Gay Marriage

Wow so some Tories people are willing to commit incest just to dodge taxes?

Normans argument seems well thought through, calm, and rational.

God only knows how Dave has arrived at the conclusion that some on the right of his party are ‘mad, swivel-eyed loons’. Where on earth is the evidence for that?

incest laws are gender specific.

If only there was some way parliament could amend them…

Do you think they’re going to, unklehomered?

Wow so some Tories people are willing to commit incest just to dodge taxes?

Ah, but the thing is you don’t have to – you just have to get married.

Do you think they’re going to, unklehomered?

well they’re professionals they’ve got some professional people working for them who will spot glaring omissions like this and make sure they are sorted out at the same time.

shirley

I’m a bit surprised it isn’t part of the same bill tbh. the bill is just a collection of amendments to previous bits of legislation.

Ah, but the thing is you don’t have to – you just have to get married.

I think you might struggle to find a vicar or registrar willing to perform that ceremony.

I do actually support some of what Norm says in that if you are doing the legal stuff you should do it properly and make sure it makes sense. If you allow loop holes you’ll end up with google having a gay marriage to amazon to avoid tax.

Still that is just a case of good paperwork. The principle that it should be allowed remains the same and we should work to close the loopholes to make it possible.

I didn’t mean it that way! Now I’ve gone all embarrassed and stuff!

And there was me typing “beige” into the asos search engine. What a waste of time that was! 😀

Actually what’s wrong with extending civil partnerships to siblings? Sex and marriage have been fairly seperate things for a long time anyway. Take the case of two elderly sisters living together for company and support. Why shouldn’t they enjoy the same legal status as two elderly unrelated people doing the same thing.

Incest can remain illegal for good biological reasons. At it’s legalistic heart marriage / civil partnership is just a contract.

artificially inseminated heir

That scene in There’s Something About Mary?

what’s wrong with extending civil partnerships to siblings?

Something you want to confess to the room 😉

lucien – Member
Not really sure I want to open up a debate about the for’s and against arguments for the above; what I’m more interested in is a wider question about “do you really care about the topic” as there seems to be a great deal of debate in parliament / Govt / Clergy etc, but most ordinary people I speak with don’t give two hoots about the whole thing, either way.

Getting back to the OP’s comments, it seems to me that the debate over “for’s and against” has become completely irrelevant: all three main parties support it so it has been inevitable that it will happen for a while.

But what is interesting to me is how Cameron’s attempting to handle it, (and Clegg and Milliband too.)
I’m not 100% sure how much he actually cares about the subject, but I am sure he had the foresight to see it as an inevitability and hoped to gain some political capital from being the leader that introduced it. He hoped it would increase his personal appeal to younger voters, and at a party level, maybe take some of the edge off the “Nasty Party” image and up their percent support.
In reality, what’s happened is that the nasty side of his party have been very vocal, and probably increased the perception of the tories as “swivel eyed loons” and lessened the chance of younger voters actually supporting him/them. And on a personal level, he’ll get no individual credit out of this as the bill’s become a Con-Dem-Lab coalition effort with all three party “leaders” involved, but demonstrating equally wet levels of non-leadership. They’ve set up the next election to look like a choice between three flavours of wet lettuce. And it’s now there for the taking for the first party to come up with a genuine leader.
IMO, Tory central command recognise this. The story is now not about gay marriage. That’s 100% happening.
It’s about the Tory party kicking Cameron in the balls, whilst trying their utmost to keep the buffoon with a soundbite for every occasion gagged ’till the shit blows over.

Stole this from DannyB’s post earlier:

Replace the initial question with “Boris comes to power” and see how safe you feel about the pie-chart now 😉

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

“64Sex with an adult relative: penetration.

(1)A person aged 16 or over (A) [F1(subject to subsection (3A))] commits an offence if— .
(a)he intentionally penetrates another person’s vagina or anus with a part of his body or anything else, or penetrates another person’s mouth with his penis, .
(b)the penetration is sexual, .
(c)the other person (B) is aged 18 or over, .
(d)A is related to B in a way mentioned in subsection (2), and .
(e)A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that he is related to B in that way. .
(2)The ways that A may be related to B are as parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. .
(3)In subsection (2)— .
[F2(za)“parent” includes an adoptive parent; .
(zb)“child” includes an adopted person within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002;] .

(a)“uncle” means the brother of a person’s parent, and “aunt” has a corresponding meaning; .
(b)“nephew” means the child of a person’s brother or sister, and “niece” has a corresponding meaning.”

On topic i am very much in favour of mariage for all consenting non insestuous adults .

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.

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

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?

Saddly yes as some think it is ok to discriminate

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

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

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 have 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 😉