Isn't this nice - a potentially divisive topic debated in a largely tolerant fashion and only a bit of swearing! Was this weekend an epiphany moment for SWT?
No.
"enfht - Member
Let everyone do whatever they want, with the same legal rights as married m/f couples but don't call a partnership between same sex couples as "Marriage" 'cos it aint."Well it aint legally at the moment but it should be. Not heard one single person say why it should not be.
I've never heard a convincing argument on this point either.
But wrecker your prefaced the swearing with a "You probably right...", so you will be forgiven for sure!! 😉
Do the asexual marry?
Yes, and the divorces are always a real bloddy mess.
NOT ME
Do the asexual marry?
Dunno but I'd wager that Tim ****s a lot.
crankboy - MemberWell it aint legally at the moment but it should be. Not heard one single person say why it should not be.
That's a good point, but to be honest, not heard why it should be either.
If you want to change the status quo, then that's the more important argument that needs to be clarified.
Thanks JY thought I was missing something!I'm not even a Labour supporter FFS, people keep making me defend them!
I am not a labour supporter How very dare you FFS I am left wing 😉
Wind it in FFS. Who is now trying to legalise gay marriage? Who NEVER tried?
Could you stay rational Wind it in - is that some counter to my point about who voted aginst the bills? Do these facts offend you- obviously they cannot be countered so best play me rather than the point I made, eh 🙄
Yes CMD and nick deserve some credit [ perhaps even lots] for trying to bring this in but you are ignoring who started the journey to this [ from frankly oppresive laws where gays were not to be seen as equal to heterosexuals- Labour mdecriminalised homosexuality ] , who opposed this [Tories], who opposed civil marriage [ tories] and who continues to oppose this[Tories] and who last intrdoced anti "gay" legislation - a Tory govt made the consetn age equal for gays and straights etc
Yes CMD deserveds praise but the race to equality for gays has been a journey hampered by tories not helped and they seem determined to continue to do this against the wishes of their leader.
The tories are not the champions of gay rights in this country even though the leader does seem to be trying his best to make them
I wish him luck
Winds kneck in
The tories are not the champions of gay rights in this country even though the leader does seem to be trying his best to make them
I never said they were!
If you took a moment and stopped getting het up about scoring political points and getting shouty about the tories, you'd see that the only thing that matters (regardless of who implements it) is that peoples rights are improved. To not make any progress for gay rights in 13 years, you'd need to be cryogenically frozen. The main thing is that it's continued.
loam "If you want to change the status quo, then that's the more important argument that needs to be clarified"
The status quo was that male homosexuality was illegal and lesbians did not exist.
We have moved on to recognising the sexuality of a significant percentage of the population and outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
If we are truly to follow through with this civilised and morally right transition then same sex couples deserve to have exactly the same rights to public and legal recognition of their relationships as couples who happen to be of different sexes. IE if they are equal then they have an equal right to marry and should not be given a fudge of a legal status that's sort of the same but has a different name. Was not the motto of racial segregation "equal but separate" and we all no how much fun that was.
Thanks crankboy.
It's not an issue I've followed much, so whilst hearing about people being on one side or the other of "the argument", rarely do I read what the argument actually is.
I would have been very disappointed if I wasn't allowed to marry my wife just because of her gender. When you see how far we've come on gay rights, it's surprising gay marriage is still not legal in the UK - but equally it's inevitable that it will become so.
I hope the Tories in question live long enough to get irate about it.
Elf would of been priceless on this thread 😆
stopped getting het up about scoring political points and getting shouty about the tories,
I am not getting shouty and I am not scoring points, I am stating facts ..I am sorry if you dont like them
you'd see that the only thing that matters (regardless of who implements it) is that peoples rights are improved. To not make any progress for gay rights in 13 years, you'd need to be cryogenically frozen. The main thing is that it's continued.
Yes
Society and tories still have some way to go on the journey to true acceptance though many are there already.
Are not all gay people already condem voters, as theyre usually affluent, well spoken, own their own homes,and have no need for social services provided for families who vote labour.
or am i mistaken.
I am not getting shouty and I am not scoring points, I am stating facts ..I am sorry if you dont like them
It's going to take a while to get your head out of there..........
Society and [s]tories[/s] politicians still have some way to go on the journey to true acceptance though many are there already.
FTFY
loum - Member
Thanks crankboy.
It's not an issue I've followed much, so whilst hearing about people being on one side or the other of "the argument", rarely do I read what the argument actually is.
You really needed to be told that it was about bringing the law in line with the reality of day to day life? 😯 I find that a little hard to believe but if so, kudos for asking.
really who cares who shags who? there are better things to spend money on. let them get married etc etc and be done with it and spend money on more bike lanes
Sorry, I voted for these idiots - cos I was fed up with last bunch of idiots I'd voted for.
Looking worryingly short of options for a fresh set of idiots to vote for at the next election.....
Vertical climber, it isnt about who is shagging who, but the equal right for two people of the same sex to have the same rights as two people of different sexes to each other, its about love, of sharing emotions and experiences, and most importantly as being accepted as a couple in a relationship, from everything from work and pension rights, to your freinds and family acepting you and your partner for what and who they are,and even to death when one partner dies.
Lifer - MemberSomeone not-Tory agruing about Lab/Con with someone not-Labour. Nature abhors a vacuum!
EDIT - Is 'planning to' the same as 'trying to'?
Is claiming you're planning to the same as planning to?
atlaz
Like I said above, not really an issue I prioritise following, and the news (and the political point scorers on here) tend to coment more on the people involved (and their quest for votes) than the actual argument. Thats why I thanked crankboy for actually explaining that argument better than I've heard .
I don't understand your point though. A law should reflect what's right, not just "the reality of day to day life". All crimes are a part of day to day life, but there's no reason to change the law to accomodate them.
It's going to take a while to get your head out of there
yes keep attacking me dont attack the facts or the argument 🙄
As for claiming it is politicians I posted up the voting earlier there were 2 labour and the rest were tory or tory supporting ones from NI who voted against civil partnership*- but dont let the facts detract from your view that it is "politicians " generally rather than Tories specifically or from attacking me
Currently only tory MPs are getting upset about this proposal and organising to vote against movement towards equality for gay people ,apart from being wrong its a great point you made.
Couldd you not really respond to what I say or the facts [yet]again and give me a gentle insult instead?
Look Dave has done a sterling effort he his trying his best to do the right thing and i support him. However it is obvious that many [ 1/3 ish] in his party do not support this and are not progressive in terms of gay rights and their last govt passed and did not repeal legislation that discriminated against gays.
Calling me gentle names wont change this or make your argument any more persuasive.
* it was free vote as well there was no party whip
Not trolling; what's the difference between a civil partnership and marriage anyway? I got married in a registry office and I wouldn't know the difference...
As far as I can tell, they give pretty much the same rights and responsibilities but not allowing civil partnerships to be called a wedding and therefore a marriage is just a big slap in the face for Teh Gays.
There are lots of pretty obvious arguments for equality and I'm also yet to hear a convincing reason against.
Interestingly I think people vote for a party and their policies, not the people within it (Which change frequently). So in essence no-one voted for the idiots, they voted for the organisation that contained them (probably without knowing they existed) and some would say they didn't vote them in 😀
A law should reflect what's right, not just "the reality of day to day life".
Actually I think laws are supposed to represent what the majority feel is appropriate for the times, since right and wrong are pretty hard to define and are a bit subjective.
I thought that the problem with "marriage" for same-sex couples was that they could then go on to claim discrimination if a church refused to carry out the ceremony?
There are lots of pretty obvious arguments for equality and I'm also yet to hear a convincing reason against.
the only one I am aware of is religious and that is that the sanctity of marriage is between a male and a female and this needs to be preserved.
I dont find this convincing either tbh.
yes keep attacking me dont attack the facts or the argument
Have you no self awareness at all?
coffeeking - Member
A law should reflect what's right, not just "the reality of day to day life".
Actually I think laws are supposed to represent what the majority feel is appropriate for the times, since right and wrong are pretty hard to define and are a bit subjective.
Fair enough, Coffeeking, right and wrong can be subjective but your "what the majority feel is appropriate for the times" seems reasonable.
This is different to "the reality of day to day life" though. My point was that changing laws to accomodate things purely because they are "the reality of day to day life" is madness, and not a coherent argument for same sex marriage to be legalised. I'm not arguing against it, just feel that this sort of nonsense does more to harm a cause than help it. For the record, this came from my coment above:
Well it aint legally at the moment but it should be. Not heard one single person say why it should not be.
That's a good point, but to be honest, not heard why it should be either.
If you want to change the status quo, then that's the more important argument that needs to be clarified.
Which crankboy replied to with an excelent explanation
he status quo was that male homosexuality was illegal and lesbians did not exist.
We have moved on to recognising the sexuality of a significant percentage of the population and outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
If we are truly to follow through with this civilised and morally right transition then same sex couples deserve to have exactly the same rights to public and legal recognition of their relationships as couples who happen to be of different sexes. IE if they are equal then they have an equal right to marry and should not be given a fudge of a legal status that's sort of the same but has a different name. Was not the motto of racial segregation "equal but separate" and we all no how much fun that was.
Aside from the actual issue, the political one is the Tory backbenchers flushed with success of watching CMD cave in over Europe to the detriment of the UK longterm are now going to make him cave in on this issue.
They smell blood.
yes keep attacking me dont attack the facts or the argument
Have you no self awareness at all?
I do hope that post was intentional irony...I really do...if so it is quite funny if not its quite sad.
Maybe they're just representing the public mood? In a democracy, thats what elected representatives are supposed to do...
46% would support same-sex marriage
28% support civil partnerships but oppose same-sex marriage
17% oppose both civil partnerships and same-sex marriage
http://labs.yougov.co.uk/news/2011/10/04/one-five-britons-opposes-gay-marriage/
Pretty evenly split I'd say.
Imagine living in a country where people were not allowed to have dissenting views or different opinions, be shit wouldn't it?
Maybe they're just representing the public mood? In a democracy, thats what elected representatives are supposed to do...
It should have absolutely nothing to do with "representing the public mood".
I couldn't give a toss if 90% of the population was opposed to gay marriages. Who someone marries is no else's bleeding business.
And it's about time some people realised that.
So much for democracy eh Ernie 🙄
As it happens, I and a bunch of other sane, adult responsible people don't really think its anyone else's bleeding business what I choose to stick up my best mates ricker, chase over the countryside with a pack of hounds, or inject into my veins, but we live in a country ruled by laws that govern all of these things, and I don't hear you complaining about them!
So much for democracy eh Ernie
It's got bugger all to do with "democracy". If someone chooses to live as a vegan, or go to friday prayers every week at the mosque, then they don't need the approval of the majority of the population. Same goes for who they want to marry.
Democracy is also about respecting the rights of minorities.
There's all sorts of "minority" beliefs and pastimes that are illegal, I've given you just a couple of examples above, there's also a shedload of minorities "rights" that are contradictory, for example religious beliefs and same-sex adoption
So which minorities rights [b]is [/b]it permissible to disregard?
I thought that the problem with "marriage" for same-sex couples was that they could then go on to claim discrimination if a church refused to carry out the ceremony?
No, that's just FUD.
Religious organisations aren't and wouldn't ever be under an obligation to marry anyone. They're not (and shouldn't be) subject to the mainstream anti-discrimination etc laws for their religious activity. You couldn't (successfully) sue the Catholic church for refusing to employ you as a priest just because you are a women, for example.
Zulu-Eleven - Memberblah, blah, blah
If you can't figure out that who someone falls in love with, and where they decide to take their relationship, is no one else's bleeding business, then I'm not going bother helping you.
I think telling someone who they can and can't marry is the ultimate cheek.
there's also a shedload of minorities "rights" that are contradictory, for example religious beliefs and same-sex adoption
There's no contradiction there. If you're some sort of bible-basher, just don't go adopting any gays. Simples.
Just becasue a snapshop survey indicates that there are different views in society (often fed by a culture of soundbite media), that doesn't mean that it can be used to say that represnts 'democracy' and should therefore override equality.
We have a raft of legislation that increasing makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the grounds of gender, sexuality etc, and therefore 'marriage' should be freely and equally available to all that want it.
Oh, and Emsz, can I be invited to your wedding too 😉
(BTW - glad things between you and your gf are better)
Yep, screw democracy, Ernie's got an opinion, and that trumps everything else 🙄
Yep, screw democracy, Ernie's got an opinion, and that trumps everything else
It has nothing at all do with 'my opinion'.
As it happens [i]my opinion[/i] is that the thought of sex between two blokes is disgusting. I deal with that quite simply by not engaging in it. Not by banning it or putting any sort of restrictions on it. If two blokes want to get married and shag each other silly every night then that's [i]their[/i] business, not [i]mine[/i]
Zulu I am happy to see your conversion to the cause of human rights and PC causes. What with offence at Dianne Abbot and ranting here for minorities rights ....it is an impressive epiphany and is in no way your usual attempt to grossly misrepresent someones view and just have a go no matter what.
Really Ernie? Disgusting, I certainly don't find it that... don't knock it till you've tried it and all that. Still, you shouldn't really be too bothered about me and my minority friends wanting to chase foxes over the countryside with our pet dogs then, I look forward to your support in the hunting act repeal campaign.
(you see, once you start making exceptions to democracy on the grounds of "minority rights" it all gets a little silly, doesn't it!)
Junkyard - I think its fair to point out inconsistency when people apply double standards, don't you?