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

[Kardan]

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.

Just on your polygamy argument, this bill is amending a current piece of law for equality, to bring polygamy or incest into it you would need to reverse current laws.

Also, many people hold your views that marriage is a strictly religious service, but it's not. I fully intend on getting married with absolutely no religious beliefs, I'd describe myself as almost anti-religion. I just want to be recognised by law that I have a partner that I love and I wish to spend the rest of my life with. Gay people should have the same rights. If religious places don't wish to hold gay marriages, then so be it. We can't force gay marriages on institutions, just as institutions can't force their religious beliefs on people.

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 12:01 AM ----------

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.

If you are just 'partners', you are not entitled to the same benefits as if you are married. Don't quote me on this, but I'm sure if you die and you've not done a will, your posessions will go to your next of kin, which will be someone in your immediate family, not your partner.

I also disagree that marriage is for the formation of a stable unit to bring children into the world. It was changed around the ~1830s that you no longer had to have children if you were married (or at least, that's what I read somewhere )

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just on your polygamy argument, this bill is amending a current piece of law for equality, to bring polygamy or incest into it you would need to reverse current laws.

Well if you think polygamous relationship is as equal to a traditional man-women relationship then thats fine by me, but I personally don't view it the same for moral and religious reasons just as I don't view gay relationships the same as straight relationships.

Also, many people hold your views that marriage is a strictly religious service, but it's not. I fully intend on getting married with absolutely no religious beliefs, I'd describe myself as almost anti-religion. I just want to be recognised by law that I have a partner that I love and I wish to spend the rest of my life with. Gay people should have the same rights.

I never said strictly religious, although the requirement (to me personally) is a man and a woman. It's like when I have egg i'll have it with bacon, toast and black pudding. That's just my view of what marriage is, based on thousands of years of Christianity and tradition.

But again, it shouldn't matter what you, Niall, Chippiewill or I think - as the state just shouldn't be involved in defining any of this.

If religious places don't wish to hold gay marriages, then so be it. We can't force gay marriages on institutions, just as institutions can't force their religious beliefs on people.

That's where my legal concerns kick in.

You only have to look at the Christian B&B owners along with the smoking ban to see that property rights are being trashed.

[FlyingJesus]

It is truly hilarious when people seem to assume that British Christians invented marriage and that same-sex marriages are a thing that was only recently invented, rather than something that existed long before Jesus was even born

[Kardan]

Well if you think polygamous relationship is as equal to a traditional man-women relationship then thats fine by me, but I personally don't view it the same for moral and religious reasons just as I don't view gay relationships the same as straight relationships.



I never said strictly religious, although the requirement (to me personally) is a man and a woman. It's like when I have egg i'll have it with bacon, toast and black pudding. That's just my view of what marriage is, based on thousands of years of Christianity and tradition.

But again, it shouldn't matter what you, Niall, Chippiewill or I think - as the state just shouldn't be involved in defining any of this.



That's where my legal concerns kick in.

You only have to look at the Christian B&B owners along with the smoking ban to see that property rights are being trashed.

I must say you do have a point with the Christian B&B owner situation, but then so does the gay couple. In that situation I couldn't pick either side really, in an ideal world the two parties would have discussed the situation and just parted on good terms, with both of them respecting the other persons beliefs.

[Volcano]

Marriage was created for man and a woman. Your genetic code is faulty

[Chippiewill]

Marriage was created for man and a woman. Your genetic code is faulty

Genetics would not it seems produce gay offspring at the rate it does, considering if a gene were to make someone gay that it would be an unsuccessful one as it could not be passed down. It is very likely that the discrepancy in sexual tendencies is likely an environmental cause instead.

[Volcano]

Genetics would not it seems produce gay offspring at the rate it does, considering if a gene were to make someone gay that it would be an unsuccessful one as it could not be passed down. It is very likely that the discrepancy in sexual tendencies is likely an environmental cause instead.

It was a quote from someones post on here, I wasn't being serious, just the rolleyes smiley didn't show up. I'm gay myself.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I must say you do have a point with the Christian B&B owner situation, but then so does the gay couple. In that situation I couldn't pick either side really, in an ideal world the two parties would have discussed the situation and just parted on good terms, with both of them respecting the other persons beliefs.

But what you've just said is an example of exactly what I fear. You said earlier that it's right that Churches etc ought to have the choice in line with property rights, but you then go on to say that you're unsure whether a Christian couple should have the right to decide who they sell their own service to within their own household. I suspect that in time, the anti-property rights and anti-religious freedom voices will grow stronger and bang.

And thats exactly why I don't trust your side of the argument when you tell us that it's all alright, nothing to fear - clearly there is something to fear.

Genetics would not it seems produce gay offspring at the rate it does, considering if a gene were to make someone gay that it would be an unsuccessful one as it could not be passed down. It is very likely that the discrepancy in sexual tendencies is likely an environmental cause instead.

But that's debunked, Dr. Richard Dawkins (who i'm hardly on the side of in the culture wars) explained that it has probably survived via the fact that gay men usually had sex with females anyway to reproduce a family, hence why its been passed on.

If it is genetic that is.

[Chippiewill]

But that's debunked, Dr. Richard Dawkins (who i'm hardly on the side of in the culture wars) explained that it has probably survived via the fact that gay men usually had sex with females anyway to reproduce a family, hence why its been passed on.

That seems entirely contrary to his own selfish gene theory, I get the impression that is not the whole story.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That seems entirely contrary to his own selfish gene theory, I get the impression that is not the whole story.

You'd have to find the video somewhere, but thats the gist of it (or at least one of the gene theories).