Marriage Bill passes Commons vote - same sex marriage set to go ahead [Archive]

Kardan

05-02-2013, 09:14 PM

Who voted for and who voted against, do we know who yet?

Despite that it's not high on the list of priorities for me, I'm glad that this issue has moved forward although do not feel that any religion should be exempt (if anything it should be them that has to 'lead the way' being the official religion imo). On the other hand, churches should be allowed to opt-out of it if they wish - as the law does state - and gay couples should respect that and just take their custom to some church that will allow them.

Majority of the tories voted against with a few labours and very few lib dems voting against.

So as a whole, conservatives - against, labour - for, lib dem - for

MKR&*42

05-02-2013, 09:17 PM

All we have to do is get the House of Lords to pass this though, then it's straight to the royal assent ;D

I'm sure they will pass it due to public pressure etc. If not then the H of C can just eventually bypass them using the Parliament act 1911 + 1949 *I THINK that's the correct acts*

yey :dance:

I'm surprised you knew that aha. Do you do law in school or something similar? Or just general knowledge :P

Who voted for and who voted against, do we know who yet?

I believe some sites said that 'about 120/130' conservative MPs voted for and 140 against (as rough figures) - with the rest abstaining. I'm not sure about the other parties though.

Cerys

05-02-2013, 09:18 PM

Why is it such a problem with the whole same sex marriage? It's not gonna really affect them or the country in such a big way that it'll breakdown, so can't they just give us what we want? ;l

FlyingJesus

05-02-2013, 09:18 PM

Inseriousity.

05-02-2013, 09:18 PM

Oh yeah I meant names, my bad! Probably a bit too soon for that haha.

Kardan

05-02-2013, 09:20 PM

It was pretty well split with Conservatives, 136 against 127 for, 35 didn't vote and somehow 5 managed to vote both ways lol, so don't think it's quite fair to say that Conservatives as a whole were against it when it's that close :P

I didn't know the numbers for the 'for' vote, my bad :) Just knew as a whole there were more votes for against :)

Cerys

05-02-2013, 09:20 PM

I'm surprised you knew that aha. Do you do law in school or something similar? Or just general knowledge :P

Yeah, I'm doing Law GCSE c: It's so interesting + I want to do law in uni so I'm actually listening to the info (;

MKR&*42

05-02-2013, 09:23 PM

Yeah, I'm doing Law GCSE c: It's so interesting + I want to do law in uni so I'm actually listening to the info (;

Oh I haven't come across many schools that offer Law GCSE haha, lucky you :) Definitely keep it, it's very interesting.

Kardan

05-02-2013, 09:31 PM

Why is it such a problem with the whole same sex marriage? It's not gonna really affect them or the country in such a big way that it'll breakdown, so can't they just give us what we want? ;l

Here's a selection of quotes from the BBC News article on people that are against the bill:

"Marriage was created for man and a woman. Your genetic code is faulty. "
"It's a sick old world. No wonder we're all in such a mess when this sort of thing is considered normal. Our Great Grandparents will be turning in their graves. So sad."
"Repulsion towards homosexuality is as natural as repulsion towards other people breaking wind."

Chippiewill

05-02-2013, 09:34 PM

So basically anecdotal criticisms rather than reasoned ones. Cool.

Cerys

05-02-2013, 09:35 PM

Here's a selection of quotes from the BBC News article on people that are against the bill:

"Marriage was created for man and a woman. Your genetic code is faulty. "
"It's a sick old world. No wonder we're all in such a mess when this sort of thing is considered normal. Our Great Grandparents will be turning in their graves. So sad."
"Repulsion towards homosexuality is as natural as repulsion towards other people breaking wind."

Gawdd some people are just messed up or too religious by saying that.

Tbh it just shows how many MPs are homophobic.

FlyingJesus

05-02-2013, 09:38 PM

Well technically repulsion towards homosexuality is MORE natural than repulsion towards one breaking wind as it's a hardwired primitive response to mankind's desire to see the species repopulate. That doesn't make it right though, I mean it's also an instinct to kill off runtish or ugly offspring but most people disagree with that lol

wixard

05-02-2013, 09:45 PM

Cerys

05-02-2013, 09:49 PM

unfortunately

we all know who wouldn't be here if people didn't disagree with that.

Anyway, it better pass tbh. It's about time they took real action on this situation

GommeInc

05-02-2013, 09:51 PM

Seems promising. One interesting thing I've noticed is Clause 7 refers to the Marriage Act 1949 and "death bed" marriages.

Clause 9 of the Bill is an interesting read. It means that if a couple who have entered a civil partnership can change their partnership to a marriage, and in essence remove any evidence of a civil partnership by backdating to when the partnership happened. Meaning the past can be changed to what is current, a marriage.

Clause 12 is a lovely complicated area which describes how transsexual couples have to go about with their marriages. They cannot get married until their gender is recognised which involves a lengthy process of going before a Gender Recognition Panel and being issued with a gender recognition certificate in order to get married.

Either way, an interesting read. The parts about religious bodies are interesting, presumably they cannot be taken to court over same-sex marriages but the law is never concrete and discrimination will always be on either side.

It makes you wonder what the House of Lords will think. The Lords can be a tricky bunch and may deliberate on specifics. It doesn't necessarily mean it will become law any time soon, unless for once both the Lords and the Commons share the same opinions :P

Aiden

05-02-2013, 09:54 PM

I was acc raving over this lol... I think this is pretty cool :P Its not really going to affect anyone (I dont think) so there should be no trouble ahaa :P

FlyingJesus

05-02-2013, 10:02 PM

Clause 12 is a lovely complicated area which describes how transsexual couples have to go about with their marriages. They cannot get married until their gender is recognised which involves a lengthy process of going before a Gender Recognition Panel and being issued with a gender recognition certificate in order to get married.

Yeah there's still a huge long way to go for trans rights (with regards to everything not just marriage), it's one of the most overlooked social issues in the first world and there's very little in the pipeline to improve things. What's Clause 7 then? You said it was interesting then didn't follow it on lol

GommeInc

05-02-2013, 10:29 PM

Yeah there's still a huge long way to go for trans rights (with regards to everything not just marriage), it's one of the most overlooked social issues in the first world and there's very little in the pipeline to improve things. What's Clause 7 then? You said it was interesting then didn't follow it on lol
I got bored writing and thought "sod it - hit Tab and Enter and be gone with it" :P Basically I found it fascinating they even thought of death bed marriages when drafting the Bill - quite a lot of thought has gone into it to go into specifics. It's strange how that little mention in the Clause has made me look into how deathbed marriages work, and the answer is: very little - they cause complications and rifts with inheritance and dividing up estates etc :P

As for Transsexual Rights... It seems like one of those areas of law which will always be difficult to make it work right. A person has to have a gender under the law, so while the process of change is happening a marriage has to be put on hold because of the line between what makes an individual a man or a woman. It's all subjective, but that's why the Gender Recognition Panel exists, much like a jury to determine the outcome from the facts. At least there is some recognition in this law.

EDIT:

Anyone interested in the key facts of this Bill, this blog is quite interesting and worth a read: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill ~ Key features (http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/marriage-same-sex-couples-bill-key.html)
And the official Bill is here: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (HC Bill 126) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0126/cbill_2012-20130126_en_1.htm)

-:Undertaker:-

05-02-2013, 10:48 PM

In other news, MPs have today also voted to legislate that the sky is purple, hogwarts really does exist and that water flows uphill. As far as i'm concerned along with the hundreds of thousands who back traditional marriage, there's no such thing as gay 'marriage' - and legislation can't change that. On a personal level I find the idea utterly ridiculous and not anything near worthy of what marriage is.

But you know, in a way i'm glad. Because this issue again highlights just how useless the Unconservative Party is in that you have a supposed 'right wing' Government pushing through gay marriage, and the MPs of that 'right wing party' are split down the middle. Another nail in the coffin of a party that's half full of social democrats and centre left wingers, and half fall of conservatives and neoliberals.

I know grassroots Tory activists were resigning in protest over the past few months, i've no doubt it'll now accelerate over the next few days. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised now if party membership has gone below the 100,000 mark - and bear in mind it was at 300,000 odd in 2006.

Tbh it just shows how many MPs are homophobic.

Whats homophobia exactly? you mean a disapproval of homosexuality don't you? now that's actually a rational point of view and is widely held, and if you want to debate it with those who think that then you're going to have to come up with better reasons than "its homophobic".

Kardan

05-02-2013, 10:53 PM

-:Undertaker:-

05-02-2013, 10:57 PM

I'm interested in your reasoning here, why are gay people not worthy of marriage?

Well i've explained before that i'd ideally de facto legalise gay marriage by taking the state out of marriage (and provided Equality and Discrimination Laws were revoked at the same time to make this possible) - but on a personal level and a moral level, I just don't think it's worthy of the same status as a traditional couple and a traditional family (of which marriage is based on). I don't back these proposals because I have grave concerns that it's going to lead, under European and Equality legislation, to prosecutions for the types of views I hold personally.

So before anybody assumes i'm wanting to impose my personal opinions on anybody else, not at all. But my personal view is that I disapprove of it.

Kardan

05-02-2013, 11:02 PM

Well i've explained before that i'd ideally de facto legalise gay marriage by taking the state out of marriage (and provided Equality and Discrimination Laws were revoked at the same time to make this possible) - but on a personal level and a moral level, I just don't think it's worthy of the same status as a traditional couple and a traditional family (of which marriage is based on). I don't back these proposals because I have grave concerns that it's going to lead, under European and Equality legislation, to prosecutions for the types of views I hold personally.

So before anybody assumes i'm wanting to impose my personal opinions on anybody else, not at all. But my personal view is that I disapprove of it.

But traditions change, just because something was a certain way for a certain amount of time doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. I have no issue with gay people being on an equal level as me and my partner, they should have the same rights as I do. I'm sure many years time, people will look back and think 'What was all the fuss about?', pretty much like giving women the ability to vote.

Gay people marrying will have no effect on my future marriage. I understand that some people will be against it, and it's nice to see you actually construct sentences together unlike a lot of people I have seen online :P

-:Undertaker:-

05-02-2013, 11:05 PM

But traditions change, just because something was a certain way for a certain amount of time doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. I have no issue with gay people being on an equal level as me and my partner, they should have the same rights as I do. I'm sure many years time, people will look back and think 'What was all the fuss about?', pretty much like giving women the ability to vote.

Gay people marrying will have no effect on my future marriage. I understand that some people will be against it, and it's nice to see you actually construct sentences together unlike a lot of people I have seen online :P

Staying on the personal part, as i've stated the legal situation many times, I simply don't like this change on a personal level. I'm not at all favourable to it, and for example in my own personal life wouldn't attend a civil partnership or a gay marriage as I just don't agree with them from a moral standpoint. I accept though and have made clear, that me simply not liking something (which is the point I constantly try to get over in the gun and smoking debates) isn't a good enough reason to have it banned via legislation - so don't think i'm opposed to it on the grounds that "oh he doesn't like it".

Just clarifying the position. :P

Kardan

05-02-2013, 11:07 PM

Staying on the personal part, as i've stated the legal situation many times, I simply don't like this change on a personal level. I'm not at all favourable to it, and for example in my own personal life wouldn't attend a civil partnership or a gay marriage as I just don't agree with them from a moral standpoint. I accept though and have made clear, that me simply not liking something (which is the point I constantly try to get over in the gun and smoking debates) isn't a good enough reason to have it banned via legislation - so don't think i'm opposed to it on the grounds that "oh he doesn't like it".

Just clarifying the position. :P

No worries, I suppose it's the same thing as someone not wanting to go to a funeral/baptism etc. except that there's a law trying to be passed on this one :)

Cerys

05-02-2013, 11:22 PM

In other news, MPs have today also voted to legislate that the sky is purple, hogwarts really does exist and that water flows uphill. As far as i'm concerned along with the hundreds of thousands who back traditional marriage, there's no such thing as gay 'marriage' - and legislation can't change that. On a personal level I find the idea utterly ridiculous and not anything near worthy of what marriage is.

But you know, in a way i'm glad. Because this issue again highlights just how useless the Unconservative Party is in that you have a supposed 'right wing' Government pushing through gay marriage, and the MPs of that 'right wing party' are split down the middle. Another nail in the coffin of a party that's half full of social democrats and centre left wingers, and half fall of conservatives and neoliberals.

I know grassroots Tory activists were resigning in protest over the past few months, i've no doubt it'll now accelerate over the next few days. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised now if party membership has gone below the 100,000 mark - and bear in mind it was at 300,000 odd in 2006.

Whats homophobia exactly? you mean a disapproval of homosexuality don't you? now that's actually a rational point of view and is widely held, and if you want to debate it with those who think that then you're going to have to come up with better reasons than "its homophobic".

Slightly confused at your wording here so sorry if my reply makes no sense - very tired.
in this case I'm using the term homophobic loosly. I said the people who said no to the bill are possibly homophobic because there really is no valid reason on why they should say no to the bill, other than they may not agree with homosexuality therefore in my books they're homophobic. Also I view anyone who doesn't view us as equals to straight people homophobes.

No idea if that made sense or is a relevant response but yeah.

-:Undertaker:-

05-02-2013, 11:25 PM

Slightly confused at your wording here so sorry if my reply makes no sense - very tired.
in this case I'm using the term homophobic loosly. I said the people who said no to the bill are possibly homophobic because there really is no valid reason on why they should say no to the bill, other than they may not agree with homosexuality therefore in my books they're homophobic. Also I view anyone who doesn't view us as equals to straight people homophobes.

No idea if that made sense or is a relevant response but yeah.

Objecting to homosexuality on health, religious or moral grounds shouldn't be dismissed as a sort of mental illness under the label 'homophobic'. If people disagree with others who hold them views, then by all means debunk those views in debate, but don't sink to ad hominem.

As for the MPs who rebelled, the majority from my impression opposed mainly based on legal concerns.

MKR&*42

05-02-2013, 11:28 PM

Slightly confused at your wording here so sorry if my reply makes no sense - very tired.
in this case I'm using the term homophobic loosly. I said the people who said no to the bill are possibly homophobic because there really is no valid reason on why they should say no to the bill, other than they may not agree with homosexuality therefore in my books they're homophobic. Also I view anyone who doesn't view us as equals to straight people homophobes.

No idea if that made sense or is a relevant response but yeah.

I think whether it counts as homophobia or not is a very subjective thing and I personally believe that a few people who voted no, weren't being homophobic. I remember an MP said "Adam and eve, not adam and steve" which is beyond rude and based on comments on the BBC earlier, a very unpopular thing to say - but I still think there were other MPs who had legitimate reasons for not supporting the change over. I dislike people whose line of thought is this:

Someone speaking out against same-sex marriage? Homophobe
Someone speaking out against immigration? Racist
Someone speaking out against feminism? Sexist

When there are rational reasons for choosing not to do so.

Chippiewill

05-02-2013, 11:33 PM

In other news, MPs have today also voted to legislate that the sky is purple, hogwarts really does exist and that water flows uphill. As far as i'm concerned along with the hundreds of thousands who back traditional marriage, there's no such thing as gay 'marriage' - and legislation can't change that.
Whilst I absolutely agree with your right to be personally against gay marriage, I don't see how you can say that. Whilst there may no such thing as a traditional gay marriage a marriage is commonly defined as follows:

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged

I can't see how you can argue that there is no such thing as a gay version of the above. I know that's loaded, however if you want to debate it then all you're debating is semantics. This law would simply allow same-sex spouses to gain the same rights and recognition in the eyes of the law and I do not see how it infringes upon you personally. In fact it's not even saying that churches are required to allow them, it's just saying that they can allow them, and it's not saying that you have to acknowledge it personally as a true marriage either just that the goverment will. If anything this just constitutes a small deregulation of marriage law, which whilst isn't the step you would like it is surely a step in the right direction.

Cerys

05-02-2013, 11:35 PM

I think whether it counts as homophobia or not is a very subjective thing and I personally believe that a few people who voted no, weren't being homophobic. I remember an MP said "Adam and eve, not adam and steve" which is beyond rude and based on comments on the BBC earlier, a very unpopular thing to say - but I still think there were other MPs who had legitimate reasons for not supporting the change over. I dislike people whose line of thought is this:

Someone speaking out against same-sex marriage? Homophobe
Someone speaking out against immigration? Racist
Someone speaking out against feminism? Sexist

When there are rational reasons for choosing not to do so.

Sorry, i just dont see what the legit reasons are - tell me a few and maybe I'll see your poin. My thoughts aren't of which you just stated, btw. I'm just saying that id assume they would be homophobic as they have a problem with two people being happy and getting the same rights as straight people. I'm not saying ALL who voted against it are homophobic.

-:Undertaker:-

05-02-2013, 11:46 PM

Whilst I absolutely agree with your right to be personally against gay marriage, I don't see how you can say that. Whilst there may no such thing as a traditional gay marriage a marriage is commonly defined as follows:

I can say it because my view of marriage is between a man and a woman, preferably in a Church (or other religious building) and it's there to create a Union for a stable and happy family. That to me is marriage, and thus discounts gays and all other groups.

It's like asking me why one of my favourite trees is the Laburnum Tree, it's a personal opinion that shouldn't have any weight on the law.

I can't see how you can argue that there is no such thing as a gay version of the above. I know that's loaded, however if you want to debate it then all you're debating is semantics. This law would simply allow same-sex spouses to gain the same rights and recognition in the eyes of the law and I do not see how it infringes upon you personally. In fact it's not even saying that churches are required to allow them, it's just saying that they can allow them, and it's not saying that you have to acknowledge it personally as a true marriage either just that the goverment will. If anything this just constitutes a small deregulation of marriage law, which whilst isn't the step you would like it is surely a step in the right direction.

You're confusing the issue, maybe I haven't been clear enough. My reasoning for opposing this bill isn't that I don't believe the concept of gay marriage (although I have mentioned it as I don't think I should have to be arguing from a legal standpoint all the time) - my opposition to this bill is based on two things, which are;

a) The state does in a way 'impose' its definition of marriage on me still, as it now counts hetrosexual and homosexual marriages as what marriage means. This leaves out other forms of marriage such as polygamy and so on. So to say the state isn't imposing a definition is being a tad dishonest.

..which brings me onto what I would ideally like, the state to simply get out of marriage. The way I see it in this debate is, if the state is going to have a definition of marriage then I as a voter would naturally prefer my definition of marriage to be the one the state backs - being between a man and a woman only. But again, I don't like imposing a definition via the state on others so i'd like to see it removed.

We've now gone from a situation where the state backed my definition of marriage over yours, to the state backing your definition of marriage (and partly mine) over the other definitions of marriage people have, ie people in a polygamous relationship. So lets remove the state from it and it'll save all this argument and bad feeling between Christians, gay groups + others.

b) The legal concerns regarding the ECHR, ECJ and Equality Act

Sorry, i just dont see what the legit reasons are - tell me a few and maybe I'll see your poin. My thoughts aren't of which you just stated, btw. I'm just saying that id assume they would be homophobic as they have a problem with two people being happy and getting the same rights as straight people. I'm not saying ALL who voted against it are homophobic.

How about polygamy then? I mean I keep hearing this argument "if two people love eachother" - well why not three, four or five people? I mean if they all love one another then why not? and then you get into incest and all the rest.

MKR&*42

05-02-2013, 11:46 PM

Sorry, i just dont see what the legit reasons are - tell me a few and maybe I'll see your poin. My thoughts aren't of which you just stated, btw. I'm just saying that id assume they would be homophobic as they have a problem with two people being happy and getting the same rights as straight people. I'm not saying ALL who voted against it are homophobic.

Mk here are a few reasons:

- (One of the most common reasons brought up), the potential for it to cause a massive amount of cases concerning 'human rights'. E.g. If a teacher didn't feel comfortable with teaching children about same-sex marriage and she was fired because she refused to.
- To protect religious interests. This isn't largely applicable in this situation because the bill has tried to be careful when it comes to matters of churches, but you can see why some people may have been worried (considering the Archbishop of Canterbury decided to speak out so strongly against the matter).
- To recognise public interest. I'm not sure if there even was a 'clear cut' figure on how many people wanted same-sex marriage legalised, but I remember reading the actual figures for gay people who wanted marriage was quite low. Not to mention the fact that 630,000+ decided to sign a petition against this bill. Imagine comparing it to the case concerning SOPA and PIPA a few months back, many of the politicians who were in favour of those 2 bills quickly pulled out because of the massive internet protest that occurred - they pulled out due to issues of public interest.

Etc.

I don't support this bill and I don't imagine I will any time soon. The main reason I don't support it, is because I believe the definition of marriage being between a man and woman should be the clear-cut definition and not 'suddenly' changed after such a long period. I think civil partnerships/unions are perfectly reasonable, and I see no reason for this whole business in the first place... it is hardly a priority in the current state of the U.K.

Rozi

05-02-2013, 11:47 PM

I'm pleased this had been voted for. In my view it is simply legislation that is moving to reflect the wants of society, which is, in the end of the day, why we have democracy. The institution of marriage is not a hard-cast simple act that only comes in one form; it is entirely dependent on the two people it glues together. Legislation changed marriage constantly throughout the last 200 years to reflect the growing equality of women in society. Marriage is no longer about male ownership of women (remember matrimonial rape was only outlawed in 1994), or about the 'social legalisation' of sex, and so really gay equality is the next step.

However, it should be said that this bill isn't perfect, and I know some MPs highlighted nuances regarding adultery and non-consummation but I imagine the house of lords will pick up on this.

Niall!

05-02-2013, 11:52 PM

Personally I don't care who marries who. But in my eyes marriage is the formation of a stable unit to bring children into the world. I'm not getting into a gay adoptions debate because I honestly don't care, but I wouldn't like to grow up with two parents of the same sex. None of this "messes their head up" ****, just fact that if you have two guys you're going to get bullied like **** at school which will make the child miserable.

To reiterate; good for whoever benefits from this bill, honestly. But I don't see what was so wrong with just being partners.

Kardan

05-02-2013, 11:58 PM

How about polygamy then? I mean I keep hearing this argument "if two people love eachother" - well why not three, four or five people? I mean if they all love one another then why not? and then you get into incest and all the rest.

Just on your polygamy argument, this bill is amending a current piece of law for equality, to bring polygamy or incest into it you would need to reverse current laws.

Also, many people hold your views that marriage is a strictly religious service, but it's not. I fully intend on getting married with absolutely no religious beliefs, I'd describe myself as almost anti-religion. I just want to be recognised by law that I have a partner that I love and I wish to spend the rest of my life with. Gay people should have the same rights. If religious places don't wish to hold gay marriages, then so be it. We can't force gay marriages on institutions, just as institutions can't force their religious beliefs on people.

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 12:01 AM ----------

Personally I don't care who marries who. But in my eyes marriage is the formation of a stable unit to bring children into the world. I'm not getting into a gay adoptions debate because I honestly don't care, but I wouldn't like to grow up with two parents of the same sex. None of this "messes their head up" ****, just fact that if you have two guys you're going to get bullied like **** at school which will make the child miserable.

To reiterate; good for whoever benefits from this bill, honestly. But I don't see what was so wrong with just being partners.

If you are just 'partners', you are not entitled to the same benefits as if you are married. Don't quote me on this, but I'm sure if you die and you've not done a will, your posessions will go to your next of kin, which will be someone in your immediate family, not your partner.

I also disagree that marriage is for the formation of a stable unit to bring children into the world. It was changed around the ~1830s that you no longer had to have children if you were married (or at least, that's what I read somewhere :P)

-:Undertaker:-

06-02-2013, 12:07 AM

Just on your polygamy argument, this bill is amending a current piece of law for equality, to bring polygamy or incest into it you would need to reverse current laws.

Well if you think polygamous relationship is as equal to a traditional man-women relationship then thats fine by me, but I personally don't view it the same for moral and religious reasons just as I don't view gay relationships the same as straight relationships.

Also, many people hold your views that marriage is a strictly religious service, but it's not. I fully intend on getting married with absolutely no religious beliefs, I'd describe myself as almost anti-religion. I just want to be recognised by law that I have a partner that I love and I wish to spend the rest of my life with. Gay people should have the same rights.

I never said strictly religious, although the requirement (to me personally) is a man and a woman. It's like when I have egg i'll have it with bacon, toast and black pudding. That's just my view of what marriage is, based on thousands of years of Christianity and tradition.

But again, it shouldn't matter what you, Niall, Chippiewill or I think - as the state just shouldn't be involved in defining any of this.

If religious places don't wish to hold gay marriages, then so be it. We can't force gay marriages on institutions, just as institutions can't force their religious beliefs on people.

That's where my legal concerns kick in.

You only have to look at the Christian B&B owners along with the smoking ban to see that property rights are being trashed.

FlyingJesus

06-02-2013, 12:12 AM

It is truly hilarious when people seem to assume that British Christians invented marriage and that same-sex marriages are a thing that was only recently invented, rather than something that existed long before Jesus was even born

Kardan

06-02-2013, 12:19 AM

Well if you think polygamous relationship is as equal to a traditional man-women relationship then thats fine by me, but I personally don't view it the same for moral and religious reasons just as I don't view gay relationships the same as straight relationships.

I never said strictly religious, although the requirement (to me personally) is a man and a woman. It's like when I have egg i'll have it with bacon, toast and black pudding. That's just my view of what marriage is, based on thousands of years of Christianity and tradition.

But again, it shouldn't matter what you, Niall, Chippiewill or I think - as the state just shouldn't be involved in defining any of this.

That's where my legal concerns kick in.

You only have to look at the Christian B&B owners along with the smoking ban to see that property rights are being trashed.

I must say you do have a point with the Christian B&B owner situation, but then so does the gay couple. In that situation I couldn't pick either side really, in an ideal world the two parties would have discussed the situation and just parted on good terms, with both of them respecting the other persons beliefs.

Volcano

06-02-2013, 12:22 AM

Marriage was created for man and a woman. Your genetic code is faulty

Chippiewill

06-02-2013, 12:26 AM

Marriage was created for man and a woman. Your genetic code is faulty
Genetics would not it seems produce gay offspring at the rate it does, considering if a gene were to make someone gay that it would be an unsuccessful one as it could not be passed down. It is very likely that the discrepancy in sexual tendencies is likely an environmental cause instead.

Volcano

06-02-2013, 12:29 AM

Genetics would not it seems produce gay offspring at the rate it does, considering if a gene were to make someone gay that it would be an unsuccessful one as it could not be passed down. It is very likely that the discrepancy in sexual tendencies is likely an environmental cause instead.

It was a quote from someones post on here, I wasn't being serious, just the rolleyes smiley didn't show up. I'm gay myself.

-:Undertaker:-

06-02-2013, 12:41 AM

I must say you do have a point with the Christian B&B owner situation, but then so does the gay couple. In that situation I couldn't pick either side really, in an ideal world the two parties would have discussed the situation and just parted on good terms, with both of them respecting the other persons beliefs.

But what you've just said is an example of exactly what I fear. You said earlier that it's right that Churches etc ought to have the choice in line with property rights, but you then go on to say that you're unsure whether a Christian couple should have the right to decide who they sell their own service to within their own household. I suspect that in time, the anti-property rights and anti-religious freedom voices will grow stronger and bang.

And thats exactly why I don't trust your side of the argument when you tell us that it's all alright, nothing to fear - clearly there is something to fear.

Genetics would not it seems produce gay offspring at the rate it does, considering if a gene were to make someone gay that it would be an unsuccessful one as it could not be passed down. It is very likely that the discrepancy in sexual tendencies is likely an environmental cause instead.

But that's debunked, Dr. Richard Dawkins (who i'm hardly on the side of in the culture wars) explained that it has probably survived via the fact that gay men usually had sex with females anyway to reproduce a family, hence why its been passed on.

If it is genetic that is.

Chippiewill

06-02-2013, 12:44 AM

But that's debunked, Dr. Richard Dawkins (who i'm hardly on the side of in the culture wars) explained that it has probably survived via the fact that gay men usually had sex with females anyway to reproduce a family, hence why its been passed on.

That seems entirely contrary to his own selfish gene theory, I get the impression that is not the whole story.

-:Undertaker:-

06-02-2013, 12:47 AM

That seems entirely contrary to his own selfish gene theory, I get the impression that is not the whole story.

You'd have to find the video somewhere, but thats the gist of it (or at least one of the gene theories).

The Don

06-02-2013, 12:52 AM

Fantastic news, I'm not going to write an in depth response since I'm on my phone and have already stated my opinion in numerous threads.

Ardemax

06-02-2013, 04:57 PM

Good to see Cameron is doing this because he believes it is morally right to do so and not a cheap attempt at attracting gay voters, excellent.

Catchy

06-02-2013, 09:46 PM

I can say it because my view of marriage is between a man and a woman, preferably in a Church (or other religious building) and it's there to create a Union for a stable and happy family. That to me is marriage, and thus discounts gays and all other groups.

It's like asking me why one of my favourite trees is the Laburnum Tree, it's a personal opinion that shouldn't have any weight on the law.

You're confusing the issue, maybe I haven't been clear enough. My reasoning for opposing this bill isn't that I don't believe the concept of gay marriage (although I have mentioned it as I don't think I should have to be arguing from a legal standpoint all the time) - my opposition to this bill is based on two things, which are;

a) The state does in a way 'impose' its definition of marriage on me still, as it now counts hetrosexual and homosexual marriages as what marriage means. This leaves out other forms of marriage such as polygamy and so on. So to say the state isn't imposing a definition is being a tad dishonest.

..which brings me onto what I would ideally like, the state to simply get out of marriage. The way I see it in this debate is, if the state is going to have a definition of marriage then I as a voter would naturally prefer my definition of marriage to be the one the state backs - being between a man and a woman only. But again, I don't like imposing a definition via the state on others so i'd like to see it removed.

We've now gone from a situation where the state backed my definition of marriage over yours, to the state backing your definition of marriage (and partly mine) over the other definitions of marriage people have, ie people in a polygamous relationship. So lets remove the state from it and it'll save all this argument and bad feeling between Christians, gay groups + others.

b) The legal concerns regarding the ECHR, ECJ and Equality Act

How about polygamy then? I mean I keep hearing this argument "if two people love eachother" - well why not three, four or five people? I mean if they all love one another then why not? and then you get into incest and all the rest.

I sometimes wonder if stable and happy families even exist

peteyt

07-02-2013, 02:08 AM

In other news, MPs have today also voted to legislate that the sky is purple, hogwarts really does exist and that water flows uphill. As far as i'm concerned along with the hundreds of thousands who back traditional marriage, there's no such thing as gay 'marriage' - and legislation can't change that. On a personal level I find the idea utterly ridiculous and not anything near worthy of what marriage is.

But you know, in a way i'm glad. Because this issue again highlights just how useless the Unconservative Party is in that you have a supposed 'right wing' Government pushing through gay marriage, and the MPs of that 'right wing party' are split down the middle. Another nail in the coffin of a party that's half full of social democrats and centre left wingers, and half fall of conservatives and neoliberals.

I know grassroots Tory activists were resigning in protest over the past few months, i've no doubt it'll now accelerate over the next few days. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised now if party membership has gone below the 100,000 mark - and bear in mind it was at 300,000 odd in 2006.

This is the big problem with people who support freedom of speech and equal rights. They actually often seem to only support it when it suits them.

I don't see the big problem with this. If two guys love each other why should they not have the right to be married. They are just humans like us but just with different sex preferences.

JoeyK.

07-02-2013, 09:54 AM

I haven't read too much into it, but from what your post said I think this was done quite well. It gives people the choice (and the same legal protections) as anyone else, but allows different churches to refuse to recognize the marriage. Hopefully we can get past the politics in the US as well, it's ridiculous that a 'free' country will not allow a person to make a decision that hurts no one else.

@ Undertaker - I get where you're coming from, and I don't see anything wrong with calling it something other than marriage. However, if two people choose to spend their lives together, they should have the same legal protections as anyone else.

GommeInc

07-02-2013, 11:45 AM

@ Undertaker - I get where you're coming from, and I don't see anything wrong with calling it something other than marriage. However, if two people choose to spend their lives together, they should have the same legal protections as anyone else.
Technically speaking, equality was reached under the civil partnership and equality laws and thus they had the same legal protections (and could argue their case if they did not). Equality and "the same" are not the same thing. It's why the new law is not called the Marriage (Equality) Act (or Bill, as it is rightly known at the moment) because it's not Equality as that already existed, it's just pooling together different orientations under the same definition of marriage. It's basically a law to redefine marriage, rather than create equality (it simply reinstates what equal rights people have had but are now confirmed under this new law).

There's a few interesting debates over the misrepresentation and misconceptions of the meaning of equality. Search Gary ******* and equality/marriage and you should find a few tweets from him that link to the bigger discussions. It's quite an interesting read, and underlines how equality is somewhat superficial and is the target goal in life for many when really equality had been reached for a while - anything more is either using the wrong word and it's meaning due to a complete lack of understanding or needless criticisms (though thankfully it seems it's the former not the latter).

-:Undertaker:-

07-02-2013, 03:43 PM

I sometimes wonder if stable and happy families even exist

I know from my personal experience that they do, I'm part of a happy traditional family and it's a shame that since the 1960s the culture has very much turned away from traditional families which has left a great many of children without the family structure that i'm blessed to have.

This is the big problem with people who support freedom of speech and equal rights. They actually often seem to only support it when it suits them.

Agreed.

I don't see the big problem with this. If two guys love each other why should they not have the right to be married. They are just humans like us but just with different sex preferences.

What about three guys? or seven?

Catchy

07-02-2013, 04:16 PM

I know from my personal experience that they do, I'm part of a happy traditional family and it's a shame that since the 1960s the culture has very much turned away from traditional families which has left a great many of children without the family structure that i'm blessed to have.

Agreed.

What about three guys? or seven?

Surely divorce and splitting up was just more frowned upon back then? I'm sure a lot of families weren't happy and a lot of marriages weren't, there would of still been all the issues that people deal with today for example adultery, domestic abuse blahblah it would've just been much more very covered up, surely?

-:Undertaker:-

07-02-2013, 04:42 PM

Surely divorce and splitting up was just more frowned upon back then? I'm sure a lot of families weren't happy and a lot of marriages weren't, there would of still been all the issues that people deal with today for example adultery, domestic abuse blahblah it would've just been much more very covered up, surely?

In some cases, but you have to first think what the consquences of divorce being frowned upon socially meant. It meant that not only were marriages salvaged (a good thing for children) out of fear of social stigma, but also the fact that because marriage meant so much more that people did not rush into marriage like they perhaps do today. Marriage back then was seen as an unbreakable (apart from exceptional circumstances) lifelong commitment.

Catchy

07-02-2013, 04:46 PM

In some cases, but you have to first think what the consquences of divorce being frowned upon socially meant. It meant that not only were marriages salvaged (a good thing for children) out of fear of social stigma, but also the fact that because marriage meant so much more that people did not rush into marriage like they perhaps do today. Marriage back then was seen as an unbreakable (apart from exceptional circumstances) lifelong commitment.

I'm sure in lots of cases marriage was rushed into? You found yourself a nice enough man, hopped on the bus and got married down the register office?

FlyingJesus

07-02-2013, 07:38 PM

I know from my personal experience that they do, I'm part of a happy traditional family and it's a shame that since the 1960s the culture has very much turned away from traditional families which has left a great many of children without the family structure that i'm blessed to have.

Having divorced parents doesn't negate all happiness and familial bonds lol, my parents aren't together and we're a far happier family than most that I know

What about three guys? or seven?

I'm personally very much for polygamy

peteyt

08-02-2013, 04:06 AM

What about three guys? or seven?
While I don't like this idea if a few people want to do it then its up to them. I could never do it myself but why should I stop people who actually want to do it.

In some cases, but you have to first think what the consquences of divorce being frowned upon socially meant. It meant that not only were marriages salvaged (a good thing for children) out of fear of social stigma, but also the fact that because marriage meant so much more that people did not rush into marriage like they perhaps do today. Marriage back then was seen as an unbreakable (apart from exceptional circumstances) lifelong commitment.

Marriage has been rushed throughout history. For example my Nanna is someone who complains when she see's girls at 16/17 pregnant but forgets that actually she was pregnant at that age. I have a theory. I think people like to think their time was better and sometimes it some cases it might have been but often they deny that a lot of the problems they complain about have been happening before even their times.