[Closed] Who voted for these idiots? c'mon own up.

Well I'm more interested in the economy really.

if your not comfortable with a concept you dont have to accept it, just because something has become en vogue doesnt make it right or wrong.
i'm a firm believer in live and let live, what i can,t condone is manipulation of that outlook to gain advantage.

Same story here in Oz. Million-and-one things they could debate, and all they seem to moan about is the fact that whether they like it or not, the law passed in QLD will get through in other states. I have never understood why this issue upsets people who it won't affect.

What an unhelpful headline.

Well I'm more interested in the economy really.

So as long as most are doing alright (or at least some are doing very well) its ok to discriminate?

Hmm, can't see why gay folk feel the need to be 'married' and then in church which to take it to its logical conclusion still regards same sex relationships as sinful kind of hypocritical and supporting an establishment that condemns the union.

Does a Civil partnership not satisfy all the legal obligations?

Oh and at risk of another ban for homophobia, I voted for them and fully agree with their position.

There ban away.

So as long as most are doing alright (or at least some are doing very well) its ok to discriminate?

No, you should definitely put the problems of the few ahead of the many.

oh dear, another slanging match about to start 🙄

Hmm, can't see why gay folk feel the need to be 'married' and then in church

I fear you are making the mistake that many people (including me) made on this subject. The Church should be able to do whatever they like - it's a belief system, and as such they don't have to believe in equality.

However, [b]this does not refer to church marriage[/b], it is about civil marriage - nothing to do with religion and churches. A boy and a girl can currently join in a godless marriage, but not a girl and a girl or a boy and a boy.

Not totally related, but I quite like this quote on politics in general -
[i]The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives.
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. [/i]

Gay marriage is destroying the economy!

Equality is damaging our nation!

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives.
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say.
The business of Conservatives is to keep making the same mistakes.
The business of Progressives is to go on making new mistakes

Hmm, can't see why gay folk feel the need to be 'married' and then in church which to take it to its logical conclusion still regards same sex relationships as sinful kind of hypocritical and supporting an establishment that condemns the union.

Does a Civil partnership not satisfy all the legal obligations?

It's not about religion though, is it? Mr Toast and I, like a lot of people, had a civil wedding ceremony with absolutely no religious content, but we're classed as 'married', not 'in a civil union'. We could have had a civil union even if we wanted to. I'm assuming that gay people want to get married for the same reason as a lot of straight people - because they love each other - and they want that to be seen as carrying the same level of weight, legitimacy and commitment as a 'straight' marriage.

It's the fact it's classed as something different that's the issue - it's not marriage, it's something else. That said, a colleage got civilly unionised two years ago. No-one called it that though - they called it a [i]wedding[/i], where he and his husband got [i]married[/i]. But legally, it's not classed as marriage. Which is stupid, and hopefully will be rectified in the next few years, if not sooner.

Does a Civil partnership not satisfy all the legal obligations?

Who says romance is dead?

So as long as most are doing alright (or at least some are doing very well) its ok to discriminate?

Just saying I voted on my thoughts about the economy than this side issue.

Can someone evplain the difference between civil marriage and a civil partnership?

dont worry this will go through no matter how much nasty folk on the tory backbenches protest

(see nadine dorries and the abortion thingy last year)

err it seems to be the same party on both sides of the debate, so if you voted for the Tories you voted for and against gay marriage. A move which Labour ultimately shied away from.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships[/url]

[b]Tories in Longing to Return to the 19th Century Shocka[/b]

Call-me-Dave will now be praying the backbench group presently agitating for the return of peasant hunting doesn't go public

Just saying I voted on my thoughts about the economy than this side issue.

I don't see equality as a side issue, it should be at the core of our legal system, no ifs, buts or excuses.

To be fair though its a change for the good that's being pushed by the torie hierarchy, just being resisted by a sizeable chunk of the party.

Mrs Toast - Member

It's not about religion though, is it? Mr Toast and I, like a lot of people, had a civil wedding ceremony with absolutely no religious content, but we're classed as 'married', not 'in a civil union'. We could have had a civil union even if we wanted to. I'm assuming that gay people want to get married for the same reason as a lot of straight people - because they love each other - and they want that to be seen as carrying the same level of weight, legitimacy and commitment as a 'straight' marriage.

It's the fact it's classed as something different that's the issue - it's not marriage, it's something else. That said, a colleage got civilly unionised two years ago. No-one called it that though - they called it a wedding, where he and his husband got married. But legally, it's not classed as marriage. Which is stupid, and hopefully will be rectified in the next few years, if not sooner.

Yes agreed, I've probably got the wrong end of the stick and confusing the issue with requests for Church marriages, I thought Civil Partnerships were Marriages as per Registry Office hetero equivalent, if that is not the case then I see the unfairness and apologise.

God wasn't invited to my wedding either. Neither was Jesus or Allah or Ganesh. I'm still married.

If labour were so liberal, why didn't they legalise it?
This has nothing to do with the coalition, who have already achieved more than labour did in 13 years. You need to direct your ire elsewhere.

Emsz, in one of the few times you'll ever hear me say this, I completely applaud David Cameron's stance on this. He knows it's not a vote-winner; the gay vote** doesn't amount to a hill of beans in most places, and the political capital he's losing over this is significant. Clearly the guy has principles, so credit where credit's due.

As for the MPs threatening to vote against this because it threatens marriage - really? I'm a man, married to a woman. I don't feel that gay friends of mine would, if they got hitched, make me feel any less married. As it is, we talk about their weddings, we celebrate them as such, and have done for several years. De facto, they [b]are[/b] weddings in the public perception - so the formalisation of this and the granting of equal status is not going to rock the world.

That said, I can see the point about the Church of England; if they feel it inappropriate that same-sex couples should marry in their premises. so be it. Obviously they'd be shown up as the reactionary old dodderers they are, but hey, it's their religion and they can do what they like with it.

**Not that there's a single gay block-vote anyway. And I know several gay Tories who hate Labour with a passion, and are working to change their party from within. I tell them they're mad, obviously....they'll never change the minds of those who hate them.

It broadly seems a symbolic shift to me. Civil partnerships seem to carry most of the important legal and financial aspects of marriage, but the word 'marriage' seems to hold more weight as a marker of the accepted customs of a society.

I'd regard any civil partnership as a marriage in my eyes, and don't see the problem with reflecting that in the official terminology.

If people believe that the definition of marriage as exclusively a union in the sight of god, then their interpretation of the Bible is going to guide their thoughts on gay marriage. But I don't think that 'marriage' in the UK today is particularly God-centred, as it can be an entirely civic affair, so I'd even argue with that.

Can someone evplain the difference between civil marriage and a civil partnership?

Isn't a civil marriage an oxymoron. 🙂

I kind of voted for them (I voted Liberal and intend to do the same in 2015). I won't be voting Labour again.

I do wish politicians would get right over themselves, so what if two people who wish to formalize their relationship happen to be of the same sex? If they want to get married then they should be able to do so without some NIMBY poking their nose in and telling them what they can or cannot do.

I agree with Mrs Toast on this.

When gay marriages were legalised we stocked and sold cards for the weddings. 2 Top hats , 2 dresses , that kind of thing.
We haven't stocked specifics for a couple of years now and the card companies don't really push them.
Most cards we sell feature a man and a woman so its not that people needing gay cards can "improvise". We probably get asked for a card every 6 months.
What this is leading to is how popular are gay marriages now, anyone got numbers?
If the church adhered to everything in the bible you could understand their prejudice but they just seem to pick the bits they like.

If my MP was looking to rebel against this I'd want to know why he cares so much. Who puts what thing against what other thing of anyone else is none of my business. I can't even work out where the objection comes from for ANYONE for civil marriages. Churches can do WTF they want as far as I'm concerned but town halls, no.

Spot on Atlaz - the furore certainly doesn't seem to be coming from the public, most of whom are in favour or adopt a 'none of my business' attitude.

From the Grauniad article linked up there ^^^^

How many civil partnerships are there?

More than 18,000 civil partnerships were formed in 2006, the first year they were legal in Britain. Since then 6,000 to 8,000 a year have been performed.

That compares to (in 2008) 233000 so about 3%ish

Civil partnerships are either different to marriage or they are not. If they are different then that is discrimination and should end, if they are not then the use of different labels is discrimination and should end.

I've had two committed relationships, one bad one good, both recognised as marriages. My brother has and is in one committed relationship but he can't be legally married though he and his partner are readily welcomed in their parish church.

Why do politicians feel the need to get involved in these issues? I can understand, though not condone, resistance from a Church body especially the RC church - it is part of their faith. But it really is not the business of MPs to legislate here.

People should be allowed to hold their own views (including the MPs who are opposed) but it should end there. No room for discrimination.

This has nothing to do with the coalition, who have already achieved more than labour did in 13 years. You need to direct your ire elsewhere.

Blimey, thats a person with some serious blinkers

Maybe I should have stipulated in relation to gay union.

[img] [/img]

Clint is a LEGEND.

David Burrowes views on this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone,[url= http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=40248&dmp=826 ] given his record.[/url]

Hopefully just sensationalist reporting regarding the number of supporters he has.

Tory MPs, who claim the idea would weaken the institution of marriage.

I am pretty sure that children borne out of wedlock and divorce has pretty much done that without any contribution by the gays

can't see why gay folk feel the need to be 'married'

[diffreences between] civil marriage and a civil partnership?

First couple We are straight , second couple we are gay HTH

People should be allowed to hold their own views (including the MPs who are opposed) but it should end there. No room for discrimination.

I really dont see why this is such a big issue to the right wing

This has nothing to do with the coalition, who have already achieved more than labour did in 13 years.

For example?

One of my favourite Stanhope bits - NSFW!

derekrides - Member
Hmm, can't see why gay folk feel the need to be 'married' and then in church which to take it to its logical conclusion still regards same sex relationships as sinful kind of hypocritical and supporting an establishment that condemns the union.

An old schoolfriend of mine is gay and christian. He's part of a group who believe that the anti-gay stance of the church is simply wrong, based on long standing old fashioned views rather anything to do with their christian god and are working to change it. On which basis he'd have got married in church if he could have. Instead, he had to go the civil route.

Lifer - Member

This has nothing to do with the coalition, who have already achieved more than labour did in 13 years.

For example?

i agree that was a laughable comment

im not sure what theyve achieved other than to plunge us back into recession, force cuts to social care and education, try to sell off the forests, cause a few riots and make a load of people unemployed, all this and they havent even manged to reduce our debt!

the gay vote** doesn't amount to a hill of beans in most places, and the political capital he's losing over this is significant.

Eh? Which is it, then? You can't have it both ways (missus).

God wasn't invited to my wedding either.