There is little point in debating the merits of gay marriage. Its a fait accompli. It will happen and we will look on it in a few years time they way we looked upon smoking in pubs, although in reality it will affect far fewer people than even that.
The question is why Cameron and why now?
Does he genuinely believe in gay rights or is he such an unprincipled self serving bastard that he is prepared to back any issue if he thinks there are a few votes in it?
See Pasty Tax for the answer
The functional difference between a marriage and a civil partnership is that one is barred to a same sex couple and that is discrimination by the state. It is unjustified.
Incidentally another functional difference is that as a heterosexual couple without an inclination to marry, it is barred to me and mrsmidlife, where it would be handy to simplify inheritance, insurance and other financial matters. As I understand it though the current proposals would end the offering of CP to anyone, leaving only marriage, with an option for existing CP couples to "upgrade" to marriage or remain as CP.
I'm kind of disappointed that nobody has taken my point about the actual substantive differences any further
Go on then do tell.
Surely the obvious thing to do is for a few gayers to get together and take this clear case of discrimination to the European Court of Human Rights?
Can you imagine the reaction of the Tory party if those bastards in Brussels forced the upstanding citizens of the plucky UK to allow sodomy to be endorsed by the church? They'll spontaneously combust in a hail of blue rinsed spittle 😆
is he such an unprincipled self serving bastard that he is prepared to back any issue if he thinks there are a few votes in it?
We'd already established that he's a politician.
Incidentally another functional difference is that as a heterosexual couple without an inclination to marry, it is barred to me and mrsmidlife, where it would be handy to simplify inheritance, insurance and other financial matters.
So you have no inclination to get married, but would happily get civil partnershipped? 😯 Do you prefer the words, or that it's not something which is barred to a same sex couple?
As I understand it though the current proposals would end the offering of CP to anyone, leaving only marriage, with an option for existing CP couples to "upgrade" to marriage or remain as CP.
Well it would be a bit pointless for all but those who prefer the words.
So you have no inclination to get married, but would happily get civil partnershipped?
Yup. As it is, we need a reasonably complicated will, health and life insurance policies are more complicated, without a court order I wouldn't have parental responsibility of my children, pensions, property ownership all more of a hassle. Since CP would simplify, why not go for it?
Marriage wouldn't make us more or less likely to stay together, make me a better parent, make our friends or family view us differently. As a sacrament in a church, fair enough if that's your thing, but a civil marriage to me is nothing more than an expensive, but unenforceable contract. An excuse for a party? Well it's Monday and my hangover tells me we don't need one of those either.
a civil marriage to me is nothing more than an expensive, but unenforceable contract. An excuse for a party?
Just like a civil partnership, but with different words. Given all the apparent advantages of a [s]marriage[/s] CP why don't you just get married?
without a court order I wouldn't have parental responsibility of my children
Not on the BC? Since you seem so much keener on CP than marriage, I'm also curious what the law on those says about parental responsibility for your partner's children.
Ah - in which case what is the difference between a wedding ceremony and a civil partnership ceremony apart from the words used to describe them (and the substitution of words in a few places during the ceremony)?
In a civil partnership you are not allowed to use any religious readings, texts or hymns, or anything which approaches looking like it might have something to do with religion - if you are a gay person of faith - of which there are many - the state stops you from having the type of ceremony for your joining between you and your partner that you want - there are some churches who will do a blessing which looks a bit like a wedding, but there are clear red lines regarding the use of the actual text from the wedding ceremony meaning you can't use it.
This might seem slightly obtuse to look at process rather than outcome (which are much more similar) but for many people the process is incredibly important, just look at the effort, money and agonising which goes into the process, and you can see that people really care - I saw a talk by the vicar at the Metropolitan Community Church of Manchester and she comes into contact with a large number of people who would dearly love to be able to have a religious ceremony in which they can formally be joined as partners, in religious building, taken by a religious leader, using religious texts - this is currently not allowed, even if (like the MCCM, or the Quakers, or Liberal Judaism) the church itself would happily do it, the law forbids it - this clearly isn't right.
Not on the BC?
Yes, on BC, but that was meaningless legally before 2003.
Just like a civil partnership, but with different words. Given all the apparent advantages of a marriage CP why don't you just get married?
Logically, probably no good reason. CP would have been a simpler way to deal with the financial and legalities with less of the baggage. I'm happy enough to see it dumped in favour of equality though. Don't really want a marriage though. Happy with the idea that someone stays with me and I with them because that's what we want to do and it's the best thing for us, and that if it isn't any longer we should clear off and do something else. We do that because we make each other happy, not because we had twenty minutes in the back room of the town hall decades ago.
Thank you, bokonon - finally an explanation of a real difference.
Happy with the idea that someone stays with me and I with them because that's what we want to do and it's the best thing for us, and that if it isn't any longer we should clear off and do something else. We do that because we make each other happy, not because we had twenty minutes in the back room of the town hall decades ago.
You'd better not get a CP then.
I know, I was disappointed you couldn't do it online.
Good article [url= http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/same-sex-marriage-is-homophobic/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=same-sex-marriage-is-homophobic ]here[/url] explaining why equality should not be about erasing differences.
Good post Bokonon.
Given my (cons) MP is [url= http://www.care.org.uk/ ]heavily involved with, and has his interns funded by this christian organisation[/url], (who rather amazingly [url= http://www.polarimagazine.com/heroes-villains/pro-gay-cure-charity-infiltrates-government/ ]promote a cure for homosexuality[/url], I think it is likely that for the first time since way before the last general election, he will actually vote against the party leader's line.
Almost pressed report post for binners article, then re read it and realised ive missed out on so much.
Cancels report post thoughts, and LOL, LOL.
Good article here explaining why equality should not be about erasing differences.
No its not its a crap article, Giving gay couples the freedom to marry, doesn't obliterate individuality, it just gives them the choice to be seen in the same light as non gay married couples if they wish.
gives them the choice to be seen in the same light as non gay married couples
But takes away the choice of [b]other[/b] people to be part of an institution that they, the society around them, and their religion, views as a relationship solely between a man and a woman
Why do the rights of gay people trump the rights of religious people?
Why are a vocal minority of gay people so intolerant of the rights and beliefs of others?
Why do the rights of gay people trump the rights of religious people?
Are you asking that question like that because you think being gay is a tradition passed down through families or a lifestyle choice?
But takes away the choice of other people to be part of an institution that they, the society around them, and their religion, views as a relationship solely between a man and a woman
Because that isn't a viewpoint based on personal freedom, its about restricting others access to the same freedoms they have.
It [i]amazes[/i] me that people are getting so hung up on this issue.
To be frank, there are more important tings a gwan... but if the Tories want to tear themselves apart over this, then - please - carry on. 😈
It amazes me that the principle of equality is seen as a minor issue to so many.
Why do the rights of gay people trump the rights of religious people?
I think everyone has to treat everyone equally its once of our core beliefs. If the religious cannot do this they cannot have an opt out to discriminate because they have a book that says it so.
WHat if they wanted to keep black people as slaves could we trump their rights then?
Why are a vocal minority of gay people so intolerant of the rights and beliefs of others?
yes it is the gay people [and many others]who are arguing for equality rather than discrimination who are being intolerant
We are not making them marry gay people but they think they can stop gays marrying and you claim intolerance, we are even letting them discriminate on grounds of sexuality after this law
Were they any organisation other than religious they would be in court for breaking the law, that is how tolerant we are and how bigotted they are.
Zulu-Eleven - Member
gives them the choice to be seen in the same light as non gay married couples
But takes away the choice of other people to be part of an institution that they, the society around them, and their religion, views as a relationship solely between a man and a womanWhy do the rights of gay people trump the rights of religious people?
POSTED 2 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Cos gay people are fashionable !
Cos gay people are [s]fashionable[/s]people !
FTFY
Cos gay people are fashionable !
😯
Hopefully you are pointing out that Cameron might be somewhat cynically chasing the gay and PC vote (if there really are such things).
But hey, maybe he thinks he is on to something: a quick think around my own gay and lesbian friends and family turns up one tory and ten bleeding heart lefties.
Funny how current politics is throwing up such unlikely bedfellows (sorry!). We have had traditional political alignments (perceived and real 😉 ) well and truly mixed up by issues such as child benefits and now gay marriages. To see "some" STWers now getting closely into bed with Michael Gove is a sight to behold!!!!
I agre with him on striking as well 😉
Not every issue is left or right IMHO
Lok at you anjd binners and the Euro for example
I doubt you have much common ground [politically] apart from that.
of course christianity hijacked marriage, the same way it adapted itself to every other facet of religions it replaced, theyre all pretty similar after all
[img] 
[/img]
and equally irrelevant now that we no longer need the fear of god to lay down the law
obvious i know but im amazed anyone, gay or straight would want to be married in church
Zulu-Eleven - Member"gives them the choice to be seen in the same light as non gay married couples"
But takes away the choice of other people to be part of an institution that they, the society around them, and their religion, views as a relationship solely between a man and a woman
Why do the rights of gay people trump the rights of religious people?
Why are a vocal minority of gay people so intolerant of the rights and beliefs of others?
Fantastic, I love a cameo from the Church of Unmerited Victimhood.
cheekyboy - MemberWhy do the rights of gay people trump the rights of religious people?
The right to not be shat on is more important than the right to shit on people.
HTH.
If any religious institution doesn't wish to acknowledge the equality of gay people, they can simply stop marrying people- there's no requirement for a religion to marry gay people.
Are we witnessing the self desstruction,of the conservative party in early 2013
I genuinely hope so, however i do think t'is ploy by the 'manipulator'
The bible spends as much time on not cutting hair, not eating pork or shellfish as it does "condemning*" homosexuality, so what exactly is the 'religious' basis of the opposition.
*it doesn't condemn it in so many words, and the instruction is no stronger than that which covers hair or pork.
obvious i know but im amazed anyone, gay or straight would want to be married in church
Interestingly enough, Peter Tatchell is campaigning pretty hard for this, but has no interest in getting married at all (from what he said last time I saw him).
The right to not be shat on is more important than the right to shit on people.
Whereas I think that tolerance works both ways.
I think that as long as gay people have the same rights in law (which undermines the allegation of shitting on then demanding the 'right' to use a word that carries significant religious connotations and as such would undermine and affect another groups is intolerant
In just the same way that I think that stopping a woman wearing a crucifix with her uniform is intolerant, and the same way that stopping people wearing a niqab is intolerant.
I think that we can and should be tolerant of other peoples desires, feelings and traditions, as long as everyone gets actually treated the same.
Regards Tatchell - Ten years ago he seemed very much against it
http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/queer_theory/gaypride.htm
Z11 is the king of the irrelevant chaff argument bringing up any old rubbish that has no real bearing on the issue at hand.
- polygamy is not analogous. The basis for discrimination there is the number of participants not sexual orientation. That's a substantively different basis.
- in any case I is do actually believe that polygamy is a human right and people should be allowed to wage their lives bickering with multiple spouses instead of one, then two wrongs don't make a right
- no religious people are being forced to do anything. They can carry on not marrying gays. The state is being forced to treat people equally.
In what way does the state not treat couples in a civil partnership equally with married ones?
Separate but equal, you mean?
Separate but equal, you mean?
Well yes. They're surely not asking the state to categorise one of them as being of different gender?
Regards Tatchell - Ten years ago he seemed very much against it
And still remains uninterested in it for himself, however, it's not about an individualistic expression of rights, the right to equality is something that impacts on all of us no matter who we are, letting anyone get away with oppression against one group of people only leads to the question when will they get to me.
Well yes. They're surely not asking the state to categorise one of them as being of different gender?
That's a non sequitur.
You might want to google the phrase "separate but equal".
I think that as long as gay people have the same rights in law (which undermines the allegation of shitting on then demanding the 'right' to use a word that carries significant religious connotations and as such would undermine and affect another groups is intolerant
The right to be treated equally in law is precisely the right that gay people don't have.
It's not about use of a word.
Gay people getting married doesn't undermine or affect other people or their religious values. My marriage and my values aren't affected by whether Doris and Doris next door get married or not. If yours are - you should take a lot closer to home.
Nuff respect to Dave if he's pushing for this issue, as it's all about equality and nothing else, and how often can you say that about the Tories?! Makes me wonder what they're trying to do on the sly behind the smoke.
Though, to be fair I never have understood why some gay couples seem so determined to work with a faith that rejects them
^This.
As a gay male, I entered into a Civil Partnership two years ago - and had I have had the option of a 'religious' marriage then, I definitely would NOT have chosen it.
Whilst I agree on legalising same-sex marriage, I personally dont agree on FORCING religious organisations to perform them - it should be something they WANT to do rather than HAVE to do. If I got 'married' in the future, I would just constantly be imagining a little invisible DC pointing a gun to the head of the vicar saying "MARRY THEM BIATCH, OR ELSE..!".
I have no idea whether I should care about this issue more than I actually do - but I am so sick of hearing about it now, and just want it to pass. Does that make me a bad gay?
I personally dont agree on FORCING religious organisations to perform them
Neither do I. Is that actually proposed? It would be unlawful under the Human Rights Act.
It is most definitely not proposed. Either a religious institution or any individual preacher/vicar/whatever can refuse to perform a ceremony without any risk.
Rachel
You're right - FORCING it isn't proposed... shows how much I am paying attention to it all haha 😳
From my side, I'm also fed up with this. It seems so obvious to me that I should be allowed to marry in the same way as every one else just makes this a sort of non starter. If marriage is such a great idea, then it should be an option for everyone regards of the bits they like to rub together
You might want to google the phrase "separate but equal".
Ah - it's another Sputnik.
State has no business in peoples interpersonal relationships - consenting adults partnership choices should all be equal before the law and at least for legal matters such as estate disbursement, DNR, Organ donation etc etc etc why should it matter to either the state or the wider public whom I assign those rights too.... I'd be in favour of widening the definition of marriage even further to allow any two consenting adults to assign the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage to each other should they so wish.
From my side, I'm also fed up with this. It seems so obvious to me that I should be allowed to marry in the same way as every one else just makes this a sort of non starter. If marriage is such a great idea, then it should be an option for everyone regards of the bits they like to rub together
I'm not sure why we are even debating it to be honest.
People who are against it seem to have forgotten that the deed is pretty much done.
Half the tory party might vote against it but it will pass easily through parliament with the backing of Labour and the Lib Dems.
For the vast majority of the population it will have absolutely no effect on their lives.
However for a small minority it will make a big positive difference
But takes away the choice of other people to be part of an institution that they, the society around them, and their religion, views as a relationship solely between a man and a womanWhy do the rights of gay people trump the rights of religious people?
Why are a vocal minority of gay people so intolerant of the rights and beliefs of others?
That is ridiculous. You are conflating marriage as a state institution, vs a religious marriage. Even with an established state religion, there is still a big difference between a civil marriage vs a religious marriage. Otherwise we'd be a state that only allowed marriage in churches.
I'm married, but it has nothing to do with religion. Plenty of people are married in a way that has nothing to do with religion. The only way marriage has a meaningful connection with religion is if you have a religious marriage.
What this bill is primarily saying, is that gay people should be allowed to have civil marriages. Which seems fine, assuming we agree that our state is fundamentally in favour of equality of opportunity no matter what your sexual orientation is (which given the various treaties on the matter we have signed up to and laws which we have enacted, is pretty much undeniable).
The obvious corollary of allowing gay people to have civil marriages, is that there is no reason to ban religions marrying gay people, so religions should be allowed to decide if they wish to marry gay people. No one is forcing any religion to marry gay people.
Whereas I think that tolerance works both ways.I think that as long as gay people have the same rights in law
Do they have the same right to get married?
You have to favour one sides rights [ to some degree] here as they want polar opposites
The proposal of allowing people to get married and not forcing churches to do this which seems a reasonable compromise.
Allowing the religious to dictate to the non religious what they can do is unfair.
It is worth repeating again that if an organisation refuses it services to someone based on sexuality this is an offence and the church is still getting special allowances afforded to no other organisations- ie they simply refuse to marry some folk
We are even allowing them to carry on being discriminatory and they are still not happy.
Personally I would force them to either marry gays or have non religious weddings - then they can experience what it is like to have your rights infringed regarding marriage - after all they seem to think they can tell others what to do so let see how they like it 😈
Apart from the (possibly genuine?) fear of the political equivalent of mission creep, I still cant see why this bill is causing so much angst. Frankly, I find the idea of discrimination on the basis of wording slightly odd, but then again in this case I am not the one being discriminated against here. But what are those opposing it actually opposing? Churches are protected by the opt-in clause and most orthodox religions have a clear stance against opting-in anyway. The one that doesn't, the dear old relativist CoE is specifically highlighted in the legislation and banned from offering same sex marriages. So without a fundamental change in the behaviour of the more orthodox religions what is going to change? De nada, and FWIW I see nothing wrong with that.
But the discrimination, perceived or otherwise, that affects gay couples will be rightly removed. Again what is there to complain about here? Isn't this for once a win-win piece of legislation. The religious have their wishes further enhanced and legally enforced and gay couples have their rights enhanced and discrimination reduced. What am I missing?
What am I missing?
a sense of righteous indignation about the days of sodom and gomorrah being upon us?
TBH I think it is partly about the church realising that their power and influence is declining - they can no longer dictate what we can and cannot do and they dont like this
parliament is trully trumping them and their beliefs and they dont like this
I agree that it appears to be the best solution as both groups still get to do what they want - marry or not be forced to marry
I am not even sure that is correct JY. If anything the religious parties gain most from this, don't they?. Their position now has legal protection (The Quadruple Lock) and is even more entrenched than it was before.
Blimey, perhaps CMD isn't being as stupid as I first thought. Secretly he gives The Church what it wants, whilst openly removing discrimination and positioning his party to suit the focus groups. A political blinder, perhaps???? Now if they could do something about the economy at the same time, he might be on to something!!!! 😉
Their position now has legal protection (The Quadruple Lock) and is even more entrenched than it was before.
yes but they want to be able make other live by their rules as well and this is further evidence they are failing in this and we are not a "christian" country hence their power is further eroded.
IF CMD reads this he may hire you for PR 😉
They voted yes,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220
so lets hope those that dont agree with party line, now resign causing lots of bi elections .
Zulu 11,s in state of shock obviously.
causing lots of bi elections .
Is it wrong of me to find that hilarious? 🙂
No CFH - not wrong and made even better for the fact that all this co-incided with Huhne's messy court case!
Junkyard - Member
IF CMD reads this he may hire you for PR
Now there's an interesting idea - if I can make you think I am a fully-fledged Tory sympathiser and RW loon, then maybe I might have a hope spinning CMD. It will make a change from the Blair Foundation accessing my profile elsewhere - now that really does make me shudder!
I was distracted in meetings this afternoon and began to wonder if Cameron was a bridge player. In 'No Trumps" (very appropriate for the Tories at the moment?) it is always important to establish you later winners in your weak suits first, before cashing in those in your strong (?) ones! Omar Cameron? 😉
MSP - Member
Oh ad the pounds collapse against the euro will rip the tories apart much more effectively than this.
MSP you might want to listen to dear old Hollande getting his knickers in a twist of the strength of the euro today - be careful what you wish for!!!!
"the current strength of the € could damage the fragile economic recovery in Europe...we need an exchange rate policy...[otherwise it will] not reflect the real state of the economy...if not, we are insisting on countries making efforts to be competitive, which are destroyed by the rising value of the €" !!
But will the bill be passed by the Lords?
another one
[img] 
[/img]
Zulu-Eleven - MemberI think that as long as gay people have the same rights in law (which undermines the allegation of shitting on then demanding the 'right' to use a word that carries significant religious connotations and as such would undermine and affect another groups is intolerant.
They're not demanding a right to use a word. But well done on one of the funniest sentences I've read for a while.
In just the same way that I think that stopping a woman wearing a crucifix with her uniform is intolerant, and the same way that stopping people wearing a niqab is intolerant.
Where has anyone been stopped wearing a crucifix with their uniform? I'm aware of cases where people have been told to stop displaying religious symbols as it's against the dress code.