[Closed] Gay Marriage

It's all a bit nuts. I caught a piece of the Scottish news last night, and the Church of Scotland it seems allows gay ministers to be ordained if the local parishioners chose them, but only long as they promise to be celibate.

Surely that means one stops being gay ?? I guess one doesn't stop being straight through lack of practice. Hmm, anyway it's all very odd.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22614994 ]Award winning far right historian and anti-gay-marriage campaigner shoots himself at the altar of Notre Dame.[/url] 😯

A bit off topic but explained what I couldn't to some young folk recently.

insest laws ain't gemder specific see the sexual offences act

Fairy nuff - the laws on incestuous marriage are, and a quick google suggested the incest laws were the same - clearly they've been updated. Sorry for being wrong - though at least I'm not as wrong as Tebbit.

So the MP's voted it through then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22605011

But is it just me, or is DC actually trying to take the piss out of the mad, swivel-eyed loons?

and Mr Cameron has sent an email to party members, insisting they still shared a "deep and lasting friendship" with him.

I really don't see why gay marriage is a problem at all but then I also wonder why gay marriage insists on taking place at a church or the like?

It's right that one does not wish to be discriminated but then it's also weird that one forces others to accept ...

Funny old world ... 😯

Award winning far right historian and anti-gay-marriage campaigner shoots himself at the altar of Notre Dame.

For a minute there I got all excited and thought that David Irving had done the decent thing and gone to meet his mate Adolf in the great bunker in the sky. Quite dissapointed really.

footflaps - Member

Award winning far right historian and anti-gay-marriage campaigner shoots himself at the altar of Notre Dame.

For a minute there I got all excited and thought that David Irving had done the decent thing and gone to meet his mate Adolf in the great bunker in the sky. Quite dissapointed really.

Well, his life so do whatever he wants to himself so long as his action does not affect others.

but then I also wonder why gay marriage insists on taking place at a church or the like?

Who has been insisting that gay marriages should take place on churches?

chewkw - I think it's an equality thing, gay and lesbian couples are being discriminated against by churches who won't let them get married in their church. They just want the same rights as everybody else, whether they care to exercise those rights is up to them.

MSP -
Who has been insisting that gay marriages should take place on churches?

That's amongst one of the many arguments as far as I know ...

hels - Member

chewkw - I think it's an equality thing, gay and lesbian couples are being discriminated against by churches who won't let them get married in their church. They just want the same rights as everybody else, whether they care to exercise those rights is up to them.

Does that mean one can force others to accept equality?

I mean I thought equality is given/accepted and not force upon others? No?

It's like saying I insist on someone accepting me as his/her Dear Leader is it not and s/he has no choice but to love and to cherish me as Dear Leader? No?

When one insists on being accepted it's like me saying I am the Dear Leader and if one opposes me one will suffer my almighty wrath ...

In the present case equality is achieved by hammering or changing the law to force acceptance is it not?

I am confused ... (no wonder I failed so miserably in the Identifying Lady-boy test ... )

🙁

It's like saying I insist on someone accepting me as his/her Dear Leader is it not and s/he has no choice but to love and to cherish me as Dear Leader?

No.

No?

Correct.

deadlydarcy - Member

It's like saying I insist on someone accepting me as his/her Dear Leader is it not and s/he has no choice but to love and to cherish me as Dear Leader?

No.

No?

Correct.

Explain yourself!
It would be unfair to confuse your Dear ... 😆

Personally, I thought that with Church attendances the way they are, the churches would snatch the gay arm off for their support, likewise any party to whom 10% of the population would be an attractive vote to have.

Regarding equality, I can't get married in most Churches, because I don't subscribe to their beliefs. Personally quite comfortable with that, and whilst I do believe they are seriously missing out by not having me, I don't feel discriminated against, anymore than I do that I'm not eligible to become king..... that's a lie actually, that one really boils my pee!

So there we have it, not being accepted into an arcane and irrelevant club doesn't really matter, however state sponsored discrimination does.

Berm Bandit - Member

... likewise any party to whom 10% of the population would be an attractive vote to have. ...

Yes, I thought the whole thing is driven by trying to attract votes rather than actual equality thing. Everyone is trying to outdo each other by trying to be whiter than white ... errmm ... okay ... that might sound discriminatory by referring to colour.

the whole thing is driven by trying to attract votes

I'm not 100% certain, but isn't that the whole idea underpinning the concept of democracy? 😯

chewkw - I think it might make for better discussion if you understood the concept of equality properly before arguing for or against it. Don't look for this information in the UKIP pamphlets.

hels - Member

chewkw - I think it might make for better discussion if you understood the concept of equality properly before arguing for or against it. Don't look for this information in the UKIP pamphlets.

Back to equality ...

Do you force/insist the concept of equality on others?

Or

Do you wait to gain acceptance from others on the concept of equality?

😯

Equality in this context is a concept in law, so yes, the guaranteed rights equality affords an individual are backed up with the full force of the law.

ernie_lynch - Member

Equality in this context is a concept in law, so yes, the guaranteed rights equality affords an individual are backed up with the full force of the law.

Ok. By force back up by law ...

Please Do Not export such concept to other countries ...

Please Do Not use this as an excuse to police the world ...

Please Do Not use this concept to exterminate other cultures ...

Please Do Not use this to kill of diversity ...

Keep this local ... please.

Otherwise, it's equally fair to accept Dear Leader and his wisdom. 😆

Do you force/insist the concept of equality on others?

Do you wait to gain acceptance from others on the concept of equality?

Junkyard - lazarus

Saddly yes as some think it is ok to discriminate

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

Is it ok if you are told by law to love Dear Leader? Will you?

Do you think this law change means they suddenly accepts gays as equal ?

No. But then if the answer is no then why still change it?

Plenty fishy ...

😯

I'm utterly perplexed at the concept of equality being something that's a matter of debate as to whether it should be forced on people.

By extension, do you think that slavery should be optional? That we should, in the interests of equality, allow people who want to beat black people to carry on with that rather than imposing our views on them?

It's not about thought police, it's about being decent human beings rather than allowing prejudice to go unchallenged.

You [i]have[/i] to be trolling, surely?

Cougar - Moderator

I'm utterly perplexed at the concept of equality being something that's a matter of debate as to whether it should be forced on people.

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?

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

By extension, do you think that slavery should be optional? That we should, in the interests of equality, allow people who want to beat black people to carry on with that rather than imposing our views on them?

In other part of the world they do not have to have slave because their hierarchical society enable things to work nicely. They are called maids/servants and not chained ... etc ... whatever you can think of. Yes, not all are treated nicely etc and yes, they do have "slave" but not in large scale ...

Fast forward a few centuries later ... the "developed nations" entered the scene. Now they considered themselves advance so by this I mean they played god. Then the "old European nations" took the concept of maids/servants to the extreme and that they called them stock ... I mean slave. A concept which older older nations with brown/black/yellow/red etc people simply did it small scale but at the same time in the old western nations (old EU for simplicity) it was sanctioned by their states. The fast forward ... you have all the slavery argument.

I really don't think any of the non-European (EU) nations had ever affected human migration as much as the old EU nations ... with slaves.

Bloody hell ... talking about playing god and then the devil ... make up your mind.

🙄

Berm Bandit - Member

Personally, I thought that with Church attendances the way they are, the churches would snatch the gay arm off for their support, likewise any party to whom 10% of the population would be an attractive vote to have.

The logic here is that they expect to lose more of their existing supporters than they would gain from the pink pew. Missing the point that it's not just gay people they would gain more appeal to, it's also straight people who don't like dickheads, which is quite a big market.

But that's the trouble with religion, you've only got one product to sell and it's not easy to change it. And unfortunately, that product in most cases is basically VHS- once massive, now obsolete. So they're stuck selling VHS tapes to the few people who still use VHS. Some of their more progressive elements are pushing for a change to DVD and thinking they're cutting edge 😉

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?

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?

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

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

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

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...

[img] [/img]

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.

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?

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 [I am] simply saying you cannot do this....

grum - Member
That's some weird twisting of logic even by your standards.