[Archived] Debate on Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

[Plastics]

Happening in the Commons today.

Your thoughts, please.

[adopted scouser]

Who gives a monkey's what the church thinks anyway ? Most people get married in church for the ceremony and a family get together, they make all sorts odf promises to the Priest then never go again.

Why feel the need to kneel before some bloke in a funny outfit swinging a metal handbag with smoke pouring out of it ? All religion belongs in the dark ages, these nutters even managed to ban a packet of crisps recently.

Bring back Chris Hitchens !

[perthblue02]

Who gives a monkey's what the church thinks anyway ? Most people get married in church for the ceremony and a family get together, they make all sorts odf promises to the Priest then never go again.

Why feel the need to kneel before some bloke in a funny outfit swinging a metal handbag with smoke pouring out of it ?

That sounds like the cabaret that was on , when mistakenly went to a gay club on a stag do

[Mike E]

Who are religious people to define marriage? These are the same people who worship the idea that the world is about 6,000 years old. The same people who choose to ignore the evidence that science has given us. They then claim science doesn't know everything and fill in the gaps with bible tripe (if I said Qur'an there, my gosh there'd be hell to pay). As Dara O'Briain says:

'Science knows it doesn't know everything, or else it'd stop.'

Marriage is simply a bond of love and commitment between two people. The sex of one or both those people should not matter in modern times, just as religion, creed, race and nationality do not matter.

[koi]

Should be same for any couple IMO. If a gay couple want to get married more power to 'em I say.

[speeeeeeedie]

A religious instution be it a church, mosque, temple should be able to choose who they marry. If they don't want gays then so be it. However the government shouldn't have a say for me. If gays want to get married and be recognised as such by law, let them.

The common US retort is that we will have people marrying pets, or even children as the floodgates are open. Then they get all het up about gay adoptions (the next step to the end) as it will teach "the wrong values". Yet I see "normal" couples on a daily basis who should never be allowed to have kids.

It reeks of the Cameron trying for political points. Arguing over an issue that has, to me, no affect on the general populace of which he goverrns.

[Plastics]

Churches having to marry homosexuals is an interesting one.

On the one hand, given the fact that marriage is not something owned by religion and that you need to get a licence to marry others, it seems strange that civil licences should give them to anybody who goes against this bill if it is to go through. If somebody is unable to perform the duties required to marry people within the law as it stands, then why should they be allowed to marry people at all?

On the other hand I know that this is not the way in which we can hope for religious reform which is desperately needed.

As a side point, whilst I despise Cameron, I do not care if this is political point scoring as it is never the wrong time to do the right thing. This does affect society as a whole as in any society where inequality exists, nobody is free.

[ABBEY]

Burnley have been marrying sisters and brothers for centuries..

[Plastics]

Burnley MP voted against the bill.

Stay classy.

[patrickvalery]

When i hear these things i can't help but think 'who gives a shiny @#/?'? Why is our government even wasting time on this issue? In this day and age if two blokes or two women want to get married then it should be allowed. Fill your boots chaps. Why should the act of marriage only bugger things up for hetrosexual folk? Let the homosexuals suffer too FFS!

[Mike E]

When i hear these things i can't help but think 'who gives a shiny @#/?'? Why is our government even wasting time on this issue? In this day and age if two blokes or two women want to get married then it should be allowed. Fill your boots chaps. Why should the act of marriage only bugger things up for hetrosexual folk? Let the homosexuals suffer too FFS!

Has that not been the whole point? To allow gay people the benefits of marriage rather than a mere 'civil-partnership'?

I was always under the impression they were the same in no way other than a commitment to another person. All the benefits and downfalls of marriage are for all, regardless of imaginary friends I hope.

[patrickvalery]

Has that not been the whole point? To allow gay people the benefits of marriage rather than a mere 'civil-partnership'?

I was always under the impression they were the same in no way other than a commitment to another person. All the benefits and downfalls of marriage are for all, regardless of imaginary friends I hope.

No idea mate. None at all. I just find it bemusing that this sort of inane bullshit is causing such a stir. Let them have marriage if they want it. If the church preaches forgiveness for paedo priests then why not let this slide. It seems like a bleeding great waste of time and money to me.

[Mike E]

No idea mate. None at all. I just find it bemusing that this sort of inane bullshit is causing such a stir. Let them have marriage if they want it. If the church preaches forgiveness for paedo priests then why not let this slide. It seems like a bleeding great waste of time and money to me.

Such is modern govt.

[Baz]

On the topic, cant see a reasonable reason why they cant, and the churches have the right not to have to hold the ceremonies.

More interesting is that the bill was passed by a large majority, but got a minority from the Tory MPs. What does that signal to Cameron? Cannot be many bills passed only on the voting of the other parties.

[Plastics]

On the topic, cant see a reasonable reason why they cant, and the churches have the right not to have to hold the ceremonies.

More interesting is that the bill was passed by a large majority, but got a minority from the Tory MPs. What does that signal to Cameron? Cannot be many bills passed only on the voting of the other parties.

This leads me to think that either outright homophobia is prevalent in the Conservative party (awful because homophobia is bad), religiously motivated (effectively the same as outright) homophobia is prevalent in the Conservative party (awful because it is a shame what religion can do to people) or that the Conservatives used this as a political exercise to go against their leader (awful because they used the platform they have been given to lead this nation to deny equal rights to a minority group by going against something they may well believe in).

All of which are despicable.

[patrickvalery]

This leads me to think that either outright homophobia is prevalent in the Conservative party (awful because homophobia is bad), religiously motivated (effectively the same as outright) homophobia is prevalent in the Conservative party (awful because it is a shame what religion can do to people) or that the Conservatives used this as a political exercise to go against their leader (awful because they used the platform they have been given to lead this nation to deny equal rights to a minority group by going against something they may well believe in).

All of which are despicable.

I think the first point is probably the most true. Not sure there is much more to it than that.

[Plastics]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/05/gordon-brown-joins-labour-mps-who-didnt-support-same-sex-marriage/

Gordon Brown joins Labour MPs who didn’t support same-sex marriage.

[RoyRover]

I'm in full support of it. If churches don't won't to marry people that's up to them, but legally, there should be nothing stopping it.

[jim mk2]

Congratulations to David Cameron on driving another wedge between himself and his renegade backbenchers causing wider splits in his beleaguered party.

[Plastics]

I'm in full support of it. If churches don't won't to marry people that's up to them, but legally, there should be nothing stopping it.

The churches will follow suit eventually. Society moves first, then eventually the church follows. Could take a couple of centuries though. A couple more generations born into the inequality which is not matched in the general population will be enough to force their hand, out of embarrassment or necessity. Fortunately the church always evolves. Just need a few new 'radical' non-homophobes to be born into it, taking his/her lead from the society they are born into, and the dinosaurs who currently hold a lot of power to die out. I'd say a century should do it, maximum.

Depressing it should take that long, but this is the church we are talking about.

[thenodrog]

On the topic, cant see a reasonable reason why they cant, and the churches have the right not to have to hold the ceremonies.

More interesting is that the bill was passed by a large majority, but got a minority from the Tory MPs. What does that signal to Cameron? Cannot be many bills passed only on the voting of the other parties.

Obvious to me what it signals to Cameron ..... that UKIP will do well in 2015.

As for my opinion... Marriage is just an expensive day out spewing money that should be used for other things by young couples many of whom already have children to support. However the Catholic church states that marriage is for procreation only and if there is one sound reason to marry and one sound reason not to allow same sex marriages that is it. Lets be honest this is just symbolically pushing the boundaries back. I'm not opposed to homosexuals per sae (truth is I prefer not to think about certain aspects) but the last thing that I want to see are homosexuals expressing their love for one another in public. At the end of the day as everyone knows it is an unnatural practice that most people tolerate but are uncomfortable with and the last thing they want is it flaunting openly.

[Plastics]

This isn't as trivial as symbolically pushing the boundaries back. It is very real and far more important than mere symbolism thenodrog. Heterosexual people are allowed to marry. It is a civil contract and has nothing to do with religion in its essence. Religion took it up as their own, as kind of custodians, long after marriage had begun. The religious in this country were against marriage when it first developed and only warmed to it when they were able to make money from holding the ceremonies. Since then things have become warped and people think that it's essentially a religious ceremony. It is not.

If homosexual people who love each other and aren't doing it for reasons such as immigration or entrapment are allowed to do it, then why aren't homosexuals allowed to do it. This isn't a case of letting the homosexuals have something to keep them happy. If a man has been in jailed for x amount of years and then it is found he is innocent he is freed because of obligation. We don't just say, hmmm go on then, we will let you go, we are obliged to free them. The same is the case here and we are obliged to give gays the same rights as the rest of society, belatedly so. Doing so does not infringe upon others. I am very sure that if you were not allowed the same rights as homosexuals then you would be complaining.

As for the thinking about it, nobody is asking you to think about homosexuality. Nobody can choose what you think of, but would you like to ban public affection for homosexuals alone, or heterosexuals too? Personally I'm not the biggest fans of couples getting all lovey-dovey in public, but it's hardly the end of the world and I wouldn't bring in any laws to stop it. And how far are you going with public signs of affection? Kissing or hand holding? Or something else either way?

Can you explain your statement 'I'm not opposed to homosexuals per sae'?

I can't see why you think something that happens in nature is unnatural. It is simply something that you are not used to because you have been sheltered in your upbringing thanks to the fear of homosexuals felt and some still do about being public about their orientation. Thankfully, when equal rights do prevail, the dinosaurs pass on and we have generations being born into a society where homosexuality is acknowledged and understood views such as your own, which you are free to hold, will have died down considerably. Naturally homophobia will never die out, in the same way racism or sexism won't, but it will hopefully become part of the minority.

I hope you are around when transgender issues really take off. Would be intrigued to see your reaction to that.

[Andy]

A religious instution be it a church, mosque, temple should be able to choose who they marry. If they don't want gays then so be it. However the government shouldn't have a say for me. If gays want to get married and be recognised as such by law, let them.

The common US retort is that we will have people marrying pets, or even children as the floodgates are open. Then they get all het up about gay adoptions (the next step to the end) as it will teach "the wrong values". Yet I see "normal" couples on a daily basis who should never be allowed to have kids.

It reeks of the Cameron trying for political points. Arguing over an issue that has, to me, no affect on the general populace of which he goverrns.

Comparing marrying homosexuals to marrying pets or children...strange folk, over the pond.

They really are.

Your sexuality is one of the things that defines you as a person, yet it is completely natural and instinctive - you cannot choose to be homo or heterosexual.

To be discriminated against for being gay is like not allowing people with ginger hair to get married.

...although that would help to prevent the spread of 'ginger'...

[Blue n White Rover]

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[Plastics]

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

If you are using this in reference to marriage, are you aware you are using a couple who did not tie the knot, raised a murderer and didn't exist as a template for how it should be done?

I really hope the first gay marriage is between two men called Adam and Steve.