Why would you suggest your concept of equality is far superior to the concept of equality say in other part of the world?

People are held equal, or they aren’t. It’s a fairly straight forward definition, n’est-ce pas? Not much wiggle room.

No no it’s OK people, I understand completely. It’s all to do with our western understanding of equality, which we shouldn’t assume is the correct one. You know, like how people can be a little bit pregnant.

Isn’t that similar to someone trying to tell someone else how to think?

What telling them how to act is telling them how to think? we make people think murder is wrong raoe is wrong – it is basically what laws do tell people right from wrong and impose it on the
Yes I do think it is very similar but what in earth is your point?

The western world might have the concept of equality but the rest of the world might interpret equality differently from yours so does that mean they are wrong and out of order?

WTF are we doing now ???
I think the word equal means treated the same – if they treat them the same then they are equal if you dont then they are not equal. I am not sure their is a western version or a non western version as equal means equal

Why would you suggest your concept of equality is far superior to the concept of equality say in other part of the world?

No one has and your argument is drifting around all over the place

Chewkw: you are Kaesae and I claim my £5!

David Cameron was on the radio this morning, saying how he ‘respects’ those who oppose Gay marriage. So, he’s publicly stated he respects those who are homophobic and don’t believe in equality. As simple as that.

If we lived in a truly civilised society, we wouldn’t even be having this debate. It’s nonsense.

I assume you mean Radio 4 and much as I hate all Tories his message was more about how he respects all aspects of the Tory party but he was proud to have brought in this legislation. It was an olive branch or him reaching out to his party – what else can he do ?

At no point did the person who opposed his own party and forced through equality legislation for gay marriage say he respects homophobia.

FFS I defended Cameron, Now I feel dirty

FFS I defended Cameron, Now I feel dirty

CBA finding a Nelson picture but…

Ha Ha!

So, he’s publicly stated he respects those who are homophobic and don’t believe in equality. As simple as that.

What do you do if you are an MP who believes in Gay Marriage but a significant number of your constituents, perhaps even a majority, have told you they are opposed to it?

It is your democratic duty to represent the views of your constituents.

Many of the “against” campaign have their own reasons, and while I don’t agree with them, I think it is short-sighted and a little disingenuous to dismiss them all as “homophobic”.

GrahamS – Member
Many of the “against” campaign have their own reasons, and while I don’t agree with them, I think it is short-sighted and a little disingenuous to dismiss them all as “homophobic”.

+1.

Plus this latest vote was interesting in that it was billed as a vote of conscience and hence a free vote. Does this make any difference to the idea of whether you are voting for your conscience or for your perception of the conscience of your constituents?

But there is a lot of nonesense talked about equality. The kneejerk reaction is to conclude that equality is naturally and always good when it patently is not. Of course, the legal system is often presented as working towards the goal of equality in terms of “having the same status, rights or opportunities” etc. But equally the system also works to defend inequality where this is “deemed” appropriate or beneficial. Women in the armed forces for example.

In some cases, equality can also infringe on liberty and freedom – so which is more important? IMO, the answer is rarely clear cut.

In the case of gay marriage, it is easy for those not directly involved (like myself) to dismiss the matter as unimportant/semantics or not as important as other matters that governments could or should be focused on. But that ignores the distress and harm that the perceived/real discrimination has on other people. Equally as others and CMD have said, I see no reason to dismiss the views of those who feel that (1) marriage is an institution that should be reserved to a man and a woman or (2) that have reasons to oppose homosexuality on religious or other grounds. I disagree with both views but who am I/who are we to impose our beliefs and moral judgements on them?

This is where I think Cameron deserves credit. When I saw the draft legislation a few months ago it seemed to contain a very sensible balance. If I recall correctly, the discrimination against gay couples was correctly (IMO) removed and the institution of marriage made available to them. At the same time, the position of (orthodox) religions was protected by statute with the burden to opt-in, rather than opt-out *. The position of the CoE was made very explicit, so I fail to understand why people are so against the legislation. IMO, the interests of both sides have been represented and protected. Isn’t this one example of “win-win” legislation?

* edit: re church “gay” weddings. If an institution is opposed, indeed outwardly hostile to one’s choice of sexuality and lifestyle, why would you want to have such an important occasion held in their places of worship? Surely, these are the last institutions that you would want to be involved?

I see no reason to dismiss the views of those who feel that (1) marriage is an institution that should be reserved to a man and a woman or (2) that have reasons to oppose homosexuality on religious or other grounds. I disagree with both views but who am I/who are we to impose our beliefs and moral judgements on them?

How is it imposing anything on them? No-one’s asking them to have a gay marriage – it’s none of their sodding business.

This is where I think Cameron deserves credit.

Agreed.

* edit: re church “gay” weddings. If an institution is opposed, indeed outwardly hostile to one’s choice of sexuality and lifestyle, why would you want to have such an important occasion held in their places of worship? Surely, these are the last institutions that you would want to be involved?

How about, rather than you guessing what hypothetical gay people think, we let them get married in church, if the church is happy to perform the ceremony, and no-one else gets to have a say because its nothing to do with them?

At the same time, the position of (orthodox) religions was protected by statute with the burden to opt-in, rather than opt-out

religions being overly upset with something that doesn’t concern them and trying to govern people who don’t follow their faith, that’s unusual.

Well grum, you and I may not agree with them, but why does that mean that they have to accept our views? That’s double standards. People have strong belief about the definition of marriage, couldn’t I also say that it is none of my “sodding business” to change their views too.

Hence, that adds more to the idea that Cameron is introducing what looks like a pretty decent compromise to a difficult issue.

Dave is starting to wear the brow-beaten, despairing, defeated look – all caused by your supposed allies – of a certain former prime minister…

How about, rather than you guessing what hypothetical gay people think, we let them get married in church, if the church is happy to perform the ceremony, and no-one else gets to have a say because its nothing to do with them?

That is why I am asking the question! But this is a view already expressed by a person directly affected earlier so not exactly guessing!

The reason why I think the legislation appears a good compromise is that I agree with you later point. If a church wishes to perform the ceremony it can do so (I think). Equally, if it isn’t, it cannot be forced. So both parties have a solution that works.

D0NK – Member
religions being overly upset with something that doesn’t concern them

Odd, I thought marriage was very much a concern of religions?

I see no reason to dismiss the views of those who feel that (1) marriage is an institution that should be reserved to a man and a woman or (2) that have reasons to oppose homosexuality on religious or other grounds. I disagree with both views but who am I/who are we to impose our beliefs and moral judgements on them?

I think the question is who are they to impose their views on marriage on others – they are telling other people what they can do ebven though we may not follow their religion. We are simply saying you cannot do this.

why does that mean that they have to accept our views? That’s double standards.

Why?
Fairly obviously when one say yes and one say no and you pick you pick one side – that is not double standards – they seem to want the freedom to do as they please and then not give others the same choice …that is what I call double standards

it is also worth noting that the religious have exemption form anti discrimination law and can legally still discriminate on the grounds of sexuality…would they let us legally discriminate on the grounds of religions …again whose double standards?

Oh and lets not turn it into a religion thread please

EDIT:

Odd, I thought marriage was very much a concern of religions?

well they would certainly like to claim it as their but it pre-dates religion by some distance. Religious involvement in the ceremony is a relatively recent phenomena- marriage exists and it has little to do with religion IMHO. you may as well claim birth [ baptism or death[ funeral] is a religious issue but they would still exist with or without it

Well grum, you and I may not agree with them, but why does that mean that they have to accept our views? That’s double standards. People have strong belief about the definition of marriage, couldn’t I also say that it is none of my “sodding business” to change their views too.

That’s some weird twisting of logic even by your standards. I’m not asking them to change their views or imposing anything on them, just asking them not to impose their views on others.

– ‘Imposing my views’ on them makes absolutely no difference to them other than something happens they don’t like.
– Them imposing their views on others means people are not being allowed to do something they really want to do, something that harms no-one.

The two are not equivalent.

Odd, I thought marriage was very much a concern of religions?

AFAIK as an atheist (or just because you want to) you can get married with no involvement (or concern) of any church, aslong as it’s between one man and one woman. Obviously if you want to get married in one of their establishments you have to agree to their rules, which is fair enough I guess.

Wasn’t the concept of marriage around before the Christian church? I don’t see why they think they should get to have control over it.

Obviously if you want to get married in one of their establishments you have to agree to their rules, which is fair enough I guess.

Do you reckon you’d be allowed to take over a disused church, and get a marriage license for civil ceremonies? Could be a good money-spinner I reckon. 🙂

JY, Grum and Donk – do we not agree on the ends, if not the means?

Junkyard – lazarus
I think the question is who are they {and who are we] to impose their {our] views on marriage on others…they {we] are telling other people what they can do ebven though we may not follow their religion {our ideas}….

Whats the expression, FTFY?

..We are simply saying you cannot do this….

grum – Member
That’s some weird twisting of logic even by your standards.

Thanks 😉 (edit: deleted as your second point can be read two ways!)

At no point did the person who opposed his own party and forced through equality legislation for gay marriage say he respects homophobia

He stated that he respects the views of those who are homophobic.

What do you do if you are an MP who believes in Gay Marriage but a significant number of your constituents, perhaps even a majority, have told you they are opposed to it?

It is your democratic duty to represent the views of your constituents.

Yes, but within a legal and ethical framework. It’s also your duty to uphold the rights of all your constituants and not favour one group over another, if doing so impinges on the freedom and rights of others.

Many of the “against” campaign have their own reasons, and while I don’t agree with them, I think it is short-sighted and a little disingenuous to dismiss them all as “homophobic”.

So what viable arguments do they have, opposing Gay marriage then? If it’s not homophobia, what is it?

Simple solution would be to remove the privilege of all religious institutions to perform legal marriage ceremonies, and require that all marriages can only be fully legal if performed in a civil non-denominational secular ‘ceremony’. By all means, get ‘married’ in a church etc, but that would have no legal weight. You’d still need to register the marriage at a civil level. This would equalise all marriages under law. Then, the Church of whatever can be free to hold ceremonies for whomever they choose, but everyone would still have the right to be ‘maried’.

Cougar – Moderator

People are held equal, or they aren’t. It’s a fairly straight forward definition, n’est-ce pas? Not much wiggle room.

Is that your universal assumption for mankind … I mean … you know what I mean the little crawling thing?

So does that mean if they do not comply with your definition, you have the right to liberate their mind? i.e. help them understand and educate them in your “image”?

AdamW – Member

Chewkw: you are Kaesae and I claim my £5!

Are you trying to downgrade the status of Dear Leader?

Junkyard – lazarus

Isn’t that similar to someone trying to tell someone else how to think?

What telling them how to act is telling them how to think? we make people think murder is wrong raoe is wrong – it is basically what laws do tell people right from wrong and impose it on the
Yes I do think it is very similar but what in earth is your point?

In certain countries they cut off the head of murders or they hang drug traffickers is that wrong? You might call that state murder … I like the words “state murder” big word that … 😀

My point is that your view is yours but when you try to educate others in your view aren’t you like the guy who says everyone is created in my image? 🙄

JY, Grum and Donk – do we not agree on the ends, if not the means?

I was having an easy dig at the church, risk of swerving the thread sorry, yes it sounds like a reasonable compromise to me but I’m not religious.

Whether the church invented the word marriage (monogamy was around long before most current religions I believe) and the state pinched it, I’m not sure but either way it’s not definitively religious anymore. Religions AFAIK aren’t trying to claw back civil marriage and claim them null and void, they aren’t demonstrating outside registry offices complaining about a couple of divorcees getting remarried citing it shouldn’t be allowed as it’s against god’s laws. They’re just trying to prevent a minority getting the same benefit that others have.

Do you reckon you’d be allowed to take over a disused church, and get a marriage license for civil ceremonies?

definitley a money earner, have you seen the cost of weddings. Oh yes you will have done 😉
Isn’t there a raft of limitations on what you can do with old churches?
Wonder if you’d have trouble with a new build that looked just like a church but did civil weddings, some religion claiming you’re doing counterfeit church weddings? 🙂

He stated that he respects the views of those who are homophobic.

In a free society you have to respect someone elses right to be wrong. I respect the rights of UKIP voters to hold their political views; it doesn’t stop them being a bunch of misguided, racist, swivel eyed loons.

In addition to the rather hateful homophobia that some MPs have spouted, there has also been an inordinate amount of religious privilige in the debate has been astonishing. Having an MP who is heavily involved with the CofE complaining that it might end up with Pagan weddings was ridiculous. Why he thinks christianity is worthy of more respect than paganism is frankly beyond me.

In a free society you have to respect someone elses right to be wrong. I respect the rights of UKIP voters to hold their political views; it doesn’t stop them being a bunch of misguided, racist, swivel eyed loons

Yes, you (and I) respect the RIGHT for them to have a “misguided, racist, swivel eyed” view. That doesn’t mean you respect the view itself.

In the UK, it wasn’t until 1753 that a wedding had to be held in a religious setting in order to be legally valid. Civil weddings were re-introduced in 1836.

I wonder if people complained back then that allowing civil, non-religious weddings would devalue the entire institution? The Church of England in particular has no right to grumble, it was set up by a man just so he could a) divorce his first wife, b) remarry five times and c) executed one of his wives. I think that takes a few more liberties with what I consider to be the value of marriage (lifelong commitment to a partner) than teh gays.

Could be a good money-spinner I reckon

This is the kind of enterprise culture from a striver that can rescue us all from this mess

Whats the expression, FTFY?

Rolls eyes. My view of marriage is if you want to get married you can. Their view is it is up to them to decide if you can get married. What exactly am I imposing here beyond the right to choose for yourself? As far as I can see only the religious are telling others what they can and cannot do. You are bright enough to see the distinction in positions so either engage or dont engage but repetition is pointless.. Obviously when two groups want differing things you will favour one side and I choose the side of equality and letting folk do as they please as long as it does not affect others. You seem to choose what exactly?

He stated that he respects the views of those who are homophobic.

Pretty sure he stated that he respected the views of those who disagreed with him – he did not say he respects those who are homophobic.

So what viable arguments do they have, opposing Gay marriage then? If it’s not homophobia, what is it?

Well you’re asking me to expand on viewpoints and arguments that I don’t believe, but okay…

The main religious objection, as I understand it, is that their religion (whatever that may be) defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. There are those that worry that if homosexuals are allowed to have full legal marriages, but the church continues to forbid them from having religious ceremonies, then they will likely be sued for discrimination and ultimately be forced to allow such ceremonies even though they go against their beliefs.

There are others who don’t think this will happen but worry that it somehow “dilutes” the definition of “marriage” (because apparently religious marriage is not just about two people that love each other – they specifically have to be different genders for some reason)

And then there are those that raise other interesting legal points, such as it allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes etc.

I’m sure someone could explain some of the other arguments against if you were really interested.

So much of this is a joke,

I personally don’t think churches/businesses should be forced into marrying anyone the don’t want to, irrelevant of sexual orientation, religion etc. But the institute of marriage should be open.

I know a few gay guys who’s main comment on the CofE is Why would anyone want to get married somewhere that they don’t feel welcome or have any interest in. I think that’s a fair point, look at how many straight couples who get married in hotels etc.

On the other hand, I have a gay friends who’s very much CofE and just views their official position as being out of touch with much of the membership and he’s working to change it from within.

they argue that marriage is for procreation and for children so therefore you need to be different genders
It denies a child a father and a mother
The majority have rights – ie we can impose on minorities
Slippery slope – what next marry your sister, your dog or your bike
Some ill defined human nature /nature/natural order of things is for marriage and between genders

They are all pretty weak tbh and not my view

I think the law on gay marriage should be you don’t have to marry a gay person if you don’t want to

Courtesy of @MooseAllain on that twitterer

In the majority of civilisations, for as long as we have evidence, marriage has not been between one man and one woman, exclusively for the procreation of children.

It’s actually quite a modern idea – the majority of societies throughout history have been a lot more flexible. 😀

Same sex/gender marriage is as old as the idea of marriage itself.

Personally, I view anyone who objects to same sex marriage in the same way I view people who use the phrase ‘I’m not a racist, but…..’.
They don’t actually want people to be happy.
They’re just scared & insecure.

Happiness is massively underated.

The main religious objection, as I understand it, is that their religion (whatever that may be) defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. There are those that worry that if homosexuals are allowed to have full legal marriages, but the church continues to forbid them from having religious ceremonies, then they will likely be sued for discrimination and ultimately be forced to allow such ceremonies even though they go against their beliefs.

There are others who don’t think this will happen but worry that it somehow “dilutes” the definition of “marriage” (because apparently religious marriage is not just about two people that love each other – they specifically have to be different genders for some reason)

Homophobia then.

And then there are those that raise other interesting legal points, such as it allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes etc.

So why aren’t they making a fuss about ‘straight’ marriages of convenience then? Bogus argument.

Personally, I view anyone who objects to same sex marriage in the same way I view people who use the phrase ‘I’m not a racist, but…..’.
They don’t actually want people to be happy.
They’re just scared & insecure.

It’s all about power and control. Certain organisations (like the CofE) want to retain as much societal control as possible, to serve their own ends. This is ultimately divisive, unjust and against any notion of true equality. Why should those who choose (for, unlike a person’s sexuality, their religion is a choice) to follow a particular religion get to dictate what everyone else can and cannot do?

Slippery slope – what next marry your sister, your dog or your bike

What a load of bollocks.

And then there are those that raise other interesting legal points, such as it allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes etc.

You know this argument puzzles me because as far as I can tell this option already exists, provided the flatmates are of different genders so I can’t see the problem with extending it to flatmates of the same gender.

the pink pew.

Just cleaning the tea off my keyboard. Defo favourite phrase of the week.

allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes

Actually, this is the bit that really boiled my wee when they did the fudge over the civil partnership. I think there is a very strong case, especially now, for a civil partnership, in much the same way as there is partnership in business. It is absolutely commonplace to see people sharing property and signing up to legally binding agreements, but there isn’t any real legal basis for it, so it always ends up being one or other being liable for whatever it is. Most especially now that most people have figured out that the religious structures are an utter crock and don’t bother with getting married. Unfortunately, that entirely healthy idea got waylaid by the gay lobby changing it into a thing about sharing bodily fluids as opposed to property and liability as such, which was a shame IMHO. The current debate is the right one for them IMHO and generally I’m in favour of it.

Unfortunately, that entirely healthy idea got waylaid by the gay lobby changing it into a thing about sharing bodily fluids as opposed to property and liability as such, which was a shame IMHO.

The debate was always about about allowing a union[ marriage or civil partnership] between same sex people they never changed it -it was not a campaign to allow your “healthy idea” that got stolen by gays

As far as I can see only the religious are telling others what they can and cannot do.

is that right? Of those opposing this are any of them atheists who think homosexuality is just a bit “ewww” for whatever reason? I’m assuming most opponents are atleast nominally CoE/catholic/whatever (in the special way the UK seem to have of self identifying as religious without ever darkening the door of a place of worship or indeed following any of the rules)
Genuine question I have no idea.

There must be an atheist somewhere opposing this but the vocal opposition is religious. It is still a deep irony that they want to tell others what to do and when we say they cannot we are “discriminating”