[Closed] Gay Marriage

unless you are gay and want to get married of course

Its the new Fox Hunting. A pointless waste of MP's (in fact; everybody's) time, that's being done purely as some kind of 'symbolic gesture', and is actually utterly meaningless, and will achieve absolutely nothing

The only difference is the last lot did it from Islington, this lot from Notting Hill

Well done to Dave though. His advisor didn't need to actually call the activists swivel-eyed loons. His championg of this cause has ensured the right wing of the Tory Party are busy proving that it really didn't need to be pointed out

[anecdotal evidence]

The only gay couple I know don't care either way.

And the two single gay people I know don't care either.

[/anecdotal evidence]

Personally I don't see why not, but its not something I'm overly bothered about. But can understand why people would be.

[i]unless you are gay and want to get married of course [/i]

or you're someone who believes that everyone should be treated the same in law and that if they're not we're all diminished.

It people want to get married, let them.

I'm intrigued that seemingly having lost the moral argument, those opposed are now doing so under the guise of this being more "state involvement" in something that was previously out of their reach.

Idiots

I'm pro-equal marriage, as most people I know.

Most the gay couples I know are civilly-unionised, but resent their marriage not legally being recognised as a marriage, and being held apart as something lesser than marriage.

Live and let live, if people want to get married (same or opposite sex), then it's none of my business. My neighbours are gay, no idea if they are partnershipped or not. Never though to ask.

So, yes, if gay people want to get married, fine with me. I suspect the most practical benefit is the clarification of inheritance rights, which is a good thing.

in before the inevitable bun fighting and lockdown!

I can't see any reason gay people should get away with [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/gay-people-to-continue-having-lots-of-hot-sex-2013052069374 ]this kind of behavior[/url]. They need to experience being sexually unfulfilled like everyone else

Sounds like a fabulous idea.

The thing I find most fun is seeing the knots that those who are opposed to it keep tying themselves up in when trying to justify their position. It really is laughable when they say that to allow marriage equality constitutes discrimiation and therefore shouldn't be allowed. As for the whole "the state shouldn't intervene" argument, well shall we just remove all the privilages that the state gives to married people?

Oh and for the record I'm certainly pro the whole equality thing and I respect David Cameron for pushing this. Not enough to vote tory you understand but still.

Live and let live, if people want to get married (same or opposite sex), then it's none of my business.

This. Thought this was supposed to be a core principle for Tories too.

Binners, brush that chip from your shoulder.

What it achieves is equality; whether that is meaningless or not to you speaks more about you than the process itself.

I simply don't understand the issue. If two people of whatever colour, creed, religion or sexuality wish to spend their lives together, and make it 'official', then what's the problem? Get it put before parliament, where it will be passed, and get on with the many more important things the government should be doing.

Effectively governing would be a start....

Just how many people are there posting on this thread who don't care?

Selective use of words for what ?

Everybody use to be able to be Gay now some people just cant be.

Marriage, well I'd say the use of the word "Marry" is to meld together two dissimilar "Things"

So use the words Gay Marriage, as most "Non Gay" people are not now getting married.

Dont give a flying **** really

I suggest you look a bit closer to home for shoulder chips there fella.

I'm all for it. Its the way its being done I'm opposed too. Its a waste of time. If Dave was as serious about this as he claims to be, then he wouldn't have made it a free vote. He knew how the 'swivel-eyed loons' would react.

And for balance, as you seem to like that, I think the labour party's stance on it is a disgrace too. Basically a wrecking motion for a bit of cheap political point-scoring. Thus ensuring it becomes a political football, like fox-hunting, where amongst the bickering, everyone forgets what they originally set out to achieve

Is that better?

No it shouldn't be consuming so much parlimentay time. So get it done, and move on - is my opinion. It seems mad to me that its taken this long.

This from a New Statesman journo today

Odd that Tory MPs oppose gay marriage, which won't undermine marriage, and support heterosexual civil partnerships, which would.

which seems a valid point.

Everytime I hear tories making the against argument it makes me all angry and I get a headache.

Everytime I hear tories [s]making the against argumen[/s]t it makes me all angry and I get a headache.

FTFY

I like [url= http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/9raw-nz-mps-hilarious-gay-marriage-speech/xnh3r4r?cpkey=db6a19e7-460c-41ce-ae8f-0417ff17ff88%257c%257c%257c%257c ]Maurice Williamsons[/url] take on it.

I am bothered by the inequality that exists around sexual orientation and disappointed that anyone in a position of power should feel that those inequalities should be preserved.

The only good that comes out of these sorts of debates is you do get to see very clearly where people stand and can treat them with appropriate levels of disdain for ever more.

On a point of pedantry, it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. There's plenty of bisexual and transsexual people also affected by this issue, many of whom aren't "gay" as such.

Are any of them dwarfs?

I like Maurice Williamsons take on it.

Yeah. A few MPs like that in the UK wouldn't go amiss.

Credit to the Jeremy Hunt that is CMD for sticking with this as he could have so easily caved in to the bigots in his own party.

I'm loving the irony of him doing this to demonstrate how he's modernised the party and de-toxified the Tory Brand

That went well then 😆

i wasn't paying much attention until i saw Philip Hammond on Question Time. What an @rse. No wonder its taking up so much time with people like him objecting to it.

Parliamentary debate on individual lifestyle ... hhhmmmm ...

Does this mean we are coming out of recession and have plenty of time to debate non-issue?

😯

Does this mean we are coming out of recession and have plenty of time to debate non-issue?

I struggle to understand this argument, if all the MPs were discussing the poor state of the economy how would boost the economy? Monetary policy is not decided by parliament but by ministers/the chancellor/the bank of England.

Parliamentary debate on individual lifestyle ... hhhmmmm ...

Does this mean we are coming out of recession and have plenty of time to debate non-issue?

Not as much of a waste of time as spending a whole day paying fawning tribute to everyones' favourite apartheid supporter and staunch friend of mass-murderers surely?

No wonder its taking up so much time with people like him objecting to it.

This. It's ridiculous to complain about how much parliamentary time it's taking up while making it take up much more time than is necessary.

@Binners, yeah much thanks.

Not sure your 'sybolic geasture' remark sits well against that though - but in any case I agree that the politicians are making a shyte-fest out if.

Don't see what the big deal is personally.
People should be left to get on with life.

It really shouldn't even be an issue, it should just be the way it is. I really don't understand how any one who is not gay could be against something that has nothing to do with them.

I'm straight and married so it doesn't affect me in the slightest but it really pisses me off that people try and stop other people trying to get on with their lives.

And why do they always have to bring some vicar on the radio to go off on one about it? I didn't get married in a church and I'm as married as anyone else. Couldn't give a toss what 'god' thinks.

Can't say I'm that bothered about the argument. Doesn't affect me. Being straight and all. I tend to switch off when it comes on the news.

most ordinary people I speak with don't give two hoots about the whole thing, either way.

Plenty of ordinary people on here seem to care.

Perhaps it should be put to a referendum? Would that not be simpler?

I feel for the MPs who are pro-gay marriage, but represent constituencies where the majority are anti. That must be a difficult situation.

I'm straight, have absolutely no religious views... and given the choice would rather have a civil partnership (if it was legally recognised in the same way) over a wedding 😕

Cougar - Moderator
On a point of pedantry, it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. There's plenty of bisexual and transsexual people also affected by this issue, many of whom aren't "gay" as such.

I thought that it was just "marriage"...

I totally buy this argument that people put forward that it completely undermines the principle of marriage and that it'll make marriage seem worthless. I'll be divorcing my wife if this bill passes. Oh, wait, no, no I won't.

Sometimes the government needs to do things that the country won't like. Gay marriage is one of them- a lot of biggots are being very vocal but they are very much in the wrong on this issue.

It does bother me that so much time has been invested in an issue that really won't have an impact on many people, though. Yes, gay marriage is good, no, it doesn't need this much of Parliament's time spent on it.

and given the choice would rather have a civil partnership (if it was legally recognised in the same way) over a wedding

Now this is a point that I'm unclear on. What exactly is the difference between a civil partnership and a civil wedding? I'm not trying to offend anyone, I am just curious.

I'm gay.... yet I really don't have any interest in the subject, unsure whether that is right or wrong to be honest!*

FWIW I entered into a civil partnership a few years ago (split now, booo) and it didnt remotely feel any 'lesser' than a 'marriage'. Neither of us are religious either, so didnt feel like we were losing out in that sense.

*I do, however, like bikes, fast cars, and football, so I don't exactly live up to the 'stereotype'. I know, I know, I am a poor excuse for a gay male... 😆

*Goes to buy a pair of sequin-encrusted hotpants*

whoops misread that

On a slightly more serious note, it's nicely re-assuring to read all the comments above. 🙂

It's all down to hand wringing from the incoherent right who think somehow society will explode but when pressed to explain this they can't (at least the muppet on radio 4 this morning used a lot of words to say absolutely nothing). We should sort this out and sort two problems at the same time. Civil Partnerships should be open to all and be a legally binding contract. This should be the end of state involvement. Marriage or whatever other term people want to use for a religously sanctionned union should be completely seperate and carry no legal weight. Seperate the two job done, let the bigots and / or religous types do their thing and everyone else just get on with life. If you want a legally binding marriage get your civil partnership to become binding from the time of the wedding.

DO the French not seperate the two?

Now this is a point that I'm unclear on. What exactly is the difference between a civil partnership and a civil wedding? I'm not trying to offend anyone, I am just curious.

From my point of view, the main opposition from the religious groups seems to be that the actual word 'marriage' is some how connected to religion... I don't understand this so not really sure I can answer your question. The present civil partnership does not have the legal recognition of a civil marriage.

However if 'marriage' does have any religious connotations then I would rather just have a 'partnership'.

EDIT: Am liking Stumpyjons post ^^

On a slightly more serious note, it's nicely re-assuring to read all the comments above.

Marriage or whatever other term people want to use for a religously sanctionned union should be completely seperate and carry no legal weight.

God and religion played absolutely no part in my hetero-wedding - but I get to call myself "married".

So I don't see why a same-sex couple shouldn't be allowed the same opportunity.

Graham, sort of my point, although not well made. Make the official bit, i.e. the legally binding bit the civil partnership and then whatever else you want to do to celebrate your union / whatever you want to call it is your business and should not be dictated by the state.

[img] [/img]

Cheers

Danny B

Danny B +1,why do Tory MPs feel threatened by that?

Even I'm bored by this TBH and I'd love a little church wedding....middle of summer, countryside...[ Sigh ]

You can watch the debate here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive

Load of hot air being spouted by people who absolutely no idea how the other half live.

The problem is even if it is made law, who is going to enforce properley and get rid of the bigotry, hatred ,fear violence and lothing that some have for gay people.

The Police try to do a good job, but getting people to report assaults and aggression is another matter.

Finally should be a nice litle money earner for the wedding planners and large hotels. So a win win situation.

Finally should be a nice litle money earner for the wedding planners and large hotels. So a win win situation

The economy is boosted, and Gay Marriage actually helps end the recession. Oh the irony...

Isn't the reason so much parliamentary time has been spent on this, because the bigots have fought against it, and now they are using the time spent on it as an excuse. Well FFS if they shut up and pass the law no more time will need to be spent debating it.

unklehomered - Member

Finally should be a nice litle money earner for the wedding planners and large hotels. So a win win situation

The economy is boosted, and Gay Marriage actually helps end the recession. Oh the irony...

Ever met a poor gay person, pink pound and all that, no kids usually, both in good jobs, like i said pink pound fighting the reccession

As usual, Clint sets them straight.
[img] http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSCyxrcSQPeGKu0fy_VbRUr3f33QYzJult-vJnb9sVoJR6kQYDHnQ [/img]

(bets that everyone over the age of 25 read that in a Dirty Harry / Man With No Name voice)

stumpyjon - Member

Civil Partnerships should be open to all and be a legally binding contract. This should be the end of state involvement. Marriage or whatever other term people want to use for a religously sanctionned union should be completely seperate and carry no legal weight. Seperate the two job done, let the bigots and / or religous types do their thing and everyone else just get on with life. If you want a legally binding marriage get your civil partnership to become binding from the time of the wedding.

I like the idea but I expect it might be hard to do, given that church and state are not separate in the UK. So let's disestablish the CoE and see how many swivel-eyed loons' heads explode. 🙂

I thought that it was just "marriage"...

Sure, that's the goal. But if you say "the marriage debate" then people won't know what you're talking about.

What exactly is the difference between a civil partnership and a civil wedding?

From previous discussions on here it appears to boil down to a difference in the words you're allowed to use at the ceremony, oh and that there's an additional reason available for annulling a marriage (one which wouldn't actually appear to apply to same-sex marriages).

GrahamS - Member
(bets that everyone over the age of 25 read that in a Dirty Harry / Man With No Name voice)

POSTED 12 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Oh, I though no one was listening 😳

Well personally I don't mind who get's married, it doesn't affect me or any one else, so good luck to them.

One difference between civil partnerships and 'marriage' is that gay/bi people who want to get hitched cannot have any religious stuff *anywhere*, including the music you listen to (I guess Mozart's Requiem is right out...) in the ceremony.

I'm somewhat a gay version of Mr Woppit when it comes to religion but each to their own. If, say, the Quakers offered someone a marriage ceremony and the couple wanted it then I'm all for it and wish them luck.

Been in Norway for a week, no biking (boo!). Am loving this 'swivel-eyed loon' meme that's happened! 😀

Been in Norway for a week, no biking (boo!). Am loving this 'swivel-eyed loon' meme that's happened!

Likewise, I'm in Portugal and the only English paper I can get over here is the Torygraph - been a very enlightening week getting to grips with the mindset of their readership / Tory party member - I feel almost unclean reading it.

I am surprised that UKIP don't want to put this to a referendum too....

I would like to hear one of the opposers concisely and clearly state their case without referring to what someone else told them to think or vague woolly stuff that essentially means "it's wrong but I don't know why, really".

One difference between civil partnerships and 'marriage' is that gay/bi people who want to get hitched cannot have any religious stuff *anywhere*, including the music you listen to (I guess Mozart's Requiem is right out...) in the ceremony.

It was the same rules for my hetero civil ceremony.

I got my dad to read [url= http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selkirk_Grace ]Selkirk Grace[/url] before the food (mainly just to give him something to do) but I made a point of changing the last line to a secular [i]"Sae let [b]us aw[/b] be thankit" [/i]

PS I just looked (foolishly) at the comments under the story on the Telegraph website. Swivel eyed loons indeed. The views are just raving, raving mad mostly.

Apparently, if this bill goes through the age of consent will be lowered to 12. Oh yes, and it's all to do with Europe of course. Just how on earth do you make that leap of madness?!! Is there a high security mental institution somewhere where the inmates provide comments for the DT stories as therapy?!

I can't understand the fuss, if they want to marry, let them and let them have the same rights as strait couples get when they get married.

Surely it's a matter for the church not MP's though?

Not sure why its taken this long and this much debate to get th where they are today (MP's)

Did I beat the lock?

I watched 15 minutes of the debate. Sometimes I really hate democracy... Rather than, "lets solve any legal problems this might throw and do the right thing." its "Lets think of all the legal problems there are, and use them to not do the right thing." Pointless petty worthless little **** shites some of these guys.

Equality and matters of principle are of great importance to governmwnts imo. Cant believe people think its a waste of time.

Surely it's a matter for the church not MP's though?

Other way around surely?

Same rights and legal recognition requires a change in law, ergo MPs debate. Nothing to do with church or religion.

Love and let love I say. It's a matter of equality and I don't see why the state should stop consenting adults who love each other from getting married. Fix it!

TS

I think the whole homophobia thing is on its way out anyway. Once the current crop of vocal bigots have died off, it'll go the way of racism: frowned upon by the vast majority of society, at least publicly, and those that still harbour ill-feelings towards "the gays" will at least keep it to themselves.

Can't happen soon enough.

5 years time it will seem insane that it was this difficult.

It's a matter of equality and I don't see why the state should stop consenting adults who love each other from VOTING TORY.Because few free thinking,socialists and northerners never would.

THERE FIXED IT FOR YOU

Gerald Howarth MP (Con...well, there's a surprise eh?): "There are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community that see this as but a stepping stone."

Obviously a smashing bloke. 🙄

Has he come out as an aggressive homosexual then.

Shock horror.

A stepping stone to what?

Can anyone name one "aggressive homosexual" in the public eye? They don't seem to be taking over the world, or have I not noticed?

There seem to be plenty of aggressive heterosexuals though.

what a tool? FWIW I've never once met an aggressive homosexual, heterosexuals - many many many, though there's everychance they were heavily closeted and in denial.

EDIT: beaten, I had to stop half way through and let the dog in.