Whilst I agree in priniciple, is that not how our system works? I mean laws get passed by being voted for or against, you can not just choose that system for certain things and not others.
It is a shame marriage has a legal aspect at all and that it is written in law. If marriage is about declaring and sharing your love, why do we need a law to do that?
I was talking about referendums rather than MPs to be honest. I have the ability to lobby my MP and speak to them directly if needs be, so I can seek their support for equality. Appealing to the mob is much harder.
I was talking about referendums rather than MPs to be honest. I have the ability to lobby my MP and speak to them directly if needs be, so I can seek their support for equality. Appealing to the mob is much harder.
Quite! If it was down to a referendum then the mob i.e. the general public would try and outlaw homosexuality completely.
It's a heinous crime against God and His plan of pro-creation and disgusting and vile, just to think of where those gays shove their body parts into another human being makes me sick. AND you can kick & scream & shout & stomp ur tiny little feet or butt off the pavement, NO ! amount of argument from anyone on this forum or planet will make me change my mind........There, everybody have a wonderful day..........:D
Quite! If it was down to a referendum then the mob i.e. the general public would try and outlaw homosexuality completely.
I am not sure they would now to be honest - but I would bet that had a referendum been held in 1967 homosexuality would still be illegal.
Changes the law through the parliamentary process can have the effect of changing the hearts and minds of the general public. Civil Partnerships certainly helped do this.
A Conservative MP’s response to an enquiry about equal marriage has been called ‘cruel and offensive’ in its treatment of couples who are unable to have children by gay Labour MP Chris Bryant and ‘truly shocking’ by a constituent.
The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union and joyful commitment to the end of their lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children are [born and] nurtured and in which each member of the family, in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love.
So if you read it properly, it's saying that the purpose of a religious marriage is to for two people to make a lifelong commitment to each other, to have sex and provide companionship and basically be there for each other whatever happens. It doesn't say they have to have children, just that being married provides a good foundation for starting a family.
I'm not religious (or married) but I don't think there's much wrong with that and I don't see why a same-sex couple couldn't marry using the same wording. Just change "husband and wife" as appropriate.
But the question is, why have you quoted a RELIGIOUS service from the CHURCH OF ENGLAND, when that isn't what is being changed or affected?
The new act is to allow adding same sex couples to the CIVIL marriage act. No religion involved, required or needed.
My MP doesn't seem to have made a decision yet ... must get onto him about that.
Mine has, I support Lib Dem theoretically but Jamie Reed (Labour, “I believe in equality. I believe in same-sex marriages.") is such a top bloke I usually just vote for him. https://twitter.com/#!/jreedmp/status/202127182049447937
He also claimed to be a Jedi once, he's that awesome.
Well as long as they are over 18 they should be legally allowed to sign it.
Absolutely.
It seems obvious that there is no issue to us but apparently some people still have a problem with it. Not that I have heard what that actually is...apart from that religious blokey saying some of us are more equal than others :rolleyes:
I object to same-sex marriage because I believe in social pluralism, not fancy-free individualism
Of course, if someone should ask, "how will my marriage be affected if couples of the same sex can marry?", the answer is: not at all.
But let me put the question another way: what sort of a society would we have if we came to see all family relationships primarily in terms of equal rights? The family is designed to meet the different needs of its different members in different ways. It is the model of the just society that responds intelligently to differences rather than treating everyone the same.
For me, racial equality rests on the doctrine that there is only one race – the human race – and any difference of treatment on ethnic grounds is therefore unjustifiable.
But there is another view, based on the complementary nature of men and women. In short, should there be equality between the sexes because a woman can do anything a man can do or because a good society needs the different perspectives of women and men equally?
Unless one believes that every difference between the sexes is a mere social construct, the question of equality between the sexes cannot be completely addressed by the paradigm of racial equality.
What I am pressing for is a kind of social pluralism that does not degenerate into a fancy-free individualism.
If it was a question of justice, what injustice would result from not turning civil partners into married couples? I suggest: no injustice.
The head-line is misleading as it will benefit people
Plus he claims to be about equality and justice yet shows a lack of either
if there is only one race then why justify discrimination over sexuality?
Marriage has been redefined before - to exclude same-sex couples so shouldn't he be on the non-homophobic side?
All that is, is a classic strawman argument. He has nothing to counter the actual main argument and so invents ridiculous extremes that he can then knock down. People who use them then think that they have proved that black is in fact white, when really haven't at all.
Comments
I was talking about referendums rather than MPs to be honest. I have the ability to lobby my MP and speak to them directly if needs be, so I can seek their support for equality. Appealing to the mob is much harder.
No, I don't. The government has already stated that Equal Marriage will happen, the consultation is about how it will happen
Quite! If it was down to a referendum then the mob i.e. the general public would try and outlaw homosexuality completely.
If it proves controversial it might. Civil partnership is accepted but is there any polling about this next step.
I am not sure they would now to be honest - but I would bet that had a referendum been held in 1967 homosexuality would still be illegal.
Changes the law through the parliamentary process can have the effect of changing the hearts and minds of the general public. Civil Partnerships certainly helped do this.
I don't think he does. I'm intrigued now. Apparently he is married, but no kids himself.
This issue is now in Pink News....
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/18/chris-bryant-tory-mps-response-to-equal-marriage-enquiry-was-cruel-and-offensive/
A Conservative MP’s response to an enquiry about equal marriage has been called ‘cruel and offensive’ in its treatment of couples who are unable to have children by gay Labour MP Chris Bryant and ‘truly shocking’ by a constituent.
But the question is, why have you quoted a RELIGIOUS service from the CHURCH OF ENGLAND, when that isn't what is being changed or affected?
The new act is to allow adding same sex couples to the CIVIL marriage act. No religion involved, required or needed.
Mine has, I support Lib Dem theoretically but Jamie Reed (Labour, “I believe in equality. I believe in same-sex marriages.") is such a top bloke I usually just vote for him.
https://twitter.com/#!/jreedmp/status/202127182049447937
He also claimed to be a Jedi once, he's that awesome.
the plot thickens....
*strokes beard*
Well as long as they are over 18 they should be legally allowed to sign it.
https://twitter.com/#!/search/matthew%20offord
Absolutely.
It seems obvious that there is no issue to us but apparently some people still have a problem with it. Not that I have heard what that actually is...apart from that religious blokey saying some of us are more equal than others :rolleyes:
And what an insult to gay people that there is even a vote by mostly straight people as to whether we should be equal to them. :mad:
Equality should be a right, not something people can decide.
Well seems as gay people can now legally adopt, that blows his reasoning clean out of the water, silly git.
John Sentamu's latest piece of double-speak:
An interesting response:
"He'll support introducing upper age-limits, then?"
That is why his argument doesn't hold water and why he wouldn't answer that.
So as usual, these people are allowed to make big statements and then hide and not answer to the obvious holes in their argument.
The head-line is misleading as it will benefit people
Plus he claims to be about equality and justice yet shows a lack of either
if there is only one race then why justify discrimination over sexuality?
Marriage has been redefined before - to exclude same-sex couples so shouldn't he be on the non-homophobic side?
All that is, is a classic strawman argument. He has nothing to counter the actual main argument and so invents ridiculous extremes that he can then knock down. People who use them then think that they have proved that black is in fact white, when really haven't at all.