Tory Party fractures open up over gay 'marriage'

[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 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 and Source #2) 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.

[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.

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

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 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

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