U K Parliament Backs Gay Marriage Bill

[chiang mai]

Clearly I am missing something -

How does one answer, "What criteria do they use?" With "yes!"?

And looking at that link I see loads of good arguments FOR allowing gay marriage and much support. As well as an assertion that it will pass with a large majority.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

What you are missing is a sence of humour , JT asked a question that was almost impossible for a layman to answer hence "yes" seemed the shortest way to convey that.

It might just be that there's support, all I can add is that historically that support has not been there for this issue which was the purpose of supplying the link..

Edited February 8, 2013 by chiang mai

[SteeleJoe]

Oh, so you are one of those people who pretend that if someone doesn't recognize a comment you've made as a humorous remark, they have no sense of humor. A thinly veiled ad hominem that's fairly common on the net.

Got it. Thanks. No doubt if I only had a sense of humour, I'd have known that "yes" conveys that "the question is almost impossible for a layman to answer".

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 8, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[chiang mai]

Too many uptight people in this thread, folks need to chill.

[Mosha]

"Yes" might be a Yorkshire thing . Irritates the heck out of my wife. 555

[Jingthing]

The USA should not be on any international list for legalized gay marriage because none of the state offerings have any meaning at the national level. That is changing slowly but the USA doesn't deserve this recognition yet as one of the advanced countries on this issue. Mexico does deserve it because marriages there are fully recognized anywhere if the couple can manage to drag their asses to the capital.

[SteeleJoe]

The USA should not be on any international list for legalized gay marriage because none of the state offerings have any meaning at the national level. That is changing slowly but the USA doesn't deserve this recognition yet as one of the advanced countries on this issue. Mexico does deserve it because marriages there are fully recognized anywhere if the couple can manage to drag their asses to the capital.

Yes*, the site where I took the list from acknowledges that point. I was just too lazy to include it.

*in this instance, conveying agreement or assent. I'm not a Yorkie.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 8, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Jingthing]

Yes I was premature with the call for celebrations as the HOL may water down or delay the law. However, this article seems to indicate there is some good cause for optimism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/world/europe/britain-gay-marriage-vote.html

The bill still has to pass in the House of Lords, where delaying tactics by opponents are possible, but Mr. Cameron has said he plans to have it enacted into law sometime this summer.

[chiang mai]

Yes I was premature with the call for celebrations as the HOL may water down or delay the law. However, this article seems to indicate there is some good cause for optimism:

http://www.nytimes.c...riage-vote.html

The bill still has to pass in the House of Lords, where delaying tactics by opponents are possible, but Mr. Cameron has said he plans to have it enacted into law sometime this summer.

I don't mean to appear pedantic but Cameron (or any British PM) does not control or have a say in what the House of Lords does and doesn't do, I would suggest that Mr Cameron should have said that he hoped to have it enacted into law ...... since he cannot plan something about which he doesn't know and/or can't control the outcome.

[Jingthing]

Whatever. Bring on the law for equality!

[thaicbr]

Personally I think that a marriage is between a man and a women. Mr and Mrs Jones for example.

If this becomes law it is going to be confusing calling the ' wife ' Mr.

Why can't gay people just have a loving 'partnership' or something similar?

1) Personally? You think? In some countries it is currently between a man and a woman. In others, it can be between people of the same gender. These are facts as of today, not opinion. These facts are not immutable and there is no logical or legal reason I am aware of why they should be.

2) If two men are married, neither one is "the wife". Regardless, in what circumstance would there be any confusion?

3) They can. For number of valid legal and emotional reasons that does not suffice for many and they prefer to have the same rights as you or I. Why can't they have a loving "marriage"?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

So in your world people cannot have their own opinions because they differ from others. Or that some countries allow marriage between same sex couples so all should.

People have many rights.

My belief is marriage is between a man and a woman.

Any other loving partnership is exactly that. A loving partnership. And from what I have seen there are definitely 'wives' in some gay partnerships.

Any way. I am not a strong advocate. I just have beliefs and feelings like many.

[thaicbr]

Whatever. Bring on the law for equality!

What law is that then???

[Jingthing]

People can have opinions, sure.

When my Dad was growing up as a Jew he was barred from joining country clubs and faced "Jew quotas" for university entrances.

He even, rather shamefully, resorted to changing his name to better his chance of landing any employment in his field. (Gay people aren't the only people who sometimes feel the survival need to be in the closet.)

A good friend of mine's parents were mixed race, Japanese and Redneck. They had to move from their home state to be legally married.

Being together sexually was ILLEGAL where they had originally lived.

The people upholding that bigotry back then had opinions.

Now what do people think about those opinions?

The same thing people in future will think about anti-gay bigotry.

Not the same kind of thing? In my OPINION, yes they are the same kind of thing.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[jamhar]

as a comedian once said

"they deserve to get divorced like the rest of us!"

Other than homophobia, i really don't understand what the big deal is.

PS. i'm dealing with my own homophobia, so I'm no saint.

As an example, i find gay PDA (public displays of affection) extremely difficult to deal with. of course like most male homophobia, i dont seem to have problems with lesbian PDA.

But on the issue of gay marriage, i'm with the comedian referenced above.

let them be miserable like the rest of us!

[Jingthing]

as a comedian once said

"they deserve to get divorced like the rest of us!"

Other than homophobia, i really don't understand what the big deal is.

PS. i'm dealing with my own homophobia, so I'm no saint.

As an example, i find gay PDA (public displays of affection) extremely difficult to deal with. of course like most male homophobia, i dont seem to have problems with lesbian PDA.

But on the issue of gay marriage, i'm with the comedian referenced above.

let them be miserable like the rest of us!

Dude I'm grossed out when I see Thai people eating fried insects. That isn't an argument for limiting their civil rights. Edited February 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Whatever. Bring on the law for equality!

What law is that then???

Oh please.

[SteeleJoe]

Personally I think that a marriage is between a man and a women. Mr and Mrs Jones for example.

If this becomes law it is going to be confusing calling the ' wife ' Mr.

Why can't gay people just have a loving 'partnership' or something similar?

1) Personally? You think? In some countries it is currently between a man and a woman. In others, it can be between people of the same gender. These are facts as of today, not opinion. These facts are not immutable and there is no logical or legal reason I am aware of why they should be.

2) If two men are married, neither one is "the wife". Regardless, in what circumstance would there be any confusion?

3) They can. For number of valid legal and emotional reasons that does not suffice for many and they prefer to have the same rights as you or I. Why can't they have a loving "marriage"?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

So in your world people cannot have their own opinions because they differ from others. Or that some countries allow marriage between same sex couples so all should.

People have many rights.

My belief is marriage is between a man and a woman.

Any other loving partnership is exactly that. A loving partnership. And from what I have seen there are definitely 'wives' in some gay partnerships.

Any way. I am not a strong advocate. I just have beliefs and feelings like many.

"So in your world people cannot have their own opinions because they differ from others. Or that some countries allow marriage between same sex couples so all should."

Nothing I have said even remotely resembles either of those comments. It is intellectually dishonest to distort my words in such a way, if it was intentional. If not, read again.

"People have many rights."

Uhmm...yes, they do. An odd thing to point out. And?

The point is that many people feel that said rights they are supposed to be equal and not based on such things as sexual orientation or who you are in love with

"My belief is marriage is between a man and a woman."

It's not up to your belief. It's a matter of objective FACT that in most countries it is but in some it is not.

"Any other loving partnership is exactly that. A loving partnership."

Errr...yes. And?

I'm not going to dignify the idiocy about "wives".

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[transam]

Personally I think that a marriage is between a man and a women. Mr and Mrs Jones for example.

If this becomes law it is going to be confusing calling the ' wife ' Mr.

Why can't gay people just have a loving 'partnership' or something similar?

1) Personally? You think? In some countries it is currently between a man and a woman. In others, it can be between people of the same gender. These are facts as of today, not opinion. These facts are not immutable and there is no logical or legal reason I am aware of why they should be.

2) If two men are married, neither one is "the wife". Regardless, in what circumstance would there be any confusion?

3) They can. For number of valid legal and emotional reasons that does not suffice for many and they prefer to have the same rights as you or I. Why can't they have a loving "marriage"?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

So in your world people cannot have their own opinions because they differ from others. Or that some countries allow marriage between same sex couples so all should.

People have many rights.

My belief is marriage is between a man and a woman.

Any other loving partnership is exactly that. A loving partnership. And from what I have seen there are definitely 'wives' in some gay partnerships.

Any way. I am not a strong advocate. I just have beliefs and feelings like many.

"So in your world people cannot have their own opinions because they differ from others. Or that some countries allow marriage between same sex couples so all should."

Nothing I have said even remotely resembles either of those comments. It is intellectually dishonest to distort my words in such a way, if it was intentional. If not, read again.

"People have many rights."

Uhmm...yes, they do. An odd thing to point out. And?

The point is that many people feel that said rights they are supposed to be equal and not based on such things as sexual orientation or who you are in love with

"My belief is marriage is between a man and a woman."

It's not up to your belief. It's a matter of objective FACT that in most countries it is but in some it is not.

"Any other loving partnership is exactly that. A loving partnership."

Errr...yes. And?

I'm not going to dignify the idiocy about "wives".

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I love my cat.

[partington]

This thread shows the best and worst of TV in one easy to consult package, so thank you all.

(You'll have to guess who's who.)

[Jingthing]

I love my cat.

Good for you. Can I recommend the pets forum?

[transam]

I love my cat.

Good for you. Can I recommend the pets forum?

Thought you might suggest the marriage forum.

[Jingthing]

I love my cat.

Good for you. Can I recommend the pets forum?

Thought you might suggest the marriage forum.

Why would I suggest that? If you are interested in marrying your cat, you are free to start a decades long lobbying effort for that issue. You will fail but you have that freedom.

Seriously, do you think that line of argument (equating HUMAN civil rights to red herrings about marrying animals) is clever, original, or relevant?

Edited February 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[ggold]

Sadly the whole western world seems to have gone all queer. They will be

wanting to adopt kids they can't possibly sire next! Perish the thought.

Well what do you expect from an Eton bumboy!

[ggold]

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to bring up children?

The reason is quite clear to me.

Children should be brought up in as normal an environment as possible so that they grow up to be well balanced individuals. A childhood spent watching homosexuals show affection to each other is not normal and is likely to encourage the child to also live an abnormal adulthood.

I'm all for letting homosexuals do what they want to each other so long as they keep it away from me (lesbians being a possible exception!) but, in front of children, their relationship would amount to abuse.

so what your saying is, you'd like to watch a lesbian couple going at it, but not a couple guys? Lol, I totally agree with you otherwise!

[SteeleJoe]

[

"So in your world people cannot have their own opinions because they differ from others. Or that some countries allow marriage between same sex couples so all should."

Nothing I have said even remotely resembles either of those comments. It is intellectually dishonest to distort my words in such a way, if it was intentional. If not, read again.

"People have many rights."

Uhmm...yes, they do. An odd thing to point out. And?

The point is that many people feel that said rights they are supposed to be equal and not based on such things as sexual orientation or who you are in love with

"My belief is marriage is between a man and a woman."

It's not up to your belief. It's a matter of objective FACT that in most countries it is but in some it is not.

"Any other loving partnership is exactly that. A loving partnership."

Errr...yes. And?

I'm not going to dignify the idiocy about "wives".

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I love my cat.

That's nice. It's also irrelevant. Are you also in love with your cat? Do you want to marry it? If so, unfortunately you have issues that are beyond legislative recourse and are arguably in need of counseling or some other sort psychiatric care.

I love my children. Is that the same as loving my wife? So much for your attempt at semantic sophistry.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[ggold]

This thread shows the best and worst of TV in one easy to consult package, so thank you all.

(You'll have to guess who's who.)

I see, so because I think gay marriage is wrong ,(why didn't they change the laws regarding equality for all gender couples rather than giving them these rights through marriage) I'm a homophobe?

[Jingthing]

This thread shows the best and worst of TV in one easy to consult package, so thank you all.

(You'll have to guess who's who.)

I see, so because I think gay marriage is wrong ,(why didn't they change the laws regarding equality for all gender couples rather than giving them these rights through marriage) I'm a homophobe?

It's hard to tell really. I reckon you would know. There are some gay people who are opposed to gay marriage equality because they don't think gay people should model after heterosexual institutions. Those people definitely aren't homophobes so logically not all opponents of gay marriage equality are homophobes. SOME are obviously.

[ggold]

I love my cat.

Good for you. Can I recommend the pets forum?

Thought you might suggest the marriage forum.

Why would I suggest that? If you are interested in marrying your cat, you are free to start a decades long lobbying effort for that issue. You will fail but you have that freedom.

Seriously, do you think that line of argument (equating HUMAN civil rights to red herrings about marrying animals) is clever, original, or relevant?

Actually if politicians thought they could get the vote from domesticated animals brobably not so far from now! I would understand skate, but red herrings come sir you jest?

[Jingthing]

Actually if politicians thought they could get the vote from domesticated animals brobably not so far from now! I would understand skate, but red herrings come sir you jest?

I think this line of argument shows deep DISRESPECT for a serious decades long international struggle of real people who have real consequences not having the same civil rights as their neighbors.

[ggold]

Actually if politicians thought they could get the vote from domesticated animals brobably not so far from now! I would understand skate, but red herrings come sir you jest?

I think this line of argument shows deep DISRESPECT for a serious decades long international struggle of real people who have real consequences not having the same civil rights as their neighbors.

Actually it's not an argument, more a comment of possibilities!

Your probably right, but then if someone wants to marry their cat, who are you to trample on his/her civil rights?. Its a joke!

Edited February 8, 2013 by ggold

[Jingthing]

Actually if politicians thought they could get the vote from domesticated animals brobably not so far from now! I would understand skate, but red herrings come sir you jest?

I think this line of argument shows deep DISRESPECT for a serious decades long international struggle of real people who have real consequences not having the same civil rights as their neighbors.

Actually it's not an argument, more a comment of possibilities!

Your probably right, but then if someone wants to marry their cat, who are you to trample on his/her civil rights?. Its a joke!

I'm not laughing. Do you realize how stale that kind of "joke" is and how to gay people, it comes across that you think their struggle for civil rights is also a JOKE? Edited February 8, 2013 by Jingthing