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

[The Don]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

@ 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:-]

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]

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:-]

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]

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?