Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Why Has the Gay Marriage Issue Exploded ?


Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-02-2013, 13:00
ftv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 21,608

It wasn't in the Tory manifesto, it wasn't in the Queen's speech and until a few weeks ago you hardly heard anything about it in the media.
Now I hear Tory MPs are in revolt over gay marriage, Cameron's position is in jeopardy, teachers are threatened with the sack if they don't teach it (do they teach heterosexual marriage ?) and all sorts of pressure groups are jumping on the bandwagon.
I can't see there has been any significant development in the actual issue so why has it suddenly burst upon the scene ?
ftv is offline  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-02-2013, 13:07
BastardBeaver
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In the bush
Posts: 7,687
While other places like New York just quietly get on with it.

It's making me a bit embarrassed of England tbh.
BastardBeaver is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:09
ladymoanalot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 21,502
Teachers being forced to teach it? Why would they need to?

Gay marriage is what Cameron thinks will put his mark on the map. He will be remembered for it historically.

They should have never introduced Civil partnerships, it was a way of appeasing the masses whilst only giving gay people a halfway house act of law.

They cocked up.
ladymoanalot is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:11
Voynich
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,576
Apparently there are more important issues. So why the hell are they making such a fuss about it? Obviously it is a big deal to the ones ranting about it not being a big deal!
Voynich is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:18
Keiō Line
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,114
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.
Keiō Line is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:23
gulliverfoyle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,022
its a political/media elite issue like most gay issues

most people couldnt give a monkeys

its such a small number of marriages about 2%

they should try spending time fixing the economy

which affects 100%
gulliverfoyle is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:25
marjangles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,035
It wasn't in the Tory manifesto, it wasn't in the Queen's speech and until a few weeks ago you hardly heard anything about it in the media.
Now I hear Tory MPs are in revolt over gay marriage, Cameron's position is in jeopardy, teachers are threatened with the sack if they don't teach it (do they teach heterosexual marriage ?) and all sorts of pressure groups are jumping on the bandwagon.
I can't see there has been any significant development in the actual issue so why has it suddenly burst upon the scene ?
It seems you've heard quite a lot.

It was in the Tory contract for equalities which was released three days prior to the election and which formed part of the Tory manifesto. In any event there was nothing in their manifesto about the NHS reforms they undertook but no one tried to claim they shouldn't be passed for that reason.

You're right it wasn't in the Queen's speech but the Queen's speech did contain a commitment for House of Lords reform which has since disappeared and the Queen's speech has no binding power on what Parliament can or can't do so that's not relevant either.

There is no truth to the scaremongering put about that teachers will be sacked for not teaching it whatever that means anyway. Michael Gove has said repeatedly that there will be no action taken against teachers who have differing views on same sex couples marrying. I'd also point out that teachers aren't in the classroom to tell children their own personal opinions.

The pressure groups jumping on the band wagon are largely religious groups who want to impose their version of marriage on the rest of society.

The reason why it's in the news a lot at the moment is because there is to be a vote on the issue on Tuesday. Same sex marriage is likely to be approved and it will then go on to the next legislative stages. There can be no revolt because it's not a whipped vote for any of the parties. You can't revolt by voting against something if you're entitled to vote against it anyway.

It isn't sudden though, the Lib Dems made it party policy in 2010 and Cameron mentioned it in 2011 in his speech to the party conference. There was a months long consultation last year which resulted in around 53% of respondents favouring the introduction of marriage for gay couples.
marjangles is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:25
Richard1960
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,238
Teachers being forced to teach it? Why would they need to?

Gay marriage is what Cameron thinks will put his mark on the map. He will be remembered for it historically.

They should have never introduced Civil partnerships, it was a way of appeasing the masses whilst only giving gay people a halfway house act of law.

They cocked up.
Yes pretty much agree with this.
Richard1960 is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:25
ribtickle
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,228
Tory backbenchers have been objecting to proposals to legalise gay marriage, getting louder and louder as local party members leave over the issue, and they became incensed at the idea that proposed tax breaks for married couples would in future apply to gay couples under new marriage laws, and also include those who had previously become civil partners who would see their legal partnership status upgraded in order to qualify. As a result of the furore plans to provide the tax breaks have been shelved for all.

Which is how it should be. I can't see why any couple should be given tax breaks simply for being in a relationship, let alone in the midst of a recession with cutbacks everywhere. Surely it's enough to have your bottom drawer filled without the state having to provide financial incentives to enter and remain in an outmoded construct which increasingly ends in divorce.
ribtickle is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:28
PrestonAl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,698
Tory backbenchers have been objecting to proposals to legalise gay marriage, getting louder and louder as local party members leave over the issue, and they became incensed at the idea that proposed tax breaks for married couples would in future apply to gay couples under new marriage laws, and also include those who had previously become civil partners who would see their legal partnership status upgraded in order to qualify. As a result of the furore plans to provide the tax breaks have been shelved for all.

Which is how it should be. I can't see why any couple should be given tax breaks simply for being in a relationship, let alone in the midst of a recession with cutbacks everywhere. Surely it's enough to have your bottom drawer filled without the state having to provide financial incentives to enter and remain in an outmoded construct which increasingly ends in divorce.
only about 4% of tories polled and 2% from Labour, care about it. It's the bottom of the list of things anyone really is bothered about.

The only ones who are kicking up a storm are tory MPs and the Tory Press. No one really cares and I suspect just wish they'd hurry up and pass it into law.
PrestonAl is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:29
marjangles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,035
its a political/media elite issue like most gay issues

most people couldnt give a monkeys

its such a small number of marriages about 2%

they should try spending time fixing the economy

which affects 100%
It's estimated that same sex marriages will boost the economy by 18m a year. Not a huge amount but it helps.

This matter is being dealt with by the DCMS, what should they be doing to try to fix the economy? Plus you do know governments are able to do more than one thing at a time right?

I'm not a member of the political or media elite but I very much want the right to get married.

How much time do you actually think they'll be spending on this? There's one day of debate on the second reading followed by a vote on Tuesday and then it goes off to committee. Eventually there'll be a third reading and it'll be off to the Lords. If this takes more than 2% of time from this Parliament then I'll be astounded. Then they can spend plenty of time messing up the economy further.
marjangles is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:38
wonkeydonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 61,296
I never have any sympathy with the suggestion that something will only apply to a minority, so the government shouldn't bother with it. It is a relatively short bill that should not use much parliamentary time or money, and will redress a clear injustice.

The current situation seems to me a complete dogs dinner because of the piecemeal way it has been arrived at. How much more sensible if all couples could be offered a choice between a civil partnership/ wedding, leading to inheritance and pension rights, and a church partnership/ wedding , leading to the same legal rights, where the church wishes to offer this.
wonkeydonkey is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:47
marjangles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,035
I never have any sympathy with the suggestion that something will only apply to a minority, so the government shouldn't bother with it. It is a relatively short bill that should not use much parliamentary time or money, and will redress a clear injustice.

The current situation seems to me a complete dogs dinner because of the piecemeal way it has been arrived at. How much more sensible if all couples could be offered a choice between a civil partnership/ wedding, leading to inheritance and pension rights, and a church partnership/ wedding , leading to the same legal rights, where the church wishes to offer this.
Of course it would be simpler but when have we ever done anything the simple way in this country!
marjangles is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:50
geniusgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,491
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.
geniusgirl is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:57
Kapellmeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Taedet animam meam vitae
Posts: 32,614
It has only 'exploded' in the media. A few bigoted members of the Tory party write a letter to Cameron and it's suddenly front page news. The Church of England demonstrates it's bigoted attitudes and everyone acts surprised. It's just the media magnifying the whinging of irrelevant individuals.
Kapellmeister is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:57
ftv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 21,608
Thanks for all those points but not sure I'm any clearer. I thought a ''marriage'' involved people of opposite sexes ?
ftv is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 13:59
Kapellmeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Taedet animam meam vitae
Posts: 32,614
Thanks for all those points but not sure I'm any clearer. I thought a ''marriage'' involved people of opposite sexes ?
Seems you were wrong then.
Kapellmeister is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 14:03
zackai48
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 609
Thanks for all those points but not sure I'm any clearer. I thought a ''marriage'' involved people of opposite sexes ?
Well put. Marriage,of course, should be between a man and a woman. Simple.
zackai48 is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 14:05
WhisperingGhost
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,171
As much as I hate Cameron and his cronies and know that he gives not one iota for gay marriage, I am glad that it is being highlighted. I just love how it is getting up people's noses and I am enjoying people making idiots of themselves trying to defend their reasons to oppose this.
I am gay and don't want to get married (wouldn't if I was straight either), but I have friends who have been together years and getting married would mean the world to them. It's not like they could bring any more shame and disrespect to marriage than straight people already havr done!
Next on the agenda should be gay adoption.
WhisperingGhost is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 14:07
marjangles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,035
Thanks for all those points but not sure I'm any clearer. I thought a ''marriage'' involved people of opposite sexes ?
Marriage involves whatever the law says it involves. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex then you don't have to.
marjangles is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 14:07
skazza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Mamas Pizza, BD10 Parmo Shop!
Posts: 4,145
Well put. Marriage,of course, should be between a man and a woman. Simple.
Why though?
skazza is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 14:07
marjangles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,035
Well put. Marriage,of course, should be between a man and a woman. Simple.
Why should it?
marjangles is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 14:07
Cryolemon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newark, Notts, UK
Posts: 5,690
Teachers being forced to teach it? Why would they need to?

Gay marriage is what Cameron thinks will put his mark on the map. He will be remembered for it historically.

They should have never introduced Civil partnerships, it was a way of appeasing the masses whilst only giving gay people a halfway house act of law.

They cocked up.
True, but it's still not 100% equal if the Church of England can't preform them. Most religious people I know (might just be the area I live in) are CofE*.

*Although due to the sort of people I hang round with I also know a few pagans...
Cryolemon is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 03-02-2013, 14:08
marjangles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,035
As much as I hate Cameron and his cronies and know that he gives not one iota for gay marriage, I am glad that it is being highlighted. I just love how it is getting up people's noses and I am enjoying people making idiots of themselves trying to defend their reasons to oppose this.
I am gay and don't want to get married (wouldn't if I was straight either), but I have friends who have been together years and getting married would mean the world to them. It's not like they could bring any more shame and disrespect to marriage than straight people already havr done!
Next on the agenda should be gay adoption.
Gay people already can adopt as a couple or as an individual.
marjangles is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 14:11
mummypigget
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: piggetville
Posts: 4,619
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!!
mummypigget is offline  
 
Closed Thread



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:30.