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

[Kardan]

Staying on the personal part, as i've stated the legal situation many times, I simply don't like this change on a personal level. I'm not at all favourable to it, and for example in my own personal life wouldn't attend a civil partnership or a gay marriage as I just don't agree with them from a moral standpoint. I accept though and have made clear, that me simply not liking something (which is the point I constantly try to get over in the gun and smoking debates) isn't a good enough reason to have it banned via legislation - so don't think i'm opposed to it on the grounds that "oh he doesn't like it".

Just clarifying the position.

No worries, I suppose it's the same thing as someone not wanting to go to a funeral/baptism etc. except that there's a law trying to be passed on this one

[Cerys]

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.



Whats homophobia exactly? you mean a disapproval of homosexuality don't you? now that's actually a rational point of view and is widely held, and if you want to debate it with those who think that then you're going to have to come up with better reasons than "its homophobic".

Slightly confused at your wording here so sorry if my reply makes no sense - very tired.
in this case I'm using the term homophobic loosly. I said the people who said no to the bill are possibly homophobic because there really is no valid reason on why they should say no to the bill, other than they may not agree with homosexuality therefore in my books they're homophobic. Also I view anyone who doesn't view us as equals to straight people homophobes.

No idea if that made sense or is a relevant response but yeah.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Slightly confused at your wording here so sorry if my reply makes no sense - very tired.
in this case I'm using the term homophobic loosly. I said the people who said no to the bill are possibly homophobic because there really is no valid reason on why they should say no to the bill, other than they may not agree with homosexuality therefore in my books they're homophobic. Also I view anyone who doesn't view us as equals to straight people homophobes.

No idea if that made sense or is a relevant response but yeah.

Objecting to homosexuality on health, religious or moral grounds shouldn't be dismissed as a sort of mental illness under the label 'homophobic'. If people disagree with others who hold them views, then by all means debunk those views in debate, but don't sink to ad hominem.

As for the MPs who rebelled, the majority from my impression opposed mainly based on legal concerns.

[MKR&*42]

Slightly confused at your wording here so sorry if my reply makes no sense - very tired.
in this case I'm using the term homophobic loosly. I said the people who said no to the bill are possibly homophobic because there really is no valid reason on why they should say no to the bill, other than they may not agree with homosexuality therefore in my books they're homophobic. Also I view anyone who doesn't view us as equals to straight people homophobes.

No idea if that made sense or is a relevant response but yeah.

I think whether it counts as homophobia or not is a very subjective thing and I personally believe that a few people who voted no, weren't being homophobic. I remember an MP said "Adam and eve, not adam and steve" which is beyond rude and based on comments on the BBC earlier, a very unpopular thing to say - but I still think there were other MPs who had legitimate reasons for not supporting the change over. I dislike people whose line of thought is this:

Someone speaking out against same-sex marriage? Homophobe
Someone speaking out against immigration? Racist
Someone speaking out against feminism? Sexist

When there are rational reasons for choosing not to do so.

[Chippiewill]

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.

Whilst I absolutely agree with your right to be personally against gay marriage, I don't see how you can say that. Whilst there may no such thing as a traditional gay marriage a marriage is commonly defined as follows:

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged

I can't see how you can argue that there is no such thing as a gay version of the above. I know that's loaded, however if you want to debate it then all you're debating is semantics. This law would simply allow same-sex spouses to gain the same rights and recognition in the eyes of the law and I do not see how it infringes upon you personally. In fact it's not even saying that churches are required to allow them, it's just saying that they can allow them, and it's not saying that you have to acknowledge it personally as a true marriage either just that the goverment will. If anything this just constitutes a small deregulation of marriage law, which whilst isn't the step you would like it is surely a step in the right direction.

[Cerys]

I think whether it counts as homophobia or not is a very subjective thing and I personally believe that a few people who voted no, weren't being homophobic. I remember an MP said "Adam and eve, not adam and steve" which is beyond rude and based on comments on the BBC earlier, a very unpopular thing to say - but I still think there were other MPs who had legitimate reasons for not supporting the change over. I dislike people whose line of thought is this:

Someone speaking out against same-sex marriage? Homophobe
Someone speaking out against immigration? Racist
Someone speaking out against feminism? Sexist

When there are rational reasons for choosing not to do so.

Sorry, i just dont see what the legit reasons are - tell me a few and maybe I'll see your poin. My thoughts aren't of which you just stated, btw. I'm just saying that id assume they would be homophobic as they have a problem with two people being happy and getting the same rights as straight people. I'm not saying ALL who voted against it are homophobic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Whilst I absolutely agree with your right to be personally against gay marriage, I don't see how you can say that. Whilst there may no such thing as a traditional gay marriage a marriage is commonly defined as follows:

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.

I can't see how you can argue that there is no such thing as a gay version of the above. I know that's loaded, however if you want to debate it then all you're debating is semantics. This law would simply allow same-sex spouses to gain the same rights and recognition in the eyes of the law and I do not see how it infringes upon you personally. In fact it's not even saying that churches are required to allow them, it's just saying that they can allow them, and it's not saying that you have to acknowledge it personally as a true marriage either just that the goverment will. If anything this just constitutes a small deregulation of marriage law, which whilst isn't the step you would like it is surely a step in the right direction.

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

Sorry, i just dont see what the legit reasons are - tell me a few and maybe I'll see your poin. My thoughts aren't of which you just stated, btw. I'm just saying that id assume they would be homophobic as they have a problem with two people being happy and getting the same rights as straight people. I'm not saying ALL who voted against it are homophobic.

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.

[MKR&*42]

Sorry, i just dont see what the legit reasons are - tell me a few and maybe I'll see your poin. My thoughts aren't of which you just stated, btw. I'm just saying that id assume they would be homophobic as they have a problem with two people being happy and getting the same rights as straight people. I'm not saying ALL who voted against it are homophobic.

Mk here are a few reasons:

- (One of the most common reasons brought up), the potential for it to cause a massive amount of cases concerning 'human rights'. E.g. If a teacher didn't feel comfortable with teaching children about same-sex marriage and she was fired because she refused to.
- To protect religious interests. This isn't largely applicable in this situation because the bill has tried to be careful when it comes to matters of churches, but you can see why some people may have been worried (considering the Archbishop of Canterbury decided to speak out so strongly against the matter).
- To recognise public interest. I'm not sure if there even was a 'clear cut' figure on how many people wanted same-sex marriage legalised, but I remember reading the actual figures for gay people who wanted marriage was quite low. Not to mention the fact that 630,000+ decided to sign a petition against this bill. Imagine comparing it to the case concerning SOPA and PIPA a few months back, many of the politicians who were in favour of those 2 bills quickly pulled out because of the massive internet protest that occurred - they pulled out due to issues of public interest.

Etc.

I don't support this bill and I don't imagine I will any time soon. The main reason I don't support it, is because I believe the definition of marriage being between a man and woman should be the clear-cut definition and not 'suddenly' changed after such a long period. I think civil partnerships/unions are perfectly reasonable, and I see no reason for this whole business in the first place... it is hardly a priority in the current state of the U.K.

[Rozi]

I'm pleased this had been voted for. In my view it is simply legislation that is moving to reflect the wants of society, which is, in the end of the day, why we have democracy. The institution of marriage is not a hard-cast simple act that only comes in one form; it is entirely dependent on the two people it glues together. Legislation changed marriage constantly throughout the last 200 years to reflect the growing equality of women in society. Marriage is no longer about male ownership of women (remember matrimonial rape was only outlawed in 1994), or about the 'social legalisation' of sex, and so really gay equality is the next step.

However, it should be said that this bill isn't perfect, and I know some MPs highlighted nuances regarding adultery and non-consummation but I imagine the house of lords will pick up on this.

[Niall!]

Personally I don't care who marries who. But in my eyes marriage is the formation of a stable unit to bring children into the world. I'm not getting into a gay adoptions debate because I honestly don't care, but I wouldn't like to grow up with two parents of the same sex. None of this "messes their head up" ****, just fact that if you have two guys you're going to get bullied like **** at school which will make the child miserable.

To reiterate; good for whoever benefits from this bill, honestly. But I don't see what was so wrong with just being partners.