House of Commons votes to allow Gay Marriage in England and Wales

[Ardemax]

The House of Commons has voted to allow gay marriage in England and Wales, despite 161 MPs opposing the government's plans.

Several Tory MPs spoke against the proposals, which have caused tensions in the party, but the Labour and the Lib Dem leaderships backed them.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill now goes before the House of Lords.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22605011

In my opinion the government are focusing on 'non-issues' rather than tackling the actual problem that is the economy (ie. it's not like gay couples don't already get equality through civil partnerships).

Your thoughts?

[Cerys]

Aw yey
Glad it passed through the third reading!


Not too sure if the H of L will be so accepting of this.. I guess the H of C can always use the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 if need be.

Good to see it pass, though!

[-:Undertaker:-]

From a personal perspective I don't view it as marriage no matter what the law says, marriage is between a man and a woman in my eyes.


In my opinion the government are focusing on 'non-issues' rather than tackling the actual problem that is the economy (ie. it's not like gay couples don't already get equality through civil partnerships).

Agreed entirely.

Another nail in the coffin of the Conservative Party too - nothing has annoyed and alienated the Tory grassroots more than this has.

[MKR&*42]

In my opinion the government are focusing on 'non-issues' rather than tackling the actual problem that is the economy (ie. it's not like gay couples don't already get equality through civil partnerships).

:Thumbs-Up:

I really don't recall any gigantic outcry for gay marriage in the UK before this whole fiasco.
--

Good news for some I suppose.

[Aiden]

No reason not to. ;)
And what are the differences between a civil partnership and marriage besides the name and who can get one?And treating people differently due to their sexuality is discrimination so it is a problem... might not be the biggest, but still is one. :P

[Cerys]

No reason not to. ;)
And what are the differences between a civil partnership and marriage besides the name and who can get one?And treating people differently due to their sexuality is discrimination so it is a problem... might not be the biggest, but still is one. :P

There is no difference as far as I'm aware.
Just the name.

I'd assume the bill also changes the definition of marriage, which is currently

The voluntary union, for life, between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others
*i think this is it*

[Aiden]

There is no difference as far as I'm aware.
Just the name.

Then join them together woowowowowowow lol

There really isn't a reason not to...

[Cerys]

Then join them together woowowowowowow lol

There really isn't a reason not to...

Mhm

I guess it's because it's changing a 'tradition' and changes the whole definition of marriage etc

[Aiden]

Mhm

I guess it's because it's changing a 'tradition' and changes the whole definition of marriage etc

Well marriage to me is 2 ppl who are in luv (or being paid or golddiggers) get put together in the law ;l

so it will always be the same tbqh

[GommeInc]

There is no difference as far as I'm aware.
Just the name.
Pretty much :P Many in the legal profession are baffled by the need for gay marriage as, in theory, other than the words marriage and partnership, heterosexuals and homosexuals were and are treated as equals in the law, because the same rights were conveyed onto both. The need to have gay marriage is just for the name if anything, nothing legally mutual.

This was only controversial when homosexuals were touting "Marriage Equality" when equality had already been met. But that's the rules of language for you :P

I'm not too bothered. I didn't hear much from same sex couples wanting this for their own partnerships and in a way marriage means very little these days. If the UK was magically to become a new country, I'd opt for two types of marriage - civil and ceremonial.

[dbgtz]

Why do people really care? Jesus christ. Not only should it not be an issue, but the whole argument for it seems inherently flawed. Marriage is rooted in religion whose follows generally oppose, perhaps even despise, the idea of homosexuals, so why homosexuals want to associate themselves with a group of people who generally dislike their way of life is beyond me. To be quite honest the state should just not be involved in who can and cannot be married and let it up to each religion to do so. All gay marriage seems to me is the imposition of ones will on another which is utterly unfair.

[Cerys]

Why do people really care? Jesus christ. Not only should it not be an issue, but the whole argument for it seems inherently flawed. Marriage is rooted in religion whose follows generally oppose, perhaps even despise, the idea of homosexuals, so why homosexuals want to associate themselves with a group of people who generally dislike their way of life is beyond me. To be quite honest the state should just not be involved in who can and cannot be married and let it up to each religion to do so. All gay marriage seems to me is the imposition of ones will on another which is utterly unfair.


That's what they're doing.. isn't it?
I'm sure I read somewhere that they're making it valid for the same sex to marry, but letting churches decide if they want to perform the ceremony?

Apologies if i have read it wrong

[Reality]

Kind of with you on this one.
Don't see why people can't the the meaning behind why love is love and someone could marry who they want!
What if it was you?
:Thumbs-Up:

I really don't recall any gigantic outcry for gay marriage in the UK before this whole fiasco.
--

Good news for some I suppose.

[Mark]

Why do people really care? Jesus christ. Not only should it not be an issue, but the whole argument for it seems inherently flawed. Marriage is rooted in religion whose follows generally oppose, perhaps even despise, the idea of homosexuals, so why homosexuals want to associate themselves with a group of people who generally dislike their way of life is beyond me. To be quite honest the state should just not be involved in who can and cannot be married and let it up to each religion to do so. All gay marriage seems to me is the imposition of ones will on another which is utterly unfair.

Totally agree with this, and Skandair what are you on about... Only a small fraction of the population discriminate against gay people. I'd say racism is more common than gay discrimination lol

[FlyingJesus]

Marriage is rooted in religion whose follows generally oppose, perhaps even despise, the idea of homosexuals

Tell it to the ancient world civilisations who invented marriage

[dbgtz]

That's what they're doing.. isn't it?
I'm sure I read somewhere that they're making it valid for the same sex to marry, but letting churches decide if they want to perform the ceremony?

Apologies if i have read it wrong

If I remember correctly, it's only the CoE who gets any sort of choice though I may be wrong (it might actually be all but CoE gets a choice). But rather than them getting even deeper in the situation it should pull out of marriage, rather than advocate both straight and same sex.


Tell it to the ancient world civilisations who invented marriage

Yes but the point is these religions don't. I'm not saying marriage is defined to be between a man and a woman, I'm just saying it's only seen to be in those religions.

[FlyingJesus]

Oh absolutely an unseemly number of modern religions have those views, but in the UK despite being a "Christian" country we do have freedom of religion, and marriage as it currently stands in law is not necessarily a religious event as it is. It's all semantics and the entire argument only serves to highlight how daft it is to have marriage come under state law at all, but with the laws being as they are it's sadly an important distinction to make

[Chippiewill]

I don't know where people in this thread are getting the idea that a civil partnership is the same as a marriage. There are a bunch of legal differences:
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/seven-ways-civil-partnership-isnt-same-marriage250113

[-:Undertaker:-]

What numpty of the highest order -repped me for saying that my comment where I stated marriage is between a man and a woman only is 'homophobic' (whatever that means)? ... If the person who left that comment knew how to debate and knew I was gay, then maybe we could have a sensible discussion on the topic rather than slurring via the reputation tool.

Would they like to step forward and engage on this topic?


To be quite honest the state should just not be involved in who can and cannot be married and let it up to each religion to do so.

I agree entirely with you and Tom (FlyingJesus) when we say get the state out of marriage altogether and leave it as a private contract between two individuals and the institution performing the 'marriage' or ceremony.


What if it was you?

I am gay and I don't agree with gay 'marriage' on a personal level because to me marriage is a religious ceremony that is between a man and a woman to create the bonds which bind together the institution of the family.

[Chippiewill]

What numpty of the highest order -repped me for saying that my comment where I stated marriage is between a man and a woman only is 'homophobic' (whatever that means)? ... If the person who left that comment knew how to debate and knew I was gay, then maybe we could have a sensible discussion on the topic rather than slurring via the reputation tool.
You can be gay and homophobic.

[FlyingJesus]

Dan that last part is kinda like me saying that I don't agree with plastic spoons in yoghurts because to me spoons are stainless steel objects which are to be used for soup - if the premise is wrong (and yes, "opinions" can be wrong) then the conclusion is baseless

[-:Undertaker:-]

You can be gay and homophobic.

Firstly, I reject the use of the word 'homophobia' when its used as a word for those who dislike or have a hatred for gay people, however stupid those beliefs may be, because its simply intended to make it seem as though they have a mental condition - the kind of slur used in arguments when people debate global warming and are labelled 'deniers' like those who deny the holocaust. Or those labelled 'xenophobes' simply because they debate whether this country should remain in the EU. True homophobia, and the only time it should be seriously used, is an abnormal fear of homosexuals.

Secondly yes it is true, you can be gay and say that you dislike or even hate (stupidly) homosexuals. But I have never stated that or claimed that nor would I. So i'm struggling to see here how me stating that my personal view of marriage being between a man and a woman is 'homophobic' of me.


Dan that last part is kinda like me saying that I don't agree with plastic spoons in yoghurts because to me spoons are stainless steel objects which are to be used for soup - if the premise is wrong (and yes, "opinions" can be wrong) then the conclusion is baseless

Thats the way I see it, ultimately it ties in with my religious (and thus moral) beliefs too. Inherantly morality has to discriminate against somebody or something.

[FlyingJesus]

Yes but if one is to have logical morals there should be something more than "because" to it

[Stephen]

Would they like to step forward and engage on this topic?

:clap:

Edited by MyOffDays (Trialist Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly!

[Chippiewill]

Firstly, I reject the use of the word 'homophobia' when its used as a word for those who dislike or have a hatred for gay people, however stupid those beliefs may be, because its simply intended to make it seem as though they have a mental condition - the kind of slur used in arguments when people debate global warming and are labelled 'deniers' like those who deny the holocaust. Or those labelled 'xenophobes' simply because they debate whether this country should remain in the EU. True homophobia, and the only time it should be seriously used, is an abnormal fear of homosexuals.

Considering the meaning of words comes from their use in language rather than their formal derivation, homophobia describes any kind of negative or discriminatory attitude towards homosexuals. Now since a Civil partnership is not the same as Marriage, particularly in a symbolic sense, you clearly are therefore someone who does not thing that Homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals - or in other words as equals. Which through the common use of the word homophobia makes you a homophobe.


Secondly yes it is true, you can be gay and say that you dislike or even hate (stupidly) homosexuals. But I have never stated that or claimed that nor would I.
I only mentioned it since I inferred the contrary from what you stated.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Considering the meaning of words comes from their use in language rather than their formal derivation, homophobia describes any kind of negative or discriminatory attitude towards homosexuals.

I know exactly in the contexts which the word is used and thats why i'm opposed to it, I think its a cheap slur thrown at people who either oppose homosexuality on rational grounds or morons who just hate gay people. If somebody for example simply hates gay people, don't try and label them as having a mental condition - simply call them out on their own flawed and stupid logic and make them look stupid.


Now since a Civil partnership is not the same as Marriage, particularly in a symbolic sense, you clearly are therefore someone who does not thing that Homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals - or in other words as equals. Which through the common use of the word homophobia makes you a homophobe.

I have explained my legal + political stance on gay marriage so I won't go into it again (removing the state out of marriage completely) but I would say that on moral grounds, religious grounds and even health grounds - I don't consider homosexual relations as being 'equal' to hetrosexual ones (mainly on the basis that men and women compliment eachother and are designed to reproduce together) and I don't really see why anybody would reach such a conclusion.

It's the same with 'sexism' - pretending that men and women are equal when they are clearly not. Certainly you should treat people with respect and so on, but to pretend men and women who are different are exactly equal? it's ridiculous and I reject it.

[FlyingJesus]

I don't know of anyone who's claimed homophobia to be a mental illness. Ignorance is a sad thing but it isn't a mental health issue - there are simply names for certain forms of ignorance and bigotry, and why not when we can categorise everything else?

You also seem to be completely unaware of the difference between believing in full equality (which is daft as obviously different people have different skills and such) and equal treatment. I'm pretty sure not even the most staunch communist believes in the former, yet you seem to think that everyone under the sky except for UKIP hold such views

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't know of anyone who's claimed homophobia to be a mental illness. Ignorance is a sad thing but it isn't a mental health issue - there are simply names for certain forms of ignorance and bigotry, and why not when we can categorise everything else?

It implies that everybody who opposes or has a moral issue with homosexuality is irrational mentally. If you disagree with somebody over it, then have a rational debate over it - rather than sinking to words which are only intended and designed to imply that the opposition has an irrational viewpoint concerning homosexuality.

If I think somebody is being irrational - I say it. I don't cower behind slur words, ie i'm not keen on the 'Europhile' label for EU supporters either.


You also seem to be completely unaware of the difference between believing in full equality (which is daft as obviously different people have different skills and such) and equal treatment.

I am aware. But even with treatment I don't believe in equality. I treat women differently myself, so small things for example like i'll hold the door open for them for longer than I would with a man, or i'll be softer when i'm talking to them.

Men and women are different, just as I don't pretend homosexual and hetrosexual relationships are the same either.


I'm pretty sure not even the most staunch communist believes in the former, yet you seem to think that everyone under the sky except for UKIP hold such views

Nothing to do with UKIP. I'm arguing here from my moral perspective, not party politics.

[FlyingJesus]

When your morals consist of "I believe this because I do" that is irrational. If procreation is your argument, let's also ban birth control and force anyone who's infertile to remain celibate and single forever. If Biblical sin is your argument, note that the highest authority of Rabbi scholars agreed unanimously that homosexual relationships are actually preferable to the banning of such due to the infringements on other aspects of life (love, happiness, fulfillment etc) that arise from doing so - and note that these people actually live by Levitican law, while Christians are explicitly supposed not to do so. The word "morals" by itself is not an argument

[AgnesIO]

Not sure why the state has to decide on this (if it was an issue where it was previously illegal, why spend weeks in the Commons arguing over it?) Let the religions and individual people decide.

Personally though, I think a marriage - like -:Undertaker:- is between a man and a woman, but there we go.