[Closed] Are we witnessing the self desstruction,of the conservative party in early 2013

The short answer to the OP is no.(Which is a shame)

Surely gay people can be just as religious as the typical tory voter. I think marriage is a right that gay people should expect in this day and age.
To compare gay relationships with incestuous ones is complete nonsense bordering on offensive.

You would think that the typical tory voter (good Chritian) has to barricade themselves inside the church they attend weekly to defend themselves from a horde of mincing sodomites intent on banging down the door to get a ring on their finger. (Village People meets Shaun of the Dead)

I think they should take all of the gay people who want a church marriage, and all of the Christians who don't want them to do it to a small community centre somewhere and explain to them that if the want to have this debate they all have to pay £250000 each. It is bit of a waste considering the tiny number of people it effects.

A bit like that "how long can we hold terrorists suspects for" stuff - how many times did they use that? isn't this the kind of thing the high court is meant to sort out quietly and sensibly?

Why don't they have gay fridays at all the churches, I know they might have to reschedule messy church or something, but it's not like they're THAT busy

Not enough of a waste to stop you putting your tuppence worth in olivered1981.

It's costing me more than tuppence - might as well get my money's worth.

to be fair I know a few pretty right wing gay folk, this mightnt be as stupid a move as it looks

however im sure its all a distraction from the failure of osbornes economic 'plan', the credit agencies about to dump us down a grade and our biggest ever fall against the euro the other day thanks to daves referendum spunk up

The issue isn't that people don't want gay people to be together. It's that they don't want it called 'marriage' because they think that it alters the dictionary definition of the word. Well, WGAF? I think it's a religiously motivated thing, because the bible says marriage has to be between man and woman - apparently.

Anyway, I think Dave is rushing through his personal agenda before he gets kicked out/loses.

There's a certain irony to what has happened here, as opposed to what CMD set out to achieve. The opposite has happened.

Dave - love him or hate him, is a shrewd bastard. Far more so than the nutters in his party. Not that he'll ever get any credit for it, from his own barking mad back-benchers.

So he is looking at the polls, and Millibean's lead, and knows full well that to win a Tory majority then he has to appeal to the centre ground, not the rabid right wingers he's presently been courting over Europe.

So he picked the issue of gay marriage to demonstrate "Hey... look at us. I've detoxified the Tory brand. We're not like we used to be. We're all inclusive, and multicultural and lovely nowadays. Not a bunch of nasty, small-minded, petty, reactionary, right wing bigots at all. Not a bit of it"

Unfortunately, the reaction of his own back-benchers has clearly demonstrated to everyone that the Tory party is absolutely chock full of nasty, small-minded, petty, reactionary, right wing bigots

D'oh!!!!!

The issue isn't that people don't want gay people to be together. It's that they don't want it called 'marriage' because they think that it alters the dictionary definition of the word. Well, WGAF?

Well, to be fair, calling it 'marriage' doesn't carry any real legal distinction or give anyone any more rights than being in a civil partnership, so its purely the dictionary definition of the word that is under discussion, so, like you say, WGAF? why can't the 'rights' lobby leave it alone? why do they have to have their way? why do they have to 'own' the word as well, when it does not make any difference, its just a word - isn't that what tolerance and acceptance is about. accepting that other people might have strong feelings about something and that forcing them to change the meaning of the word just to make you happy may cause offence?

If its just a word, why do people need to change it?

Marriage clearly predates Christianity by some distance. They should not be allowed to own it nor dictate what others may do.

Clause Four was a touchstone as to what the Labour party was supposed to stand for. By publicly scrapping it Blair was signalling to the voters the way he wanted to direct the labour movement, as well as making it an issue of his personal authority.

why do they have to 'own' the word as well, when it does not make any difference, its just a word

It's about equal treatment by the state in the course of its everyday operation. It's not the business of the state to be discriminating between people on the basis of sexual orientation unless there's a [i]bloody[/i] good reason. That there is a nebulous undefined majority that don't like the idea of men marrying each other is not a good enough reason. I don't like the idea of orange-skinned harpies marrying tattoo-sleeved steroid abusers but that's not a good enough reason for the state not to do it.

Perhaps this is Cameron's "M&S moment" which may or may not lead to self-destruction. The Tories have a long, proud and illustrious history of self destruction (normally and most recently with Europe) but this could well be a new one. Cameron will win the vote but has stirred up far more of a hornets nest that he surely imagined? But he remains an enigma - what does he and for that matter Milliband really stand for. I can't work out whether Cameron really is a liberal conservative (?) or whether his stances on education, gay marriage etc are designed to make him electable or whether they are true convictions. But like M&S his real failing may be losing those who traditional support him/shop there. People do not go to M&S to be hip and trendy, similarly I doubt they vote Tory to focus in gay marriage and criticise private education (especially if they themselves have benefitted from it). All very odd?

Junkyard - Member
Marriage clearly predates Christianity by some distance. They should not be allowed to own it

I agree...

nor dictate what others may do.

...but I am happy for them to stick to their principles with their own places of worship. The Orthodox religions have clear stances on homosexuality and I see no reason why others should dictate to them and vice versa (hence my agreement with JY above, they should no be allowed to monopolise marriage). But with the more relativist, "blowing in the wind" CoE who know what they stand for either.....so there it is! The missing link between Cameron, the CoE and the current debate!!!

Marriage clearly predates Christianity by some distance

The term 'wife' is first used in Genesis 2.
The first time marriage is talked about is in Genesis 34.

Which are both quite a while before 'Christianity' was first used to label the faith/religion popularised by Jesus Christ.

The marriage stuff mentioned BC is (Biblically/religiously speaking) from God, and is therefore the same 'marriage' that Christianity goes on about. So it's not something hijacked by Christianity.

😀

Anyhow, this isn't really the point of the thread ...

Actually, I'd forgotten about this but I did hear one of the opponents on R4 a month or two back outlining his opposition. It went like this:

Opponent: The government must not be allowed to force our church to marry gay people against our beliefs.

Jim McNaughty: They won't though, it says right here that you can opt out

Opponent: Yeah, but I bet they'll change that.

[img] [/img]

So it's not something hijacked by Christianity.

Possibly it has been re-branded by religious groups.

There is a good anthropological argument that stable relationships are a pre-requisite for societies to flourish and therefore propagate, so marriage-like relationships pre-dated Christianity. NB The same argument goes for all 10 commandments, Christianity just adopted the obvious and re-branded it all.

It's not about the meaning of a word - this argument is a complete red herring. State decree can't change the meaning of a word - if the majority of people don't consider the marriage of two men or two women a marriage - well, that's not the state's business to worry about.

It's about equal treatment by the state in the course of its everyday operation.

In what way does the state not treat couples in a civil partnership equally with married ones?

Well, to be fair, calling it 'marriage' doesn't carry any real legal distinction or give anyone any more rights than being in a civil partnership

Actually I'll answer my own question above - there are a couple of interesting legal distinctions, but I don't think they're the reason why same sex couples want to get married rather than have a civil partnership and strangely they're ones the campaigners for same sex marriage are keen to play down...

I'm entirely happy they are going towards strict equality, just think they are going about it in exactly the wrong way. Equality could just as easily be achieved by the state removing itself completely from marriage. Then let consenting adults make whatever arrangements they feel suit them best. Why does the state need to be involved at all?

Smoke and mirrors by Cameron to appease the rabid right.

He knows he can't really do the euro-referendum thing, so he's trumpeting the gay marriage bill knowing that he will back down eventually. The right-wing nutjobs will be appeased and won't be so miffed when he backs down from the euro-referendum.

Either that or he's in the process of back-dooring some legislation to sell off something that the state owns to an Eton crony.

Just saying like...

I just don't understand why everyone doesn't adopt the same attitude as me. I look upon the gay population with utter disgust. With their fashionable flamboyant clothes, designer drugs, elaborate facial hair, Euro disco and rampant and depraved sexual practices. Its frankly appalling that they're enjoying themselves to this degree!!

Why should they bloody well get away with it? eh? I ask you? Why the hell shouldn't they be miserable, hen-pecked, world-weary and downtrodden like the bloody rest of us eh?

We shouldn't just be allowing them to get married, we should be [i]demanding[/i] that they do. The bastards!!!

You're probably going to also have to force them to have kids, binners.

I say force them to vote Conservative, that way the shame will eat away at their sole from inside and turn them into twisted bigots and they'll no longer care about freedom and respect for others.......

therefore the same 'marriage' that Christianity goes on about. So it's not something hijacked by Christianity

In what way does the state not treat couples in a civil partnership equally with married ones?

Is it the not letting them get married bit

<has a feeling we're going in circles here>

So the state is simply denying them from using a certain word? A word which state decree can't change the meaning of?

Yes it can though, that's the point. By removing the same sex bar on marriage.

We had marriage here before we had christianity and before we had christian marriage..

We also had widespread polygamy, underage marriages and incest - it was the codification of marriage by the christian church that put an end to this and made 'marriage' into the institution that we, as a society, accept it as today.

it is not their ceremeony - that is marriage does not exist because of religion it exists anyway and religion claims it

Other religions and countries widely accept polygamous marriages, are you suggesting that we should allow polygamy in the UK in the interest of christiantity not 'owning' marriage?

We had marriage here before we had christianity and before we had christian marriage..it is not their ceremeony

Look at where we get the name for [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymen_(god) ]Hymen [/url]from for instance

Polygamy already happens in the UK, it's just the participants don't bother to try to force a man in a frock to mutter some incantations over them and give them a certificate.

Polygamy already happens in the UK, it's just the participants don't bother to try to force a man in a frock to mutter some incantations over them and give them a certificate.

So, as a society, we have chosen not to give official sanction to a lifestyle choice that tha majority don't believe is in accordance with the widely accepted principles of 'marriage', although the participants are free to continue their chosen lifestyle without interference

Interesting!

Now, why exactly do we need to legalise gay marriages again?

it was the codification of marriage by the christian church that put an end to this and made 'marriage' into the institution that we, as a society, accept it as today.

Dont agree at all and if it did it is only becaus ethe state and the church were indistinguishable at the time

So the state is simply denying them from using a certain word? A word which state decree can't change the meaning of?

I could say i was a married gay lemon frisbee if i wanted to but it wont make it true.

If straights get one thing and gays get another [ having never been allowed a straight version]it is obvious we are treating people differently
I done see much point in debating this tbh.
I agree the law was designed to make them both broadly equivalent but they are not the same what with them being different words , laws and ceremonies. I also agree it will largely be a symbolic victiry and will change very little on the ground but it is still an important aim

Pretty sure the state is depriving them of the right to have a ceremony we call a wedding rather than use the word married.

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)?

If straights get one thing and gays get another [ having never been allowed a straight version]it is obvious we are treating people differently

Yes, we treat people differently all the time on the basis of lifestyle choices - see the example of polygamous marriages above.

I agree the law was designed to make them both broadly equivalent but they are not the same

But isn't that the point, they're not the same, as since time immemorial society where we live has accepted that marriage has involved one man and one woman (other societies have viewed this differently)

you can't argue that we as a society and state should change the definition of man and woman without also accepting the validity of an argument for changing it to include peoples desire for polygamous relationships.

Zulu-Eleven - Member
But isn't that the point, they're not the same, as since time immemorial society where we live has accepted that marriage has involved one man and one woman (other societies have viewed this differently)

They're not the same because of tradition? Well that's changed my mind.

Well apart from the fact one is a wedding and the other is not a wedding and one leads to a spouse and a marriage and one does not
To repeat I get the point that they are broadly similar in outcome but we are after equal[ identical] treatment - you may as well argue that because black people were given their own water drinking point or bus seat that it is the same and fair [ i suspect that was argued]

Not getting into this further as I dont think we disagree that much on this tbh

They're not the same because of tradition? Well that's changed my mind

Why do people want to be 'married' rather than 'civil partners' if it carries no significant legal distinction?

Tradition?

Well apart from the fact one is a wedding and the other is not a wedding and one leads to a spouse and a marriage and one does not

I think we all agree the words used are different.

I'm kind of disappointed that nobody has taken my point about the actual substantive differences any further - can I assume that the lack of query means you all know the functional legal differences between marriage and a civil partnership? Though as I mentioned, strangely the supporters of same sex marriage don't actually seem to think those parts of the law are all that important.

you may as well argue that because black people were given their own water drinking point or bus seat that it is the same and fair

You might if you wanted to go into orbit.

😆

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.