-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Gay Marriage Bill
- Thread starter Baleforce
- Start date
The point i was trying to make in response to hootnow remarking he would be astounded if his MP voted against it. If his MP's consituents had a high majority of residents that were of thoses religions or emanate from those continents, he would answerable to to them and would be more likely to vote against the motion, irrespective of his own views.
Examples would be Oldham, Blackburn, Tower hamlets, etc,
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
[video=youtube;GrEbJBFWIPk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GrEbJBFWIPk[/video]
Enough said.
Spoiler in white (watch the video first if you haven't seen it, much more of an impact than just reading it:
What do you think I voted for at Omaha beach?
That this still has to be discussed is a disgrace to western civilization.
Enough said.
Spoiler in white (watch the video first if you haven't seen it, much more of an impact than just reading it:
What do you think I voted for at Omaha beach?
That this still has to be discussed is a disgrace to western civilization.
Hootnow
Jermaine Jenas
Marriage is not a religious ceremony, it pre-dates any of our modern religions, certainly the 3 abrahamic ones that create the biggest barrier to this in the west.
The religious people are not 'opening up' marriage to gays, any more than I should be able to open up the tower of London. I do not own the tower and the religions do not own a ceremony that predates each and everyone of them.
The reason I made that point was to say that it does not infringe on their personal rights or lives. As long as the govt doesn't force churches, synagogues or mosques to do the ceremony, why should they care?
And I didn't say I expect everyone to get along. I don't care if the Muslim or Jewish man doesn't wish to make friends with a gay man (though I still think its wrong). I don't care if they don't want to sit around and brush each others hair, hold hands and sing songs together. But they should still all have the same rights.
Richie
Naybet
While I have no problem with gay marriage per se, there have been comments made that in the long term religious organisations may be liable to prosecution in European courts for not performing gay marriages.
I'm all for giving religious organisations the option to perform gay marriage, but from what I have read I am left unconvinced that sufficient protection is there for those who choose not to.
I also agree that since this was not in any parties manifesto, the government has no mandate for this bill.
If I were an MP, I probably would have abstained.
Additionally, say what you want about the Tory party being against gay marriage, but it's the Tories (and Cameron in particular) who have been championing marriage equality in this parliament.
My local MP voted against the bill, but more important than her vote is the reason for her vote. Why she voted against it is important, as I feel there are legitimate concerns over the bill.
Regardless, it's unlikely to change my vote come the next general election. Gay marriage is so far down my list of issues. I'd even go as far to say that an MP campaigning for safe standing is more likely to affect my vote than their opinions on gay marriage.
I'm all for giving religious organisations the option to perform gay marriage, but from what I have read I am left unconvinced that sufficient protection is there for those who choose not to.
I also agree that since this was not in any parties manifesto, the government has no mandate for this bill.
If I were an MP, I probably would have abstained.
Additionally, say what you want about the Tory party being against gay marriage, but it's the Tories (and Cameron in particular) who have been championing marriage equality in this parliament.
My local MP voted against the bill, but more important than her vote is the reason for her vote. Why she voted against it is important, as I feel there are legitimate concerns over the bill.
Regardless, it's unlikely to change my vote come the next general election. Gay marriage is so far down my list of issues. I'd even go as far to say that an MP campaigning for safe standing is more likely to affect my vote than their opinions on gay marriage.
Hootnow
Jermaine Jenas
I would hope that people should vote based on what is right, as opposed to doing it based on party politics. And considering the biggest body of mps opposed to this came from the Tories (who I'm.guessing don't do great in areas like tower hamlets) and that Muslims and Jews still make up a pretty small % of our pop, I don't really think they were the biggest consideration.
Richie
Naybet
While I totally agree that gay couples should have the same rights, they already do. Under the law, the rights afforded to gay couples through civil partnerships are identical to those of marriage. Quite literally the only difference is semantics.
JellySpur
Espen Baardsen
Interestingly, there is still a 12 bishop quota in the house of lords if I'm not grossly mistaken. For once I applaud Cameron, has done the right thing in my opinion.
Hootnow
Jermaine Jenas
As pointed out above, most atheists get married and many of these with the ceremonies in churches. Why are they not getting civil partnerships? And why should gays be forced to get the civil partnerships?
You are right that the difference is mostly semantics but the meaning of the bill is as much symbolic as it is practical. We should not even have to have a 2nd classification in an advanced, secular country. This bill to me says that we fully embrace homosexual rights in every way, and we will disregard the dinosaurs.
As for the manifesto point, the Lib Dems said they would not raise fees and the Tories said they would wait for Lord Browne's report. Neither of these things happened. I wonder if these people were as bothered by mandates then?
Hootnow
Jermaine Jenas
I think they can block stuff but if the PM is eager enough to push something through, I was under the impression that he can over-ride them if necessary.
Though the Salisbury agreement does mention something about how the lords can't oppose the 3rd reading of legislation promised in manifestos, which, rightly or wrongly, this particular legislation was not.
JellySpur
Espen Baardsen
The lords can delay bills for a year. They can't do this to any legislation proposed in the manifesto's of the ruling party(parties) prior to the election or any financially related bill. Since around 1912 I think... (studied UK politics at one point so I have a modicum of knowledge)
Last edited:
Same here. Both my wife and I are atheists and managed to get married without any church involvement whatsoever.
I can't see why the church and many Conservative MPs are OK with that but not with gay couples.
Jurgen the German
Willie Hall
Not having a go at you here, but the idea that people still live their lives and base their principles and morals around a book is bordering on the ridiculous. The bible for example is outdated, out of touch and certain passages of it are beyond immoral. Slavery, racism and *struggle cuddle* are all condoned in the bible, well the old testament anyway, not sure about the new testament.
Didn't an even greater percentage of UKIP members vote against?
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Can't wait for the first gay divorces... that will make them think twice, with child custody, super, real estate etc, etc. :-"
Gordinho
Banned
Judging by your post I'd guess there's no-one within your acquaintances who live their life by a book but I think you're understimating how many do in the wider population.