At least when it passed we wont have to put up with the lies from the ant-gay marriage groups.
I will tell you now, I do intend to gloat. In fact it will be mother of all gloating.
That kind of reaction could reinforce negative attitudes and increase prejudice. Isn't that the opposite of what's intended?
The clever way to do this would have been to include it in the election manifesto and then, Cameron could have claimed a mandate from the people for it and would have avoided most of of the present fuss.
It's at the fore because legislation is to be voted on in the Commons on Tuesday. If passed it is the first major step towards allowing gay couples to marry legally as opposed to just pretending that civil partnerships are the same thing.
Well it's about time, in my opinion the notion of marriage in the religious sense (the man as woman only) is a bit antiquated. When I got married at the registry office it was to declare my love for my husband and I think for a lot of people it's the same. Civil partnership seems like a poor imitation.
*these are my views are not intended to cause offence
Dont get me started on this. its a mix of snobbery and religion dictating it. Thats why they are against it (most of the snob tories are), scared to piss off scary backward religous or rich folk or worse combination of the 2. Its not 1913 its 2013 , face facts the world is different. People love each other and they happen to be gay , get the hell out of your own arse. I hate homophobia and thats what it is , live with it. Even if you stick by your religion , gay people dont affect you so accept them and leave them be. Not everyone is religous and rightly so.
Im confused why religion isnt kept out of politics yet, its personal choice and shouldnt influence the general population. Society should be secular. I respect people wont stop being religious but stop wanting your precious view to take charge, that is wrong.
That kind of reaction could reinforce negative attitudes and increase prejudice. Isn't that the opposite of what's intended?
Maybe, but it will feel good. I can only think of a handful of people I would gloat to. and I can not see how they could become more prejudice, so I will take the risk
The clever way to do this would have been to include it in the election manifesto and then, Cameron could have claimed a mandate from the people for it and would have avoided most of of the present fuss.
He would have lost votes. Where as if get it in now, (most) people will have forgotten about it by the time the next election comes round.
Dont get me started on this. its a mix of snobbery and religion dictating it. Thats why they are against it (most of the snob tories are), scared to piss off scary backward religous or rich folk or worse combination of the 2. Its not 1913 its 2013 , face facts the world is different. People love each other and they happen to be gay , get the hell out of your own arse. I hate homophobia and thats what it is , live with it. Even if you stick by your religon , gay people dont affect you so accept them and leave them be. Not everyone is religous and rightly so.
Im confused why religion isnt kept out of politics yet, its personal choice and shouldnt influence the general population. Society should be secular. I respect people wont stop being religious but stop wanting your precious view to take charge is wrong.
Everybody wants their 'precious views' to take charge. You want your view that gays should be allowed to be married to take charge. Most people don't want close relatives to be able to marry, or polygamous marriages. Everybody has a view about what is and is not a valid marriage, why should those who disagree with yours not be allowed to voice their opinion or influence the political process in just the same way as everyone else.
That kind of reaction could reinforce negative attitudes and increase prejudice. Isn't that the opposite of what's intended?
The clever way to do this would have been to include it in the election manifesto and then, Cameron could have claimed a mandate from the people for it and would have avoided most of of the present fuss.
Well there was a commitment to consider the case for gay marriage in the Tory Contract for Equalities released before the election and which formed part of the manifesto so it's not totally unheard of.
But I don't believe having it in the manifesto would have made a jot of difference to the fuss. Look at France, Hollande quite clearly stated in his manifesto that he would legislate for same sex marriage and yet 340,000 people take to the streets of Paris to protest.
The Churches and the Tory ministers and backbenchers would not have reacted differently if this had been in the manifesto as number one priority. Every jurisdiction so far to pass same sex marriage has had huge protests against from religious groups and right wing parties.
Everybody wants their 'precious views' to take charge. You want your view that gays should be allowed to be married to take charge. Most people don't want close relatives to be able to marry, or polygamous marriages. Everybody has a view about what is and is not a valid marriage, why should those who disagree with yours not be allowed to voice their opinion or influence the political process in just the same way as everyone else.
They are allowed to voice their opinion, like we are allowed to voice an opinion on their bigotry.
What is being objected to is the pandering to religious sensitivity. Laws should be decided on logic and reason not "my god says says ...." Any argument along those lines should be dimissed with a wave of the hand.
That said, if someone can satisfactory demonstrate there is a god, and they know his views then that person should be at the very centre of parliament.
But I don't believe having it in the manifesto would have made a jot of difference to the fuss. Look at France, Hollande quite clearly stated in his manifesto that he would legislate for same sex marriage and yet 340,000 people take to the streets of Paris to protest
I meant the political fuss from within his own party, it won't look good for his authority if most of his party vote against his wishes, not even on a free vote. More of them would have accepted it had it been in the election manifesto.
They are allowed to voice their opinion, like we are allowed to voice an opinion on their bigotry.
What is being objected to is the pandering to religious sensitivity. Laws should be decided on logic and reason not "my god says says ...." Any argument along those lines should be dimissed with a wave of the hand.
That said, if someone can satisfactory demonstrate there is a god, and they know his views then that person should be at the very centre of parliament.
First, I find the idea that the views of a large proportion of people should be summarily dismissed to be utterly undemocratic.
Second, what we are talking about here is morality. Morality cannot be proven, morality is not objective. No one can prove why polygamous marriages shouldn,t be allowed, or close relatives. We may rationally debate these issues and put forward ideas against them, as do those who oppose gay marriage, such as the idea that it would devalue marriage for example, but in the end, the foundation for everyone's morality is no less arbitrary and insubstantial than My God Says
I'm not sure why it's all of a sudden at the fore, it's seems to cycle round every so often with nothing coming of it.
The teacher bit confuses me, they don't teach about any kind of marriage, unless its more tolerance perhaps!?
I have a 5 and 6 year old and they know in the basic terms that men can marry men and women marry women and men and women can marry each other, they're don't think any of the options is strange, in fact at the moment, my 6 year old thinks marrying a girl is quite gross!!
First, I find the idea that the views of a large proportion of people should be summarily dismissed to be utterly undemocratic.
Second, what we are talking about here is morality. Morality cannot be proven, morality is not objective. No one can prove why polygamous marriages shouldn,t be allowed, or close relatives. We may rationally debate these issues and put forward ideas against them, as do those who oppose gay marriage, such as the idea that it would devalue marriage for example, but in the end, the foundation for everyone's morality is no less arbitrary and insubstantial than My God Says
But they have not been 'summarily dismissed' - there was a lengthy consultation period and the views of all were taken into account. The results showed that more people supported marriage for same sex couples but there were genuinely held concerns by some religions... and this has been addressed by giving all religions the right to choose what they do.
I meant the political fuss from within his own party, it won't look good for his authority if most of his party vote against his wishes, not even on a free vote. More of them would have accepted it had it been in the election manifesto.
Well as I said it was in the Contract for Equalities which was part of the electoral platform of the Tory Party. It also didn't stop his MPs rebelling on the issue of the House of Lords and there was a manifesto promise to sort that out.
But they have not been 'summarily dismissed' - there was a lengthy consultation period and the views of all were taken into account. The results showed that more people supported marriage for same sex couples but there were genuinely held concerns by some religions... and this has been addressed by giving all religions the right to choose what they do.
Just what else do people want?
I was referring to kelo's 'wave of the hand' comment.
Well as I said it was in the Contract for Equalities which was part of the electoral platform of the Tory Party. It also didn't stop his MPs rebelling on the issue of the House of Lords and there was a manifesto promise to sort that out.
Well it's not technically a revolt as it's a free vote but getting yourself into a position where a hundred or two of your own MPs are against you isn't the cleverest way to run your politics! And he may live to regret it, the Tories can be a bloodthirsty lot against their own leaders, when their hackles are raised!
First, I find the idea that the views of a large proportion of people should be summarily dismissed to be utterly undemocratic.
Second, what we are talking about here is morality. Morality cannot be proven, morality is not objective. No one can prove why polygamous marriages shouldn,t be allowed, or close relatives. We may rationally debate these issues and put forward ideas against them, as do those who oppose gay marriage, such as the idea that it would devalue marriage for example, but in the end, the foundation for everyone's morality is no less arbitrary and insubstantial than My God Says
Then we are on shaky ground basing our laws on this sort of morality IMO.
There are better ways of deciding what is and isn't permissible in law, primarily the impact such actions will have on others.
On a personal level, I don't care too much. But they need to have civil partnerships for straight couples if they give marriage to gay.
This is correct. Personally I don't see why they are maintaining CPs at all. Perhaps there were guarantees given to the Irish government at the time they introduced CPs, and this way they can continue to recognise Irish same-sex couples. If so, they can remove CPs once Ireland gets marriage equality, which can't be too far away the way their politicians are talking. However, if CPs are going to stay they ought to be open to opposite-sex couples too.
Thanks for all those points but not sure I'm any clearer. I thought a ''marriage'' involved people of opposite sexes ?
Not necessarily. Lots of countries now define it as a legal entity involving either opposite or same sex partners. The number of countries is growing every year. Hence why the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments are bringing this in now.
Then we are on shaky ground basing our laws on this sort of morality IMO.
There are better ways of deciding what is and isn't permissible in law, primarily the impact such actions will have on others.
All such laws have to have some basis in morality, which is in the final analysis, arbitrary, trying to judge the impact on others doesn't,t change that since such a judgement must still be rooted in moral concerns e.g. what is a good impact and what is bad, is the impact on one person outweighed by an impact on a greater number etc.
Well it's not technically a revolt as it's a free vote but getting yourself into a position where a hundred or two of your own MPs are against you isn't the cleverest way to run your politics! And he may live to regret it, the Tories can be a bloodthirsty lot against their own leaders, when their hackles are raised!
Might not be a bad thing either... :cool:
Someone else earlier in this thread I think said that Cameron is after a legacy. I don't think his position is unsafe over this issue but I also don't think he'll be PM after the next election and I don't think he does either.
Comments
That kind of reaction could reinforce negative attitudes and increase prejudice. Isn't that the opposite of what's intended?
The clever way to do this would have been to include it in the election manifesto and then, Cameron could have claimed a mandate from the people for it and would have avoided most of of the present fuss.
Well it's about time, in my opinion the notion of marriage in the religious sense (the man as woman only) is a bit antiquated. When I got married at the registry office it was to declare my love for my husband and I think for a lot of people it's the same. Civil partnership seems like a poor imitation.
*these are my views are not intended to cause offence
You think people aren't noticing that the economy is tanking at the same time this is going on?
I just realised this after I submitted my post and felt too silly to go and amend it without someone noticing :-/
Indeed, if the equal marriage was designed to conceal the difficulties with the economy then it is the worst political ploy ever!
Sorry!
Im confused why religion isnt kept out of politics yet, its personal choice and shouldnt influence the general population. Society should be secular. I respect people wont stop being religious but stop wanting your precious view to take charge, that is wrong.
Odd you didn't put that in your OP.
He would have lost votes. Where as if get it in now, (most) people will have forgotten about it by the time the next election comes round.
Everybody wants their 'precious views' to take charge. You want your view that gays should be allowed to be married to take charge. Most people don't want close relatives to be able to marry, or polygamous marriages. Everybody has a view about what is and is not a valid marriage, why should those who disagree with yours not be allowed to voice their opinion or influence the political process in just the same way as everyone else.
Well there was a commitment to consider the case for gay marriage in the Tory Contract for Equalities released before the election and which formed part of the manifesto so it's not totally unheard of.
But I don't believe having it in the manifesto would have made a jot of difference to the fuss. Look at France, Hollande quite clearly stated in his manifesto that he would legislate for same sex marriage and yet 340,000 people take to the streets of Paris to protest.
The Churches and the Tory ministers and backbenchers would not have reacted differently if this had been in the manifesto as number one priority. Every jurisdiction so far to pass same sex marriage has had huge protests against from religious groups and right wing parties.
They are allowed to voice their opinion, like we are allowed to voice an opinion on their bigotry.
What is being objected to is the pandering to religious sensitivity. Laws should be decided on logic and reason not "my god says says ...." Any argument along those lines should be dimissed with a wave of the hand.
That said, if someone can satisfactory demonstrate there is a god, and they know his views then that person should be at the very centre of parliament.
I meant the political fuss from within his own party, it won't look good for his authority if most of his party vote against his wishes, not even on a free vote. More of them would have accepted it had it been in the election manifesto.
First, I find the idea that the views of a large proportion of people should be summarily dismissed to be utterly undemocratic.
Second, what we are talking about here is morality. Morality cannot be proven, morality is not objective. No one can prove why polygamous marriages shouldn,t be allowed, or close relatives. We may rationally debate these issues and put forward ideas against them, as do those who oppose gay marriage, such as the idea that it would devalue marriage for example, but in the end, the foundation for everyone's morality is no less arbitrary and insubstantial than My God Says
I think most 6 year old boys would agree lol.
But they have not been 'summarily dismissed' - there was a lengthy consultation period and the views of all were taken into account. The results showed that more people supported marriage for same sex couples but there were genuinely held concerns by some religions... and this has been addressed by giving all religions the right to choose what they do.
Just what else do people want?
Well as I said it was in the Contract for Equalities which was part of the electoral platform of the Tory Party. It also didn't stop his MPs rebelling on the issue of the House of Lords and there was a manifesto promise to sort that out.
I was referring to kelo's 'wave of the hand' comment.
Well it's not technically a revolt as it's a free vote but getting yourself into a position where a hundred or two of your own MPs are against you isn't the cleverest way to run your politics! And he may live to regret it, the Tories can be a bloodthirsty lot against their own leaders, when their hackles are raised!
Might not be a bad thing either... :cool:
Then we are on shaky ground basing our laws on this sort of morality IMO.
There are better ways of deciding what is and isn't permissible in law, primarily the impact such actions will have on others.
All such laws have to have some basis in morality, which is in the final analysis, arbitrary, trying to judge the impact on others doesn't,t change that since such a judgement must still be rooted in moral concerns e.g. what is a good impact and what is bad, is the impact on one person outweighed by an impact on a greater number etc.
Ahh, ok.
Someone else earlier in this thread I think said that Cameron is after a legacy. I don't think his position is unsafe over this issue but I also don't think he'll be PM after the next election and I don't think he does either.