally contradicts your view on the smoking ban.

Not at all - as i've stated, i'd like to legalise it and get the state out of it but unlike the removing smoking ban we don't have equality and discrimination laws in place. If those laws were removed then yes, legalise it as there would then be no threat of people being taken to court and losing their jobs based on their opinion on homosexuality and gay 'weddings'.

A private institution ought to be able to decide it's own smoking policy.
A private institution ought to be able to decide what services it carries out and provides in terms of marriage contracts.

Hell, I don't even see a problem with allowing civil places or Churches to hand out marriage contracts to threesomes, one man and his dog or a man, a woman and a bunny rabbit - I think they're all ridiculous, but if people wish to do so then thats fine by me. The only role of the state in marriage should be enforcing marriage contracts, not defining marriage.


And can I also say, -:Undertaker:-;

You said you were gay in the sexuality thread, so how can you say gay marriage is "ridiculous and objectionable"; unless you're religious, in which case, you are doomed to hell - regardless of England's political stance on gay marriage.

Because I find it ridiculous and objectionable as my view of marriage is between a man and a woman, and more so that since the Christian religion and other religions condemn homosexuality as immoral (which I also agree with concerning my own morality) - I find Churches which are pro-homosexuality and pro-gay 'marriage' to be utterly ridiculous and contradictory.

Now that's my personal opinion and people may not like it - but as i've said before, my personal opinion on the matter shouldn't matter as the state shouldn't be in the business of defining or providing marriage contracts anyway. If the Flaming Homosexual Saints Church wants to provide contracts and call them marriage; then I might not agree but that's entirely up to them.

My opposition to this proposal comes from a legal standpoint - that if this bill is passed, with the current legal framework then we risk seeing people such as myself who have objections to homosexuality and gay marriage being taken to court for 'discrimination'.


David Davies is an idiot not because of what his opinion is, he has a right to that opinion, but because he thought telling his opinion to the world was a good idea. Politicians don't get votes by preaching their own opinions. Davies should know when to speak and when to be quiet. He's going to lose any fraction of the gay vote that he has, he'll lose supportive parents and family members who have gay relatives, he'll lose a portion of the straight population who thinks he's a bigot because of what his opinion is.

Well actually there's a very large scale rebellion at the moment in the Conservative Party which is split on the issue, with the 'no' side (social conservatives in a supposed Conservative Party) threatening to leave en masse. The Conservative Party will win no votes for legalising gay 'marriage' as the general type of people who support social issues such as that would never vote for the Conservative Party anyway.

If somebody wants left wing cultural marxist policies, why would they vote for the Conservative Party when they have the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats? .....that's why the Tory Party's membership is in freefall and it hasn't won office since the early 1990's.


Gay marriage to be explicitly banned in CoE churches, regardless of the opinions of the ministers (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mp-warns-gay-marriage-disaster-tories-220034072.html)

What happens when this comes up against the ECHR as Peter Tatchell is threatening to do? what then?


Is that protection enough for you Dan? I know you're all for undermining freedom when it suits your own views so I imagine you'll be ecstatic about this new proposal to force churches to exclude people. You claim that multiculturalism and those inconsiderate people who want equality are to blame for the churches dying off, but frankly it's their own doing along with the government

I don't at all - I have to weigh up the freedom benefits and negatives... and the legal entanglement shows that there's a big danger that we're falling into a trap here as GommeInc has pointed out with his posts on the legal system. Ron Paul does the same with some bills in Congress for example - while some parts may be good, if it increases spending or the negatives outweight the positives then he'll vote it down.

As for the demise of the Church of England - yeah, they're all leaving for the Roman Catholic Church who aren't obsessed with providing their places of worship to politically correct groups (ie gay groups). Believe it or not, Christians generally want to hear Christian teachings when they go to Church - not the New Labour manifesto. rehashed.

[GommeInc]

The problem does seem to lie with the ECHR and relevant Equality laws. If the UK Government can deem relevant ECHR/EU/English law invalid and incompatible with UK laws then dodgy human beings who dare take the Church to Court can be ignored by the ECHR or English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh Courts which would stop the Equality Act being *******ised within an inch of its life. There needs to be strict reassurance over the matter, and until the new marriage laws are pushed through and a case is created to test the resolve of the Government then there is no reassurance. Words mean very little, particularly from egotistical politicians twisting words. It needs to be written in statute and to make it illegal to take a religious institution to court. Afterall, you can get married in any place - not just a church so it's their time their wasting and vice versa.

But this is of course hypothetical worry :P