Tory Party fractures open up over gay 'marriage'

[-:Undertaker:-]

No-one has their rights put at risk by enabling homosexuals to marry, because no-one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex in any sense of the term. There is no majority opposition here

The risk comes from the fact that once the wedge is in the door, a gay couple will take the Church to court (either the High Court or ECHR) and they'll rule that all Churches must allow weddings and not discriminate under the Equality Act. That is where the danger is.

And it's already happened with Catholic adoption agencies.

They may be required to teach that in a secular society it is an equal option, but that's no more oppressive than a conservative philosophy lecturer having to teach socialist theory. When you teach your job is to explain the subject, not your personal views on it

The difference being that the other side won't be allowed to be aired.

Again that is her problem and she is limiting herself by her beliefs. Jews don't believe they should work on the Sabbath and are thereby confined by their own faith, but they don't attempt to force everyone else to stop working, and them being unable to work a saturday job is down to their choices rather being the fault of the employer

Indeed, but given the choice between these people losing their jobs and allowing homosexual marriage which will offer no extra legal protections what so ever - given that on a personal level I find gay 'marriage' ridiculous and objectionable, i'll side with the majority over that small minority.

Every single building in the country if not the world has legal restrictions on what can be done inside it, state owned or private

Who said it didn't - but when it comes to political matters and so forth, the state ought to be neutral. For example, a Council owned civic hall ought to be allowed to be rented out to gay groups, Christian groups, Marxist groups, National Socialist groups - the lot.

But that's not to say i'd have all of those groups round at my house or my hypothetical private hall.

[FlyingJesus]

The risk comes from the fact that once the wedge is in the door, a gay couple will take the Church to court (either the High Court or ECHR) and they'll rule that all Churches must allow weddings and not discriminate under the Equality Act. That is where the danger is.

And it's already happened with Catholic adoption agencies.

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

The difference being that the other side won't be allowed to be aired.

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

Indeed, but given the choice between these people losing their jobs and allowing homosexual marriage which will offer no extra legal protections what so ever - given that on a personal level I find gay 'marriage' ridiculous and objectionable, i'll side with the majority over that small minority.

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

Who said it didn't - but when it comes to political matters and so forth, the state ought to be neutral. For example, a Council owned civic hall ought to be allowed to be rented out to gay groups, Christian groups, Marxist groups, National Socialist groups - the lot.

But that's not to say i'd have all of those groups round at my house or my hypothetical private hall.

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

[The Don]

If it means protecting the freedoms and liberties of a higher majority who could be put at risk of losing their jobs and homes, then yes I would.

Again, i'm not the one putting the choice forward - i'd like to do the simple thing and get the state out of it.

What you've just said totally contradicts your view on the smoking ban.

I cannot believe the attitude of some people on here who think that they have a right to remove something which they do not like via the force of the law. It absolutely annoys the hell out of me, worse still these are the same people who talk about 'the dark days' of when homosexuality was banned - which in part is true because why should the government ban what people do in their own bedrooms or what people smoke in their own bars.

[Munex]

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.

[HotelUser]

As my former Prime Minister of Canada Pierre Trudeau has said: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." and so I think gay people should be allowed to be married and should receive the exact same benefits from marriage as a heterosexual couple receive.

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.

Davies admits what he said was going to cause controversy so why on Earth did he think he would benefit in the end from saying it :S

[FlyingJesus]

Gay marriage to be explicitly banned in CoE churches, regardless of the opinions of the ministers

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

[Inseriousity.]

As my former Prime Minister of Canada Pierre Trudeau has said: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." and so I think gay people should be allowed to be married and should receive the exact same benefits from marriage as a heterosexual couple receive.

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.

Davies admits what he said was going to cause controversy so why on Earth did he think he would benefit in the end from saying it :S

I'd rather politicians told us their own opinions rather than what they think we want to hear so that if I disagree with them I make sure not to vote for them!

[HotelUser]

I'd rather politicians told us their own opinions rather than what they think we want to hear so that if I disagree with them I make sure not to vote for them!

And in a perfect world this could happen, but in the world we live in it doesn't and Davies will lose votes because of it.

[GommeInc]

Gay marriage to be explicitly banned in CoE churches, regardless of the opinions of the ministers

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

He does have a point about how the equality laws do not consider absolute equality as they have to be one sided, hence a bit of a broken law which contradicts itself when two groups covered by that law conflict (or come to Court over a matter) e.g. sexual orientation subjects (homosexuals) and those of a particular faith (Christians/CofE/Catholic Church). S. 149, SS. 1 of the Equality Act 2010 is one area of current equality law which is likely to be protested, because the church is and can be considered a "public authority" in some areas and hence it loses the very characteristics that should protect it under that Act of Parliament with regards to protecting religious freedoms. The Law states that public authorities (which could incl. the Church) must promote equality, yet in doing so a Church loses the very characteristics of religious freedoms the law is meant to protect and therefore the Act isn't promoting equality, it's demoting religious views therefore suggesting a self-destructive/contradictory law favouring one part and not the other.

It's one huge problem with equality laws, as they're not actually about promoting equality - they only exist to sound nice, but in reality they demote it in groups not mentioned.

Although the proposed law says it will protect the Church when ever a same-sex marriage is blocked, there have been some circumstances where conflicting opinions usually are in favour of the other side. The European Court of Human Rights may argue that a Church is going against the rights of homosexuals to marry, but what is often forgotten when the ECHR is involved is that marriage isn't considered one of the Human Rights, BUT the interests of homosexuals under sexuality laws and laws of religious freedoms do conflict and this is one area which the ECHR may enable itself and deem a Church to be acting out of accordance with the convention.

An interesting debate none-the-less. My problem with gay marriage - is there a huge demand from gay couples to "marry" or is it just in accordance with equality ideology? Reality may suggest that there is a low interest in wanting to marry in homosexual circles, but a change in law is demanded because it feels like there should be a change.

[The Don]

An interesting debate none-the-less. My problem with gay marriage - is there a huge demand from gay couples to "marry" or is it just in accordance with equality ideology? Reality may suggest that there is a low interest in wanting to marry in homosexual circles, but a change in law is demanded because it feels like there should be a change.

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.