U K Parliament Backs Gay Marriage Bill

[chiang mai]

JT asked about the Lords process, an interesting take on it all here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9859914/Tory-rebels-may-scupper-gay-marriage-in-the-Lords.html

[onthemoon]

I never thought I'd say this but well done Parliament!

If 2 people love each other then why the heck shouldn't they marry, regardless of sexual preference?

On a brighter note, hopefully this will signal an end to those godawful gay pride marches which have probably hampered their cause over the years....

Because marriage is, and should remain, a union between a man and a woman. If a person wishes to get together

with another person of the same gender that is their choice, but please don't try to normalise it buy bringing marraige

into it, and then involving innocent children in a further attempt to make it appear natural because it is far from that.

I am curious to know what the minister or person conducting the ceremony says at the finish, I now pronounce you

husband and husband, or wife and wife, how utterly rediculous is that???

At about minute 3:30:

Better get used to it! Even if it sounds unusual for now, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

[onthemoon]

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

The children don't have a choice. They will be brought up in a life of torment

Only if certain homophobic people torment them, that is.

[endure]

JT asked about the Lords process, an interesting take on it all here

http://www.telegraph...-the-Lords.html

So what the Lords are saying is that despite an overwhelming majority in the Commons and a seeming majority in the country (http://d25d2506sfb94...s-14-161212.pdf page 7) they intend to attempt to stop the bill from passing. I don't know enough about the way the Lords works to know whether this is possible or not but it's about time they were made accountable to the electorate.

[transam]

JT asked about the Lords process, an interesting take on it all here

http://www.telegraph...-the-Lords.html

So what the Lords are saying is that despite an overwhelming majority in the Commons and a seeming majority in the country (http://d25d2506sfb94...s-14-161212.pdf page 7) they intend to attempt to stop the bill from passing. I don't know enough about the way the Lords works to know whether this is possible or not but it's about time they were made accountable to the electorate.

Perhaps the Lords have ''the'' sense.

[Chicog]

JT asked about the Lords process, an interesting take on it all here

http://www.telegraph...-the-Lords.html

So what the Lords are saying is that despite an overwhelming majority in the Commons and a seeming majority in the country (http://d25d2506sfb94...s-14-161212.pdf page 7) they intend to attempt to stop the bill from passing. I don't know enough about the way the Lords works to know whether this is possible or not but it's about time they were made accountable to the electorate.

Perhaps the Lords have ''the'' sense.

Or perhaps the days of unelected toffs are numbered.

[chiang mai]

JT asked about the Lords process, an interesting take on it all here

http://www.telegraph...-the-Lords.html

So what the Lords are saying is that despite an overwhelming majority in the Commons and a seeming majority in the country (http://d25d2506sfb94...s-14-161212.pdf page 7) they intend to attempt to stop the bill from passing. I don't know enough about the way the Lords works to know whether this is possible or not but it's about time they were made accountable to the electorate.

Perhaps the Lords have ''the'' sense.

Its kinda like that, the Commons represents the common people whereas the Lords ensures that what the people are asking for will actually fit and work in the context of the larger picture (which the common man can't be expected to see or understand).

Also, the number of herditary peers is restricted, to I believe, 90.

[endure]

The Commons is elected by the people. The Lords is full of toffs and political hacks who are there because of the political favours that they've done when they were in the Commons. Not forgetting the 26 bishops who aren't elected either.

[thaicbr]

JT asked about the Lords process, an interesting take on it all here

http://www.telegraph...-the-Lords.html

So what the Lords are saying is that despite an overwhelming majority in the Commons and a seeming majority in the country (http://d25d2506sfb94...s-14-161212.pdf page 7) they intend to attempt to stop the bill from passing. I don't know enough about the way the Lords works to know whether this is possible or not but it's about time they were made accountable to the electorate.

the POLL pdf you linked to was 1794 people and by the Sunday Times hardly a majority of British people. just a Majority of a poll, one in which we do not know how it was done etc etc.

The Lords give a good counterpoint to all the 'elected' Mp's in the commons who all have certain agendas and PC'ness.

also it seems that the Lords does in fact have previously elected former Mp's as Lords.

Edited February 10, 2013 by thaicbr

[Jingthing]

Even if only 10 percent of the UK public supported marriage equality, it would STILL be the right thing to do. Winning equal rights for an unpopular small minority by majority votes isn't always easy and it reveals a flaw in the very ethical basis of pure majority rules systems.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[transam]

The Commons is elected by the people. The Lords is full of toffs and political hacks who are there because of the political favours that they've done when they were in the Commons. Not forgetting the 26 bishops who aren't elected either.

The Commons is NOT voted by the MAJORITY of the UK people.

[thaicbr]

Even if only 10 percent of the UK public supported marriage equality, it would STILL be the right thing to do. Winning equal rights for an unpopular small minority by majority votes isn't always easy and it reveals a flaw in the very ethical basis of pure majority rules systems.

but you have already conceded that Gay people in the UK ALREADY have equal civil rights in that they CAN and do have a civil partnership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership_in_the_United_Kingdom

[thaicbr]

Even if only 10 percent of the UK public supported marriage equality, it would STILL be the right thing to do. Winning equal rights for an unpopular small minority by majority votes isn't always easy and it reveals a flaw in the very ethical basis of pure majority rules systems.

You could also say that your idea would walk over the rights of those people that consider marriage is a union of man and women.

[Morden]

The Lords acts as a backstop to prevent the Commons from being stupid. It has worked well for many years, If a bill passes the Commons three times, the Lords cannot stop it.

My guess is that most people in the UK don't give a fig about homosexuals and their claimed rights but are concerned about the detail, including the welfare of children that might be involved.

In my view, they should be left to get on with whatever they do provided that no-one else is involved.

[Chicog]

Even if only 10 percent of the UK public supported marriage equality, it would STILL be the right thing to do. Winning equal rights for an unpopular small minority by majority votes isn't always easy and it reveals a flaw in the very ethical basis of pure majority rules systems.

You could also say that your idea would walk over the rights of those people that consider marriage is a union of man and women.

And tell us what "rights" they have to decide who does and does not have the same legal rights as them, other than their vote?

[Jingthing]

Even if only 10 percent of the UK public supported marriage equality, it would STILL be the right thing to do. Winning equal rights for an unpopular small minority by majority votes isn't always easy and it reveals a flaw in the very ethical basis of pure majority rules systems.

but you have already conceded that Gay people in the UK ALREADY have equal civil rights in that they CAN and do have a civil partnership

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

No I have not. In my opinion separate but (almost) equal is not equal. Many people in the UK disagree including many gay UK people. In my view, that's the only legitimate (non-bigoted) debate here, about whether separate but (almost) equal is good enough or not.

As a non-UK person, I would think UK people would be happy and proud to be on the honor list of more advanced and enlightened nations that has gone the full Monty, towards full equality, same sex MARRIAGE rights. That said, what the UK already has is much better than the vast majority of countries in the world.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

The Lords acts as a backstop to prevent the Commons from being stupid. It has worked well for many years, If a bill passes the Commons three times, the Lords cannot stop it.

My guess is that most people in the UK don't give a fig about homosexuals and their claimed rights but are concerned about the detail, including the welfare of children that might be involved.

In my view, they should be left to get on with whatever they do provided that no-one else is involved.

I don't see why marriage should be a "claimed" right when it's available to people who might like scat and watersports for all the puritans know, but happen to be of opposite genders.

Parenting is a separate issue and has already been excluded from this thread by the mods.

[endure]

The Commons is elected by the people. The Lords is full of toffs and political hacks who are there because of the political favours that they've done when they were in the Commons. Not forgetting the 26 bishops who aren't elected either.

The Commons is NOT voted by the MAJORITY of the UK people.

I didn't say they were elected by the majority of the UK people.

If the majority of the UK people choose not to vote than that's their prerogative but they can hardly then complain when those they couldn't be bothered to vote for don't do what they want.

When was the last time you voted in a UK election?

[Ulysses G.]

but you have already conceded that Gay people in the UK ALREADY have equal civil rights in that they CAN and do have a civil partnership

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

This is how it should be everywhere. Equal civil rights, but don't completely change the definition of marriage just to please far left fringe groups. Edited February 10, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

but you have already conceded that Gay people in the UK ALREADY have equal civil rights in that they CAN and do have a civil partnership

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

This is how it should be everywhere. Equal civil rights, but don't completely change the definition of marriage just to please far left fringe groups.

That isn't actually a practical solution in the U.S. with it's complication of 50 different states with 50 different marriage laws. It's an OK theory though but it does not work in all countries. I think the UK solution is OK but marriage would be better.

[Morden]

but you have already conceded that Gay people in the UK ALREADY have equal civil rights in that they CAN and do have a civil partnership

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

This is how it should be everywhere. Equal civil rights, but don't completely change the definition of marriage just to please far left fringe groups.

Agreed. Why should the laws be changed for a minority that most people don't care about? The more the squawking goes on the harder my view gets.

[Jingthing]

but you have already conceded that Gay people in the UK ALREADY have equal civil rights in that they CAN and do have a civil partnership

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

This is how it should be everywhere. Equal civil rights, but don't completely change the definition of marriage just to please far left fringe groups.

Agreed. Why should the laws be changed for a minority that most people don't care about? The more the squawking goes on the harder my view gets.

Because the best societies provide equal rights to all minorities, even unpopular ones.

[onthemoon]

but you have already conceded that Gay people in the UK ALREADY have equal civil rights in that they CAN and do have a civil partnership

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

This is how it should be everywhere. Equal civil rights, but don't completely change the definition of marriage just to please far left fringe groups.

Agreed. Why should the laws be changed for a minority that most people don't care about? The more the squawking goes on the harder my view gets.

Well, I don't follow you. Why should a minority be excluded from the same rights that most people enjoy? Just because they are minority that most people don't care about?

And why would your views get harder the more people point out that the difference doesn't make sense? Kindly explain, as I don't understand why you would say this. Is this discussion not about exchanging views and learning from each other rather than insisting on pre-existing views?

I for one still don't understand the importance of the word "marriage". I know this was asked before in this thread, but the explanation didn't convince me. For me, it is about the civil rights (visiting right in hospital, inheritance, being recognized as a family, including for income tax purposes). The whole discussion seems to be about - a word.

[Jingthing]

Would you understand better if it was a small minority group that you were in was barred from marrying? Why should one minority group be excluded from the choice of the EXACT same thing as everyone else, and that is marriage? It's not separate because society is saying gays are better. Society is saying gays don't rate to be fully equal. Yes that is my view and it comes from the tradition of the black American civil rights movement which feels separate but equal is NEVER the final goal. FULLY equal is.

So yes I think FULL equality (not separate) is always worth fighting for and should always be the ultimate goal, and I am so jealous of you Brits that you have a CONSERVATIVE PM (dividing his own party) fighting this fight, win or lose. That is impressive leadership to do the right thing and the right thing is OBVIOUSLY full and equal civil rights, yes the same word and the same institution.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaicbr]

Even if only 10 percent of the UK public supported marriage equality, it would STILL be the right thing to do. Winning equal rights for an unpopular small minority by majority votes isn't always easy and it reveals a flaw in the very ethical basis of pure majority rules systems.

You could also say that your idea would walk over the rights of those people that consider marriage is a union of man and women.

And tell us what "rights" they have to decide who does and does not have the same legal rights as them, other than their vote?

Well that was the suggestion from Ying not me.. and with the Civil partnership they do have the same legal rights. So i really don't see where you going with this.

[thaicbr]

but you have already conceded that Gay people in the UK ALREADY have equal civil rights in that they CAN and do have a civil partnership

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

This is how it should be everywhere. Equal civil rights, but don't completely change the definition of marriage just to please far left fringe groups.

Agreed. Why should the laws be changed for a minority that most people don't care about? The more the squawking goes on the harder my view gets.

Because the best societies provide equal rights to all minorities, even unpopular ones.

AND in the Uk that's what you have already in civil partnerships.

[Potosi]

but you have already conceded that Gay people in the UK ALREADY have equal civil rights in that they CAN and do have a civil partnership

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

This is how it should be everywhere. Equal civil rights, but don't completely change the definition of marriage just to please far left fringe groups.

Sorry, but homos are right wing. Marriage, family, kids are also good old conservative values, reliable ways to entangle a person in responsibilities. The only point that makes gays somewhat similar to us, is frequent sex with varying partners.

[Jingthing]

AND in the Uk that's what you have already in civil partnerships.

If you think that separate but (ALMOST) equal is ever fully equal. I don't and never will. Would you accept that for whatever identity you have? Supposing you were Samoan-British, would you be happy if there was a "special" institution only for Somoan-British and they were barred from the institution open to everyone else? I think NO WAY. Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaicbr]

but you have already conceded that Gay people in the UK ALREADY have equal civil rights in that they CAN and do have a civil partnership

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

This is how it should be everywhere. Equal civil rights, but don't completely change the definition of marriage just to please far left fringe groups.

Agreed. Why should the laws be changed for a minority that most people don't care about? The more the squawking goes on the harder my view gets.

Well, I don't follow you. Why should a minority be excluded from the same rights that most people enjoy? Just because they are minority that most people don't care about?

And why would your views get harder the more people point out that the difference doesn't make sense? Kindly explain, as I don't understand why you would say this. Is this discussion not about exchanging views and learning from each other rather than insisting on pre-existing views?

I for one still don't understand the importance of the word "marriage". I know this was asked before in this thread, but the explanation didn't convince me. For me, it is about the civil rights (visiting right in hospital, inheritance, being recognized as a family, including for income tax purposes). The whole discussion seems to be about - a word.

If you do not understand the importance of the word "marriage" why are you fighting for it.

Marriage is a union between a man and women..

In the Uk, Gay people already have all of the civil rights in a civil union that heterosexual people have in a marriage. You talk about civil rights for gay's, you already have them in the Uk. But you still whine that its not marriage.. why when you do not even understand what the word means?

[thaicbr]

AND in the Uk that's what you have already in civil partnerships.

If you think that separate but (ALMOST) equal is ever fully equal. I don't and never will. Would you accept that for whatever identity you have? Supposing you were Samoan-British, would you be happy if there was a "special" institution only for Somoan-British and they were barred from the institution open to everyone else? I think NO WAY.

If they were not born British then off course some things would not be open to them... it is the nature of country law.. You are talking about something else. You want gay relationships recognized they are with all the civil rights forthcoming. You are gay so therefor you cannot get married as that is an institution for a man and a women. a gay persons is a civil partnership both have the same ending civil rights under the law. it really is very simple.