U K Parliament Backs Gay Marriage Bill

[onthemoon]

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?

No, I'm not fighting for gay marriage - where did I say that?

In my opinion, "marriage" is a religious term, and I'll leave it to the followers of the religion to sort it out. In a secular society, all I care about is equal rights. Those should be granted to same-sex couples, and well, that's been achieved in the UK and several other countries.

That's why I am asking what all this discussion is about. Religious terminology?

[thaicbr]

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?

No, I'm not fighting for gay marriage - where did I say that?

In my opinion, "marriage" is a religious term, and I'll leave it to the followers of the religion to sort it out. In a secular society, all I care about is equal rights. Those should be granted to same-sex couples, and well, that's been achieved in the UK and several other countries.

That's why I am asking what all this discussion is about. Religious terminology?

sorry i mistook you for Jing.

I also have no problem with Gay couples (civil partnership) having the same civil rights as Heterosexual couples (marriage).

I just believe that marriage is between a man and a women and it should stay that way.

And i expect that if it was explained that gay couples ALREADY have the same civil rights then a large majority of the UK would think the same.

[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.

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 poll was a representative poll carried out by Youguv, a member of the British Polling Council for one of the most respected newspapers in the UK. That's the way all polls are carried out.

[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 poll was a representative poll carried out by Youguv, a member of the British Polling Council for one of the most respected newspapers in the UK. That's the way all polls are carried out.

Still doesn't make it a majority of the British public. But I get your point. Pity you don't get mine.

also not exactly a poll of the person in the street, As you register to be in the poll and receive awards.

http://yougov.co.uk/panel/learn-more/

Edited February 10, 2013 by thaicbr

[endure]

Still doesn't make it a majority of the British public. But I get your point. Pity you don't get mine.

I did get your point but the only way to satisfy it would be to have the equivalent of a General Election every time you wanted to gauge public opinion. I suspect that the Great British Public really don't give a monkeys one way or the other.

[Jingthing]

Marriage is religious when done in a religious institution. Marriage is NOT religious when done by a civil, secular, governmental official. In countries that are not theocracies, marriages can be effected without any involvement of any religion. The international gay marriage equality movement is about marriage under the laws of the lands. For people WITHIN religions, that indeed is a SEPARATE matter and usually no business of government. I say usually because there is an English state religion and I don't pretend to understand the implications of that on this issue in the UK. In general though, to deny gay people equal MARRIAGE rights because of religious objections ins an empty argument except in theocratic nations.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaicbr]

Still doesn't make it a majority of the British public. But I get your point. Pity you don't get mine.

I did get your point but the only way to satisfy it would be to have the equivalent of a General Election every time you wanted to gauge public opinion. I suspect that the Great British Public really don't give a monkeys one way or the other.

And there lies the crux of the matter.. We will never know. I also agree that it probably is not at the top of most peoples agenda as the country is a mess etc etc etc..

ps. apologies if i came over a bit snotty.

[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.

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.

Oh please. I OBVIOUSLY wasn't talking about non-nationals. I was talking about members of ONE identity group being denied the same rights as everyone else. So let me correct your misunderstanding. These Somoan-British are full citizens.

This is really getting silly because totally non-UK people can marry UK citizens and MARRY ... UNLESS they are gay.

Again, no, no, no I was not talking about non-citizens. Nice deflect though.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[endure]

No problem

[thaicbr]

Marriage is religious when done in a religious institution. Marriage is NOT religious when done by a civil, secular, governmental official. In countries that are not theocracies, marriages can be effected without any involvement of any religion. The international gay marriage equality movement is about marriage under the laws of the lands. For people WITHIN religions, that indeed is a SEPARATE matter and usually no business of government. I say usually because there is an English state religion and I don't pretend to understand the implications of that on this issue in the UK.

But that's the point Jing with this bill Gay couples will be able to get married in said religious institutions ie churches etc.

If you are asking for the same as a registry wedding then you have that in the UK already just using a different name. ours is Marriage, yours is Civil partnership.. they have the same civil rights.

i bet you wish you were British now so you could avail yourself of these rights..

[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.

Oh please. I OBVIOUSLY wasn't talking about non-nationals. I was talking about members of ONE identity group being denied the same rights as everyone else. So let me correct your misunderstanding. These Somoan-British are full citizens.

well if you were OBVIOUSLY not talking about non-nationals why did you describe them as Somoan- British?

They would be British if they were citizens. so OH PLLLLEAAAASE

[Jingthing]

Marriage is religious when done in a religious institution. Marriage is NOT religious when done by a civil, secular, governmental official. In countries that are not theocracies, marriages can be effected without any involvement of any religion. The international gay marriage equality movement is about marriage under the laws of the lands. For people WITHIN religions, that indeed is a SEPARATE matter and usually no business of government. I say usually because there is an English state religion and I don't pretend to understand the implications of that on this issue in the UK.

But that's the point Jing with this bill Gay couples will be able to get married in said religious institutions ie churches etc.

If you are asking for the same as a registry wedding then you have that in the UK already just using a different name. ours is Marriage, yours is Civil partnership.. they have the same civil rights.

i bet you wish you were British now so you could avail yourself of these rights..

I am confused now. This state religion in a non-theocracy is a very weird concept to me.

This is the information that I have:

Gay marriage: Church of England will not be forced to conduct same sex weddings in new Tory plans

http://www.mirror.co...ill-not-1484855

If that is true, there is NO religious objection all UK people being equal under the LAW (forgetting religion).

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

well if you were OBVIOUSLY not talking about non-nationals why did you describe them as Somoan- British?

They would be British if they were citizens. so OH PLLLLEAAAASE

OK. Black British then. It was just a random small IDENTITY group who are citizens. I hope we're clear now. No need for this silly detour. Do you reckon black British people would be satisfied with a totally separate institution for their marriages? Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[endure]

Marriage is religious when done in a religious institution. Marriage is NOT religious when done by a civil, secular, governmental official. In countries that are not theocracies, marriages can be effected without any involvement of any religion. The international gay marriage equality movement is about marriage under the laws of the lands. For people WITHIN religions, that indeed is a SEPARATE matter and usually no business of government. I say usually because there is an English state religion and I don't pretend to understand the implications of that on this issue in the UK. In general though, to deny gay people equal MARRIAGE rights because of religious objections ins an empty argument except in theocratic nations.

All marriages in the UK are civil but some have a religious element. If you walk out of the church after the vicar pronounces you man and wife you aren't married because you haven't yet signed the (civil) register. It's only the signing of the register that makes you married. Vicars, Imams and Rabbis have just been given the same (civil) authority as a registrar has to marry people.

When civil partnerships were first made legal in the UK it was forbidden to hold them in a place of religious worship. This was done so as not to upset some of the church folks but the Society of Friends, the Unitarians and the Reform Jews petitioned the government to allow civil partnerships to be celebrated in their premises and the Equality Act 2010 allowed them to do this.

[endure]

Marriage is religious when done in a religious institution. Marriage is NOT religious when done by a civil, secular, governmental official. In countries that are not theocracies, marriages can be effected without any involvement of any religion. The international gay marriage equality movement is about marriage under the laws of the lands. For people WITHIN religions, that indeed is a SEPARATE matter and usually no business of government. I say usually because there is an English state religion and I don't pretend to understand the implications of that on this issue in the UK.

But that's the point Jing with this bill Gay couples will be able to get married in said religious institutions ie churches etc.

If you are asking for the same as a registry wedding then you have that in the UK already just using a different name. ours is Marriage, yours is Civil partnership.. they have the same civil rights.

i bet you wish you were British now so you could avail yourself of these rights..

I am confused now. Can someone knowledgeable say with a link whether the C of E will be forced to perform gay marriages or not? This state religion in a non-theocracy is a very weird concept to me.

This is the information that I have:

http://www.mirror.co...ill-not-1484855

If that is true, there is NO religious objection all UK people being equal under the LAW (forgetting religion).

The CofE and the Church in Wales are legally obliged to marry anyone who is legally qualified and who pitches up to their door asking for it. That is why the government has introduced 'quadruple lock' legislation which means that the CoE and the CiW will not be allowed to marry same-sex couples even if they want to. All other religions will be able to make their own minds up. Some parts of the CoE are now up in arms because they won't be allowed to marry ss couples. Bizarre but there you go.

[Jingthing]

Incredibly bizarre but whatever works.

In any case, the argument that religions will be forced to do gay marriages in the UK under the new law is 100 percent bogus.

Because UK gay people already do have something very decent available to them, I don't see the urgency of advancing to marriage, but it is obviously the right direction, so if not now, when, and why not now? Given that, I am rather surprised that Cameron has spent political capital on this issue.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaicbr]

well if you were OBVIOUSLY not talking about non-nationals why did you describe them as Somoan- British?

They would be British if they were citizens. so OH PLLLLEAAAASE

OK. Black British then. It was just a random small IDENTITY group who are citizens. I hope we're clear now. No need for this silly detour. Do you reckon black British people would be satisfied with a totally separate institution for their marriages?

yep.. crystal....and to answer... Probably.. at least some of them would. Cos they would say they are not bowing to the white man... There are different views in all walks of life. Laws of the land do tend to have to cater to the majority.

[thaicbr]

Incredibly bizarre but whatever works.

In any case, the argument that religions will be forced to do gay marriages in the UK under the new law is 100 percent bogus.

who said forced.. didn't. I just said able. and i was correct. if it wasn't for the double lock then it would be.. so in a way your STILL not getting what you all want.. just creating conflict were there needn't be any.

[Jingthing]

Incredibly bizarre but whatever works.

In any case, the argument that religions will be forced to do gay marriages in the UK under the new law is 100 percent bogus.

who said forced.. didn't. I just said able. and i was correct. if it wasn't for the double lock then it would be.. so in a way your STILL not getting what you all want.. just creating conflict were there needn't be any.

This is getting very twisty. Why shouldn't religions be able to choose if they want to accept gay marriage or not? Obviously, C of E is a weird exception. BTW, personally I care not one bit what any religion does or doesn't do. I am not religious. For people who are religious that's their own business to fight to make changes, or not. All I want for gay people in any country is full equal rights under the laws of the land. Also religious freedom so religious are free to be bigoted if they want. I consider theocracies hopeless and my hope for those places is that they drop that silliness.

If it takes some conflict to make UK gay people fully equal under the law and not a separate class of citizens, then conflict there will be. Are we mice or men? Conflict is part of life.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

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.

In this day and age, that's just straw-clutching.

I think you'll find a heterosexual union often described as a "traditional" marriage these days.

[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.

In this day and age, that's just straw-clutching.

I think you'll find a heterosexual union often described as a "traditional" marriage these days.

Also UG is forgetting this is being pushed in the UK by a TORY PM!

Also, the "redefining" argument is intellectually dishonest. In the US, when the supreme court made it legally impossible to ban interracial marriages nobody was talking about redefining marriages. They were talking about civil rights being advanced.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaicbr]

Incredibly bizarre but whatever works.

In any case, the argument that religions will be forced to do gay marriages in the UK under the new law is 100 percent bogus.

who said forced.. didn't. I just said able. and i was correct. if it wasn't for the double lock then it would be.. so in a way your STILL not getting what you all want.. just creating conflict were there needn't be any.

This is getting very twisty. Why shouldn't religions be able to choose if they want to accept gay marriage or not? Obviously, C of E is a weird exception. BTW, personally I care not one bit what any religion does or doesn't do. I am not religious. For people who are religious that's their own business to fight to make changes, or not. All I want for gay people in any country is full equal rights under the laws of the land. Also religious freedom so religious are free to be bigoted if they want. I consider theocracies hopeless and my hope for those places is that they drop that silliness.

If it takes some conflict to make UK gay people fully equal under the law and not a separate class of citizens, then conflict there will be. Are we mice or men? Conflict is part of life.

Personally with the advent of civil partnership i think gay people are equal under civil law in the UK. Others don't because of a word. But that word MARRIAGE is important for many..As a traditional back bone of the C of E.. I'm not religious. But i do believe that marriage is between a man and a women. Jing you were talking about civil rights. Gays have that already in the UK.

Good night all.

[Jingthing]

Separate civil rights. Good enough for some. It's not something I would ever think is ideal to be classed as not good enough to be included with all other citizens though I realize many UK gay people are happy with the status quo. Like I said, it's not a critical issue in the UK but in my view it's worth doing sometime and there's better time than NOW.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaicbr]

Separate civil rights. Good enough for some. It's not something I would ever think is ideal to be classed as not good enough to be included with all other citizens though I realize many UK gay people are happy with the status quo. Like I said, it's not a critical issue in the UK but in my view it's worth doing sometime and there's better time than NOW.

No.. same civil rights under a different name.. The same as you being gay are different than me being heterosexual. You have sexual feelings for men. I have sexual feelings for women. But we are both men. same name but different.

So why not a different name for the same civil rights. I remember on another thread you stating that gay people should be proud of being gay. What prouder moment than having special laws passed just for gays.

[endure]

I have to say I'm not all that personally worried about gay marriage. We have civil partnerships and an equal age of consent. The best day in my life came when they decided to stop putting us in prison just because we're gay. I suspect it depends on where you start your journey as to what you're satisfied with.

[Jingthing]

Separate civil rights. Good enough for some. It's not something I would ever think is ideal to be classed as not good enough to be included with all other citizens though I realize many UK gay people are happy with the status quo. Like I said, it's not a critical issue in the UK but in my view it's worth doing sometime and there's better time than NOW.

No.. same civil rights under a different name.. The same as you being gay are different than me being heterosexual. You have sexual feelings for men. I have sexual feelings for women. But we are both men. same name but different.

So why not a different name for the same civil rights. I remember on another thread you stating that gay people should be proud of being gay. What prouder moment than having special laws passed just for gays.

That's totally ridiculous. Trying to sell separate as special. Special indicates better or more rights. Being barred from the same institution as heterosexuals and yes that means the exact same name marriage and the exact same institution marriage is without a doubt a LESS THAN, an OTHER, a we will make accommodation for you but really you still don't fully belong among the rest of us.

Q. So why do campaigners want the law changed?

They say that there should not be a separate system for different groups in society as a matter of principle. Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, says a two-tier system for recognising marriage is like a form of “apartheid”.

Marriage is recognised around the world as a clear statement of commitment and legal status between two people, he says. Outside Britain, hardly anyone knows what a civil partnership is.

http://www.telegraph...rtnerships.html

BTW, for those who think this is about just a word. Why be so niggardly about extending the use of this "special" word for your fellow citizens ... gay people?

Also if civil unions are so "special" would you anti-gay equality heterosexuals be willing to SWAP? You can have civil unions. Gay people can have marriage? Deal?

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[RTC]

Newbie here..

This is a subject I feel strongly about, allowing 2 same sex people marry is just wrong, gay - no problem! But why the heck get married? It's just not right, so is allowing same sex couples to have kids. I know 2 gay guys who have a kid from on of the guys previous relationship with a woman, the kid gets bullied at school and is isolated because he has 2 dad's!! That is child cruelty in my book, the kid mentally scarred all his life...

Once again, gay no problem, I have gay mates who agree with what I say...

[Jingthing]

Newbie here..

This is a subject I feel strongly about, allowing 2 same sex people marry is just wrong, gay - no problem! But why the heck get married? It's just not right, so is allowing same sex couples to have kids. I know 2 gay guys who have a kid from on of the guys previous relationship with a woman, the kid gets bullied at school and is isolated because he has 2 dad's!! That is child cruelty in my book, the kid mentally scarred all his life...

Once again, gay no problem, I have gay mates who agree with what I say...

Too late for the UK. Gay couples are legally bound and legally have children. Why do you want to discriminate against these children and keep their parents in a SEPARATE class of people? Wouldn't it be better for these kids in gay families already to have married parents just like their friends, assuming their friends parents are still together, which often they are not?

It is just not right, you say? Then it's easy. Don't marry someone of the same sex. Issue solved for you. I am more generous. You can marry whoever you love, I say, as long as they are of age and with consent.

Why the heck get married? Good question that ANY couple should ask. But some people do want to get married and some of those people are gay. Best to ask individual couples what their reasons were.

Your argument against gay families is homophobia among school kids? I am sorry but that argument freaks me out. I got some abuse being a Jewish kid. Should my parents not have bred to save me from that? Sorry to hear that story about the kid with two Dads having such a rough time if it's actually true. Again, it's not the parents fault if that happens sometimes. It's the fault of homophobia. Something that needs to be fought again and again, just like racism.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[RTC]

Newbie here..

This is a subject I feel strongly about, allowing 2 same sex people marry is just wrong, gay - no problem! But why the heck get married? It's just not right, so is allowing same sex couples to have kids. I know 2 gay guys who have a kid from on of the guys previous relationship with a woman, the kid gets bullied at school and is isolated because he has 2 dad's!! That is child cruelty in my book, the kid mentally scarred all his life...

Once again, gay no problem, I have gay mates who agree with what I say...

Too late for the UK. Gay couples are legally bound and legally have children. Why do you want to discriminate against these children and keep their parents in a SEPARATE class of people? Wouldn't it be better for these kids in gay families already to have married parents just like their friends, assuming their friends parents are still together, which often they are not?

It is just not right, you say? Then it's easy. Don't marry someone of the same sex. Issue solved for you. I am more generous. You can marry whoever you love, I say, as long as they are of age and with consent.

Why the heck get married? Good question that ANY couple should ask. But some people do want to get married and some of those people are gay. Best to ask individual couples what their reasons were.

Your argument against gay families is homophobia among school kids? I am sorry but that argument freaks me out. I got some abuse being a Jewish kid. Should my parents not have bred to save me from that? Sorry to hear that story about the kid with two Dads having such a rough time if it's actually true. Again, it's not the parents fault if that happens sometimes. It's the fault of homophobia. Something that needs to be fought again and again, just like racism.

Yeah it is true about the kids with 2 dad's, seen many a time doing the school run, I just don't think kids should be exposed to having 2 same sex parents, kinda messes with their head..

The comment you made about you getting abuse coz you are a Jewish kid is rather lame..Hardly the same is it! Hmm, I have a question, what are the gay marriage laws in Israel? Not that it matters, I think I know the answer, although I will need to google it.

I'm just giving my 'strong opinion' I'm entitled to that mate

[endure]

It's already been established that this is not the thread to talk about the adoption of children by same sex couples. It is a thread about the Same Sex Marriage bill in the UK. Stick to the topic please.