UK Government Stance on Gay Marriage

tbrguy

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Posts
1,123
Media
18
Likes
133
Points
183
Location
The North of England
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
"If people want to live by a set of values delivered to them on a plate without thinking or reasoning themselves.."
Wow!! Whatever you do,don't ever allow anyone to accuse you of making patronizing and whopping generalizations What a jerk.
"belief (plural beliefs)
Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence."

"faith (countable and uncountable; plural faiths)
A feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, without having evidence."

Source: WD

The 'jerk' would like to remind the 'superbot' of the meaning of a couple of words intrinsic to religions and their adherents.
 
S

superbot

Guest
"belief (plural beliefs)
Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence."

"faith (countable and uncountable; plural faiths)
A feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, without having evidence."

Source: WD

The 'jerk' would like to remind the 'superbot' of the meaning of a couple of words intrinsic to religions and their adherents.
Or that Darwins Theory of Relativity remains just that a theory...as it has still not be ultimately proven and thus until it is proven it will remain as Darwins THEORY of relativity.Doesn't prevent believing in it tho.
 
S

superbot

Guest
But the Church's influence DOES dictate government, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate on this thread now, would we? There would already be legislation that makes marriage equal! The only reason it hasn't been made equal yet is because of the Church, and the Church's influence over politics! Don't misquote me and imply that I said that the general population shouldn't vote with their beliefs in mind. I stated that legislation should not be written with religious beliefs in mind. There is a huge difference.

And, yes, you are absolutely right! I don't account for the concept of 'faith'! Faith is a complete disregard for the facts. Faith is a concept that hopes and wishes and prays on something being real, rather than looking at the evidence and making an informed, educated decision. Every morning I wake up and have faith that there will be enough milk in the fridge so that I can eat my Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes. But that still doesn't mean that I DO have milk, does it? When the facts are taken into account, and I remember that I used most of it making a cheese sauce for my dinner last night, no amount of 'faith' will fill that bottle back up! At that point, it's time to face the cold hard FACTS OF LIFE, and get my ass out to the shop! So, do I think that people with religious faith are deluded? YES! Stupid? No. Don't put words into my mouth.

And Atheists don't know everything. But we know how to think logically... that's the first step, at least.
So let me get this straight.People who might be against gay marriage,Church or otherwise,are 'DICTATING'' their beliefs and yet people such as yourself are merely voicing your opinion in democratic terms.It seems to me someone is using bullying terminology accordingly to point score.
I would be still interested to know your opinion of the my comments corncerning the tens of millions of people who lost their lives during the 20th century through aethesitic poiliticans and their policies.Would you agree that this genocide against human life was a-typical of people of 'no (Religious) belief' or it just a huge and inaccurate genaralization along the lines you yourself drew up in an attempt to rubbish religion in generalized and cliched terms..........?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bigred0818

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Posts
227
Media
0
Likes
84
Points
188
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I didn't reply to that because you are putting words in my mouth again by insinuating that because I mentioned the atrocities of religious violence, you automatically assumed that I was grouping the entire religious population similarly as violent. If you had read and understood what I was saying, you would know I was suggesting that marriage discrimination is another form of religious violence, albeit a mild one. However, the point I was making, seeing as you need it clarifying, is that religious bullying continues to influence political decision, even in the 21st century.

In regards to your other post, It was Einstein who developed the theory of relativity, not Darwin. Darwin's theory was of Evolution. This error forces me to BELIEVE that it is YOU who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about and because of the fact that you don't know BASIC scientific theories, I cannot engage in conversation with you anymore. And, further more, any previous post that you have contributed shall be stricken down in the history books as the biggest load of bull crap since... Well, the BIBLE!

Kthxbai.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So let me get this straight.People who might be against gay marriage,Church or otherwise,are 'DICTATING'' their beliefs and yet people such as yourself are merely voicing your opinion in democratic terms.
Opinion polls show the majority in the UK favours allowing gay marriage. Cant say what the figures are in the US. But in the Uk the will of the majority is being obstructed. Now, I think it quite right churches should not be obliged to marry people against their beliefs, but when the churches also want the right to do so i dont see why this is even an arguable point.

The paradox of language is that a scientiic 'theory' is actually something for which evidence exists that it seems to be true. However, scientist label it thus to invite others to try to disprove it.

Whereas, a religious belief is something a church considers to be absoulutely true, and all sorts of action is taken against anyone who challenges it.
 
Last edited:

Adrian69702006

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Posts
2,761
Media
69
Likes
2,233
Points
433
Location
Lincoln (Lincolnshire, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
A few years ago the UK government introduced "Civil Partnerships" for same sex couples. To all intents and purposes, this is marriage in all but name.

In order to present the UK Conservative Party as being more in touch with contemporary attitudes, David Cameron and his government decided to make it their policy to change the law and allow same sex couples to actually get "Married". As far as I can tell, this would make no practical difference but would allow same sex couples to have a certificate which says "Marriage" instead of "Civil Partnership". So far this has not happened.

This week we find out that the Prime Minister has decided to drop the policy of moving towards same sex marriage. Apparently, the reason is that he wants to avoid alienating the right wing of the Conservative Party.

So, it seems pretty clear that having (or not having) a policy of allowing same sex marriage has nothing at all to do with what he Prime Minister believes it right or wrong. It's simply a matter of who he wants to curry favour with.

However, why should anyone care? He thinks people will vote for him because he supports same sex marriage. Why, when we already have it under another name? He thinks the right wing of his party will find it unacceptible to allow same sex marriage. Why? They lost the battle years ago because we already have same sex marriage under another name.

Views?

From my blog:

In what’s clearly meant to be a populist move, Mr Cameron appears to be staking his honour on the legalisation of gay marriage within the United Kingdom. When the proposals first surfaced some time ago we were assured that such marriages would be purely civil affairs and churches would not be required – or even allowed – to conduct such ceremonies. Yesterday we were told that the legislation would allow churches to opt into conducting such marriages, but that no religious body would be compelled to solemnise gay unions if it didn’t wish to. Today we are told that the Church of England and the Church in Wales will be exempted from the permissive legislation and will now NOT be allowed to conduct the ceremonies in question, unless further primary legislation is brought forward. We can see how the Government might seek to exempt the Church of England from the legislation as it is the established church. It less clear how the Church in Wales, disestablished in 1920, might be exempted from the permissive legislation. Furthermore we doubt whether the Government would have the power to exempt any religious bodies from the legislation, were the European Court of Human Rights to determine otherwise.

Clearly the Government is in a mess over this ill conceived idea and needs to go back to the drawing board. It needs to revisit not only the detail of the proposed legislation but, whether in fact, the legalisation of gay marriage is either necessary or advisable. Of course Labour and Liberal Democrat party grandees support the idea because it accords with their “progressive” centre-left instincts to do so. However it is far from universally supported within the Conservative party. Many within the party are far from happy with the idea and for good reason. We doubt whether there is really widespread public support for this measure and we know that it is not as widely supported by the gay community as it might be.

Seven years ago the last Government introduced Civil Partnerships, a wise and humane step to address the difficulties faced by same sex couples, effectively conferring all the important rights of marriage but without using the name itself. There is no reason why religious bodies can’t devise and authorise services of blessing for use following Civil Partnership ceremonies if they so wish and a pastoral need is perceived to exist. Marriage – the union of a man and a woman - is an ancient institution predating Christianity and the modern state by a long time. We think it is doubtful whether the state has the authority to redefine marriage and any attempt to do so can only lead to the creation of unhappy confusions.
 

brinzaulsschwul

Worshipped Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Posts
5,513
Media
0
Likes
12,177
Points
318
Location
Switzerland - Lenzerheide
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
As a gay man, I do not want to get married in a church by people that fundamentally hate (yes it is a strong word isn't it) me for being gay and want to pray for my soul and convert me to their way of heterosexual life. Not until the churches - christians - accept me for being a homosexual do I want to have anything to do with their religion, or any others.
Frankly religion has so much hatred within it, I'm not sure I would want anything to do with it should it accept homosexuals with open arms throw themselves on a fire and beg for forgiveness. There are catholics fighting protestants, jew fighting jew, muslim fighting muslin because their sects are slightly different. Then of course there is muslim flight jew and jew fightling muslim, muslim fighting christian and christian fightlng muslim and so it goes on.

As for the twat mr cameron, he is just a public school boy playing politics in the big boys world and the sooner there is an election to get rid of him the better. Is it any wonder that hardly anyone bothered to vote recently in the UK.

Brinz
 

Adrian69702006

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Posts
2,761
Media
69
Likes
2,233
Points
433
Location
Lincoln (Lincolnshire, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
As a gay man, I do not want to get married in a church by people that fundamentally hate (yes it is a strong word isn't it) me for being gay and want to pray for my soul and convert me to their way of heterosexual life. Not until the churches - christians - accept me for being a homosexual do I want to have anything to do with their religion, or any others.
Frankly religion has so much hatred within it, I'm not sure I would want anything to do with it should it accept homosexuals with open arms throw themselves on a fire and beg for forgiveness. There are catholics fighting protestants, jew fighting jew, muslim fighting muslin because their sects are slightly different. Then of course there is muslim flight jew and jew fightling muslim, muslim fighting christian and christian fightlng muslim and so it goes on.

As for the twat mr cameron, he is just a public school boy playing politics in the big boys world and the sooner there is an election to get rid of him the better. Is it any wonder that hardly anyone bothered to vote recently in the UK.

Brinz

There's no reason why you should ever get married in a church which isn't accepting of your sexuality. However as I hope you're aware, there are plenty of churches which affirm gay people as well as those who are straight or bi, and where you would have no reasonable grounds for fearing irrational prejudice or homophobic attitudes.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Right now parliament is debating allowing gay marriage, which is expected to pass. The legal ramifications seem to be negligible, just that calling gay marriages civil partnerships will stop, they will be carried out by the same people and same places as conventional marriages, and be called marriages. The rules allow many churches -only if they wish - to carry out same sex weddings. peculiarly the church of england is expressly excluded form being able to chooses to perform gay marriages should it wish.

After listening to the arguments a bit i am afraid opposition to this all comes do bias against gays. The practical changes are small, because partnerships are already legally recognised. There seems to be a big chunk of opposition to gays being allowed to say they are Married. Likewise, to churches being allowed to carry out such marriages. Surely this makes no difference to any church, which is simply allowed to do this if it wants.... unless some minority within the church is still fighting a rearguard action to stop that church accepting gay marriage, and is seeking to do this by keeping it illegal even though the majority in that church might wish it.

The conservative party has got itself into a complete knot on this. Conservatives have systematically opposed every reform allowing gay rights, only retrospectively embracing changes after thay have been forced upon them (by the public!), but always complaining about the next step. The british public wants equal rights for gays. Conservatives by a significant majority oppose this.

So it is even stranger that the conservative leader, David Cameron, has decided to force this through. Not least because he too has a long record of opposing all the reforms to provide gay rights. In opinion polls the public, by a wide majority, believes this is a cynical move to try to win some votes. Cameron's move, trying to demonstrate he represents the 'nice' party, is seriously undermined by MP afte MP from his party coming forward to denounce this. While at the same time he cannot possibly retreat, because that would be the final proof the whole party opposes gays.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
legalisation of gay marriage has now gone through the UK parliament by a landslide.

The Conservatives didn't have to introduce this legislation. It was not in the main part of their manifesto (arguably implied by the small print, but not clearly there) and was not in the Coalition agreement. The debate has torn the party apart. It has been very messy poliically. But at least the Conservatives have done it. This is progress for the nation.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Apparently gays cannot fail to consummate a marriage and do not recognise adultery as grounds for a divorce. How sensible, shouldnt the same apply to straights?
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
when jason says 'gone through' he means the house of commons gave it a second reading. Has to go to lords, back to commons, queen.... Their lordships are a queer lot and may yet throw in some changes. Some of the bishops may even object to the bill refusing the Church of England the right to do these marriages. More than half conservative MPs voted against so it is more correct to say this bill was passed by labour MPs.

Newsnight just found a conservative willing to support the bill, Francis Maude, whose brother apparently commited suicide because of his homosexuality. Takes something like that to make a conservative think. Maude had been part of the conservative government which introduced clause 28 (which banned anything positive being said about homosexuality in state schools)
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I did listen to a lot of the parliamentary debate today via parliamentlive.tv. It was quite interesting, but as dandelion says the arguments against marriage equality basically came down to "because it makes me uncomfortable and gays will never be 'normal' or 'as worthy' as straight folk." Also plenty of bible mumbo-jumbo with disregard for the fact that plenty of clergy and religious scholars say christianity is not so clear the sinfulness on same-sex relationships as we know them.

So many were complaining that they would be troubled by a homosexual union defining itself in the same way as a heterosexual union. But they're all for "equality"! A real test of whether it really is just the name that bothers them would be to let gay and lesbian couples have the word "marriage" -- and straight couples, to differentiate their superior status and special value to society, would get the word "breediffitude". Gay couples would by law not be able to enter into a breediffitudinous union, so opposite-gender couples could have their special nomenclature.

Oh, what's that? You're not willing to accept separate-but-equal if you can't have the name you want? This really does come down to childish tantrums. For some, it never was about the relationship stability of all couples. After all, how can they continue to call homosexuals promiscuous, selfish and self-destructive if gay men and lesbians are entering into the same hallowed institution of marriage? Gotta keep them second-class so they'll always be "other".

There was plenty of talk in parliament today about love, but I felt that many were missing the point. Yes, modern marriage has a greater element of love than the historical marriage for property accumulation and preservation, but the fundamental idea of two people coming together to ensure each others' welfare and to be viewed as a single unit by the government is equally applicable to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples. In the United States, married partners cannot be compelled to testify against one another in a court of law, but those in a civil union or domestic partnership can. This constitutional concept is based on the intimacy and indivisibility of the union, not on where a penis goes.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
when jason says 'gone through' he means the house of commons gave it a second reading. Has to go to lords, back to commons, queen.... Their lordships are a queer lot and may yet throw in some changes. Some of the bishops may even object to the bill refusing the Church of England the right to do these marriages.

Yes there are subsequent steps, but this is happening.

I trust the pun is unintentional (queer Lords). If necessary Cameron will appoint additional Lords to get this through - something he would probably like to do anyway. I don't understand the CofE opt out - the CofE should have the legal right to marry same-sex if one day it decides it wants too. Maybe this opt out can be removed.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The pun is quite deliberate and quite irresistable given how strange these events are.

i think the specific denial for the Cof E to be able to carry out same sex marriages if it wants is very odd. Once again the logic seems to be a sop to anti-gay campaigners. The queerness of the situation is that parliament, well Cameron, has decided to exclude the C of E and some bishops have already protested about this. It is doubly odd when the historical trend ought to be to free the CofE from control by parliament, yet this specifically takes matters in the opposite direction. Thus the bishops may see this as an issue of the church's right to self-determination not just the obvious issue. So paradoxically even anti-gay bishops might find themselves on the queer side of the argument and be proposing what might be seen as further liberalisation.
 

loncam

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Posts
279
Media
7
Likes
322
Points
258
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Apparently gays cannot fail to consummate a marriage and do not recognise adultery as grounds for a divorce. How sensible, shouldnt the same apply to straights?

I hope that, as this bill passes through parliament in the next stages, these issues will be debated. The end result should be equality. The grounds for annulment or divorce should be the same for gay and straight couples.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I hope that, as this bill passes through parliament in the next stages, these issues will be debated. The end result should be equality. The grounds for annulment or divorce should be the same for gay and straight couples.

An interesting thought.

I'm inclined to see it as a process, not something we're going to get right in one go. The move to introducing gay marriage is a big step and one the present government could easily have decided was politically too difficult. Something is better than nothing.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The end result should be equality.
I dont see why in this era non-consummation should be a specific ground for divorce. This all harks back to a time when divorce was exceedingly difficult but now it isnt. Likewise, I dont reall see why we need any grounds except that one of the parties wants to dissolve the marriage. From the states perspective, its a contract which gives certain privileges and needs a formal way to end it.

But that all does beg the question why people should be objecting to creating gay marriages which are a modernised version of old law. Are they objecting because they think heterosexuals still need these special rules to argue about?