The Gay Marriage Topic!

[Rowe]

I... Disproportional? What? Huh??

A CONSERVATIVE MP today urges David Cameron to shelve plans to legalise gay marriage – warning angry party activists are walking away in protest.

David Mowat, the Warrington South MP, said the prime minister had lit a fuse that threatened to blow up in Tory faces, because of the fierce opposition of most of the party faithful.

The backbencher said the issue was not on a “list of 20 things” that were vital to Conservatives such as him, adding: “What matters is jobs, growth and the economy – everything has to be done to fix that.”

And he said: “I had a letter from an ex-chairman of Warrington South Conservatives, saying he was leaving the party. We haven’t got so many members that we can lose them.

“I think it’s a pity that we have chosen to potentially alienate our activists, because the people who care disproportionately about this tend to be activists. I would be pretty happy if the whole thing got dropped.

“I also have a gay activist, in a civil partnership, who is quite ambivalent about gay marriage, so I think it’s wrong to say it is a touchstone issue for all the gay community.”

Mr Mowat, said he, personally, was “moderately in favour” of gay marriage, but argued it would nevertheless be “more honest” to wait until after the next general election.

Read More http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liv ... z1zBPlGixH

 

[Imagination]

.

 

[Martin]

The bible is no justification for it. Unless they're equally as opposed to eating shellfish and wearing two kinds of fabric, their book of desert fairy tales is nothing but a bad excuse to hide their bigotry behind. If Jesus was real and anything like the character in the bible, it's a safe bet he'd have been all for gay marriage

Jesus clearly states that he is the word... It has also been edited over time by many writers- we shouldn't believe everything written.

 

[Martin]

Oh I know, my comment was in agreement with you. The quote at the end was separate, I just thought it was a funny bit of irony that I wanted to point out.

 

[BigT]

Ok hands up I got it wrong on the ten commandments bit, I was going on what I remembered from RE and maybe I was only half awake that day.
I don't like being being referred to as a bigot though just because I don't strongly agree with you, I get on with and respect anyone regardless of race, colour, sexuality, sex or age I just dont believe you can have a strong opinion on something unless it involves you in someway.
If it really means that much to gays, and doesn't affect me then fine I will support it, but still doesn't answer my point about why people all want to be the same.
I'm not talking about being discriminated against here just embracing being different, I thought that was something to be celebrated and what makes the UK a great melting pot of differents.

 

[Dave]

Its not about people being the same it's about everyone having the same options as those offered to others. If you had red hair and it was illegal for you to marry a person with Blond hair would you feel that was fine because not everyone needed to be the same?

I'm not majorly fussed about getting married as a gay person but i fully support this because those who do want it should have the right to do it regardless of the sex of the person they are saying their vows to. Its hardly as deep as anything Simon could come up with but i think it was JK Rowling who said the greatest gift from a humans ability to image things isn't a bed-time story, but the ability to imagine yourself in someone else's position and have empathy for that person. It doesn't have to affect you for you to have a strong opinion.

Not that this means you have to have a strong opinion but be honest and say you genuinely don't really give two hoots about it but are happy to remain neutral, people tend to respect honesty more.

 

[Jonathan]

I just dont believe you can have a strong opinion on something unless it involves you in someway.

I disagree. I believe that people can have strong opinions on anything, no matter how much they are affected by it. For example, I am firmly against the use of capital punishment, despite not personally knowing of anyone who has suffered this. It does not directly affect me (or most people in this country, for that matter, as it was abolished for murder in the 1960s, and for all crimes in 1998), but I very strongly believe that no matter what a person has done, they should not be executed. (This is a discussion which I may continue in another topic in the future.)

 

[BigT]

I just dont believe you can have a strong opinion on something unless it involves you in someway.

I disagree. I believe that people can have strong opinions on anything, no matter how much they are affected by it. For example, I am firmly against the use of capital punishment.

That's fine to disagree, I wouldn't wish to push my believes onto anybody unlike some.

And just to say I disagree with your view on capital punishment because I think that does effect us all but as you say that's for another topic.

Its not about people being the same it's about everyone having the same options as those offered to others. If you had red hair and it was illegal for you to marry a person with Blond hair would you feel that was fine because not everyone needed to be the same?

I agree everyone should have the same options, this should work both ways too but I also think we should be happy to be different as well if you wish to be.
Slightly off topic but relevant I have a friend who we all call Black Kev because his name is Kevin and he's yes you've guessed it black.
Now I guess most of you find this disgusting which it would be until I tell you this is how HE answers his phone.
He likes to call himself this because he says quite happily that he is black and proud to be different, is he wrong?

Not that this means you have to have a strong opinion but be honest and say you genuinely don't really give two hoots about it but are happy to remain neutral, people tend to respect honesty more.

This was how I think I put my position on my first post but was criticised for not agreeing.

 

[mark9]

I agree everyone should have the same options, this should work both ways too but I also think we should be happy to be different as well if you wish to be.
Slightly off topic but relevant I have a friend who we all call Black Kev because his name is Kevin and he's yes you've guessed it black.
Now I guess most of you find this disgusting which it would be until I tell you this is how HE answers his phone.
He likes to call himself this because he says quite happily that he is black and proud to be different, is he wrong?

There's two ways with that. The first is for instance, I am proud to be gay and proud to be different. I don't want to be known as gay Mark in the same way that I don't want to be known as white Mark, 6 foot tall Mark, oddly shaped ears Mark. I'm just Mark.

But there are some that aren't. Young homosexual people out there see themselves as unworthy, un-natural, a sin and naturally hate themselves. Religious groups come out saying God hates Fags or say that next they will legalise incest or marriage with animals. By calling it just marriage and not just civil partnerships, young people may begin to realise that being gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual is okay, that it isn't a crime to be yourself. That they are like everybody else and not a disease that should be exterminated and talked down.

 

[BigT]

By calling it just marriage and not just civil partnerships, young people may begin to realise that being gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual is okay, that it isn't a crime to be yourself. That they are like everybody else and not a disease that should be exterminated and talked down.

Will it really change people's minds that much by changing the title, Im just playing devils avicot here but I think the people that hold those sort of views you state won't change there views either way.

 

[Sam]

I don't like being being referred to as a bigot though just because I don't strongly agree with you, I get on with and respect anyone regardless of race, colour, sexuality, sex or age I just dont believe you can have a strong opinion on something unless it involves you in someway.

Out of interest, what's your position on the Holocaust? I presume you're neutral on the matter, since it hasn't affected you.

That's fine to disagree, I wouldn't wish to push my believes onto anybody unlike some.

If you are making a dig at me there, then I admit that I'm quite happy to "push my believes" (sic) onto other people on this issue. I have no qualms about openly stating that I am right, and people who don't believe in gay marriage are wrong, and I will explain to them exactly why they're wrong and why they are morons.

 

[BigT]

Out of interest, what's your position on the Holocaust? I presume you're neutral on the matter, since it hasn't affected you.

I would say neutral is the wrong word but I don't know enough about it to make a comment, start a thread and maybe you can educate me.

 

[Sam]

Out of interest, what's your position on the Holocaust? I presume you're neutral on the matter, since it hasn't affected you.

I would say neutral is the wrong word but I don't know enough about it to make a comment, start a thread and maybe you can educate me.

Roughly six million Jews were murdered by the Nazi party as part of a process of ethnic cleansing during World War II. If what you're saying is true, it's quite shocking that you don't even know this (because if you did, that would definitely qualify as knowing enough to hold the opinion that it was an abhorrent, inhuman atrocity).

 

[BigT]

And has to do with this topic exactly.

 

[John]

Nothing, it's merely a counter-point to the argument that you have to have a direct connection with an issue to feel strongly about it.

On the other hand, I can see why it might be difficult to get excited by the proposed changes to gay marriage law, when on the surface it may appear a fairly superficial change to the existing legislation (largely amounting to a name change). I see it as a largely symbolic change, though that isn't to say it is not an important issue to some people.

I consider there to be an important difference between civil partnerships and the segregation example that keeps getting mentioned, as civil partnerships were clearly developed with the best intentions, however while the perceptions of difference (and potentially inferiority) remain between marriage and civil partnerships, the current situation remains insufficient.

What are people's thoughts on retaining civil partnerships as an option under the new legislation? Personally, I consider it somewhat redundant, and with partnerships still only open to same-sex couples, this would open up a different form of discrimination.

 

[Simon]

John, equality is the issue, and so as a consequence, nothing should be available to one group that is not available to another. Therefore either:

1. Civil Partnerships should be abolished completely, or re-defined as a lesser form of legal commitment and opened up to both gay and straight people; or, depending on how you want to take things, to these hypothetical ageing spinster sisters certain Tory MPs seem to be fixated on. For those who already have a civil partnership, the option should be extended to either re-define as a marriage or the new CP (at no charge).

Or:

2. As a sop to outdated old codgers who inhabit episcopal houses and, sadly, the House of Lords, marriage should be redefined as an exclusively religious institution that they can administer to their flock as they see fit, but without legal force, and civil partnerships should be the new legal term for a civil, legally binding commitment between two people, regardless of gender.

 

[Dave]

What are people's thoughts on retaining civil partnerships as an option under the new legislation? Personally, I consider it somewhat redundant, and with partnerships still only open to same-sex couples, this would open up a different form of discrimination.

I personally feel Civil Partnerships should be maintained and opened up to Heterosexual couples as a simply contractual arrangement to protect certain aspects of a relationships under law (such as next of kin rights)

I know a number of couples who never want to get married but struggle to cope with the idea that should they be hurt in an accident their "partner" might not be able to make a decision over say a parent who they have fallen out with.

 

[mark9]

By calling it just marriage and not just civil partnerships, young people may begin to realise that being gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual is okay, that it isn't a crime to be yourself. That they are like everybody else and not a disease that should be exterminated and talked down.

Will it really change people's minds that much by changing the title, Im just playing devils avicot here but I think the people that hold those sort of views you state won't change there views either way.

I think it would. Words are powerful afterall

 

[Fredward]

I just dont believe you can have a strong opinion on something unless it involves you in someway.

I disagree. I believe that people can have strong opinions on anything, no matter how much they are affected by it. For example, I am firmly against the use of capital punishment, despite not personally knowing of anyone who has suffered this. It does not directly affect me (or most people in this country, for that matter, as it was abolished for murder in the 1960s, and for all crimes in 1998), but I very strongly believe that no matter what a person has done, they should not be executed. (This is a discussion which I may continue in another topic in the future.)

Just like me, I am firmly for the use of capital punishment, despite not personally knowing of anyone who has suffered this.


As for Gay marriage, I r straight yet firmly believe everybody should have every right to have the same options...

There is no reason not to, unless for discrimination, why shouldn't homosexuals have the option to get married? No reason unless you are being homophobic.

It's about campaigning to have equal rights in the choices everyone makes. Why shouldn't that be legal... why should there even be a debate about this.

but ofcourse I don't care about any of this because it doesn't directly affect me in some way...

 

[Martin]

So what really is the issue with it?

Far as I can see, gay people should be allowed to get married and straight people should be allowed civil partnerships. It just seems the most logical and decent thing to do.