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".

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.