Gay Marriage - The Vote

[The Spanish]

If we get too bogged down in history, nothing will ever change.

I haven't read the whole thread so I am not really sure of the unthinking, victimizing and bullying posts that you are referring to. To me it boils down to a fairly simple idea that gay people should have the same rights as straight people. If they are being disadvantaged by having civil partnerships instead of marriages then we should change things s they are not disadvantaged. How we felt about gays historically doesn't really come into it. I also don't think that people should be abused or called names for voting no, they have their reasons and fair enough (although i haven't read one that really makes sense to me yet).

My post was just a little joke about the idea being discussed on the previous page that right wing people are not as smart as left wing people.

disregarding history is humanitys constant and unforgiveable mistake. every generation thinks they know best and they generally end up being proved wrong.

 

[The Spanish]

Presumably people who quote the Bible actually read it, or at least have read the bit they quoted.

you would assume that someone who quotes the bible will have read the quote at least once dave yes.

i would like to wish the rest of NSC a happy State The Obvious Day as well.

 

[User removed 4]

Should I take that as a compliment? Just because one reads a certain paper or a certain journalist does not mean one falls hook line and sinker for everything they say. One can be discriminating in these things.

Really ? One didnt realise before you pointed that out , one will bear that in mind in the future when one buys one's paper.

 

[BadFish]

disregarding history is humanitys constant and unforgiveable mistake. every generation thinks they know best and they generally end up being proved wrong.

I agree in general but do you think this is the case now? or is it part of the evolution of a more civilized and tolerant humanity.

 

[topbanana36]

I have already replied to this above, but just wonder if those who quote the Bible (Leviticus) about homosexuality also refrain from bacon sandwiches, pork sausages, roast pork, prawn cocktails, oysters and any other sort of shellfish. There was a very good article in the Guardian yesterday by Polly Toynbee on the subject pointing out this sort of stuff.

Good point except that these laws are under the Mosaic law and old covenant. Jesus fulfilled this law and Christians now live under Grace.

 

[The Spanish]

I have already replied to this above, but just wonder if those who quote the Bible (Leviticus) about homosexuality also refrain from bacon sandwiches, pork sausages, roast pork, prawn cocktails, oysters and any other sort of shellfish. There was a very good article in the Guardian yesterday by Polly Toynbee on the subject pointing out this sort of stuff.

david that is the singly least imaginative and cliched response in the entire 36 pages of this, well not binfest, but giant landfillfest.

 

[topbanana36]

I have already replied to this above, but just wonder if those who quote the Bible (Leviticus) about homosexuality also refrain from bacon sandwiches, pork sausages, roast pork, prawn cocktails, oysters and any other sort of shellfish. There was a very good article in the Guardian yesterday by Polly Toynbee on the subject pointing out this sort of stuff.

Good point except that these laws are under the Mosaic law and old covenant. Jesus fulfilled this law and Christians now live under Grace.

 

[The Spanish]

I agree in general but do you think this is the case now? or is it part of the evolution of a more civilized and tolerant humanity.

no, social mores are not on one relentless upward trajectory towards utopia. again a more than cursory glance at history proves this time and time again. but this is the mistake we are currently making regularly in our immature and slightly spoilt society. this site proves it daily, people with no real pressures in life taking idiotic standpoints because they have been told thats the right thing to say.

personally i think its great that people can be themselves without fear bullying or repression. that is certainly an advancement no question. but pretending that men marrying men is something that if you have difficulty getting your head round you are a bigot, is a really nasty position to take. its very very very odd considering our history. not acknowledging that is utterly insane.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

you would assume that someone who quotes the bible will have read the quote at least once dave yes.

i would like to wish the rest of NSC a happy State The Obvious Day as well.

It was in response to a "does anybody read the Bible" question, so if it was stating the obvious, it might have been in response to someone who was missing the obvious.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

david that is the singly least imaginative and cliched response in the entire 36 pages of this, well not binfest, but giant landfillfest.

I was merely trying to make the point that people pick and choose sometimes - and with good reason, perhaps. And if that sounds as if it is encouraging people to be hypocritical, it is more about encouraging people to think.

 

[The Spanish]

I was merely trying to make the point that people pick and choose sometimes - and with good reason, perhaps. And if that sounds as if it is encouraging people to be hypocritical, it is more about encouraging people to think.

the inconsistencies of the bible are already well in the public domain dave i would save yourself the time.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Good point except that these laws are under the Mosaic law and old covenant. Jesus fulfilled this law and Christians now live under Grace.

Agreed, but if someone quotes Leviticus, should they take it all or nothing? Having just skimmed through it, it deals with unclean animals, unclean foods, with sacrifice of year old lambs, with whom you should not have sexual relations with, it deals with bestiality as well. Some of it we would clearly accept today as wrong - incest and bestiality, for example, but who would accept the idea of sacrificing a lamb?

 

[Acker79]

question

If this bill is passed and Gay marriage is allowed, which I believe it ultimately will Churches will not be able to refuse a gay marriage based on discrimination one would asume yes ?

My main thought is I can see Christian churches even if begrudgingly obeying the law, However I would assume you would have a cat in hells chance of getting married in a mosque. How is that fair on Christians who oppose and believe their christian values (does not matter if we beieve in god or not they do) and this proposal are wrong and have to let gay marriage go ahead in their church, while the mosque over the road will be laughing their heads off thinking western culture has ultimatly killed the church.

just a question like.

Just two pages back I re-posted something from earlier in the thread. BBC News - QA: Gay marriage - The anti discrimination laws will be changed to allow curches to not conduct gay marriages if they don't want to. No religious institution will be forced to.

I thought gay marriage was already legal? Or is civil partnership not the same thing

As regards the equality that you think was voted on yesterday, the only move towards more equality is just the change of the word Marriage instead of Civil Contract.

Again, as posted earlier:
Gay marriage v civil partnership: what's the difference? | World news | The Guardian - With regard to rights such as next of kin etc. there's no difference, but a civil ceremony is forbidden to include religious music, iconography or texts (bible readings etc), are forbidden from taking place in religious locations. Which is important to religious Gay people.
Socially speaking, the problem is that "civil partnership" is not marriage, it is set aside as being something special for gay people because they can't have marriage. It creates, for lack of a better term, a class system. Gay couples aren't married like straight people, just "civil partners". Allowing prejudices to persist because "their union isn't like a proper marriage". We live in a world obsessed with labels. It's easy for straight white men who have never been second class citizens to not truly understand how important that distinction can be to some people (and not just to gay people who feel less significant as a person because they're not allowed it, but to the bigoted people who dismiss civil partnerships as not really marriage, as something the government did to keep the gays happy etc).

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Always surprises me how many of the people who get so worked up about the idea of gay people having the same basic rights as anybody else are the ones who are absolutely least likely to be affected by it. What POSSIBLE impact could it have on Pork Pie, say, if a couple of women who have been in a monogamous and loving relationship for fifteen years are allowed to formalise their relationship the same as anyone else does? What on earth does it have to do with him? Does his world suddenly come crashing down all around him because (say) Clare Balding now marries her partner?

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Last point on this. I thought the MP discussing incest marriage in parliament was absolutely hilarious.

Yes my last observation having watched a lot of the debate was that I was really shocked at some of the stuff coming out of UK MP's mouths. Quoting 'Adam and Eve' like some scientific fact, waffling on about 'natural science' and biology, whining like children that they had been called bigots for being religious then absolutely loads of 'end of the world scenarios' stating that this will lead to widespread incest or polygamy.

I am forever scoffing at the USA for their system being held to ransom by 'extreme religious beliefs' and yesterday I was actually quite gob smacked by the un-rational and over emotive attitude of some MP's.

 

[User removed 4]

Yes my last observation having watched a lot of the debate was that I was really shocked at some of the stuff coming out of UK MP's mouths. Quoting 'Adam and Eve' like some scientific fact, waffling on about 'natural science' and biology, whining like children that they had been called bigots for being religious then absolutely loads of 'end of the world scenarios' stating that this will lead to widespread incest or polygamy.

I am forever scoffing at the USA for their system being held to ransom by 'extreme religious beliefs' and yesterday I was actually quite gob smacked by the un-rational and over emotive attitude of some MP's.

What about the irrational ones ?

 

[skipper734]

Originally Posted by skipper734
As regards the equality that you think was voted on yesterday, the only move towards more equality is just the change of the word Marriage instead of Civil Contract.



Again, as posted earlier:
Gay marriage v civil partnership: what's the difference? | World news | The Guardian - With regard to rights such as next of kin etc. there's no difference, but a civil ceremony is forbidden to include religious music, iconography or texts (bible readings etc), are forbidden from taking place in religious locations. Which is important to religious Gay people.
Socially speaking, the problem is that "civil partnership" is not marriage, it is set aside as being something special for gay people because they can't have marriage. It creates, for lack of a better term, a class system. Gay couples aren't married like straight people, just "civil partners". Allowing prejudices to persist because "their union isn't like a proper marriage". We live in a world obsessed with labels. It's easy for straight white men who have never been second class citizens to not truly understand how important that distinction can be to some people (and not just to gay people who feel less significant as a person because they're not allowed it, but to the bigoted people who dismiss civil partnerships as not really marriage, as something the government did to keep the gays happy etc).

I don't know the point you are trying to make. Apart from the word marriage there is no appreciable difference. There is a difference however as I pointed out in a previous post, this bill will remove the possibility of Gay Marriage in Anglican Churches.

 

[Acker79]

I don't know the point you are trying to make. Apart from the word marriage there is no appreciable difference. There is a difference however as I pointed out in a previous post, this bill will remove the possibility of Gay Marriage in Anglican Churches.

The difference in the ceremony is very appreciable for some. If you're gay and religious (those people do exist!) and want to celebrate your union in the eyes of god, you can't. Civil Partnership ceremonies are forbidden to do so.

The other point I am trying to make is that you may not see the difference, but for tens of thousands of gay people there is a difference. The law created Civil Partnerships just for gay people because they didn't want to let them get married. Because that's only for normal people. The implication from that is that gay people are not normal. They are not allowed, by law, to be "married". Their relationship, identical in every way, is relegated to a distinct other level. That distinction allows the propagation of prejudices.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

What about the irrational ones ?

Touche Grammar and punctuation test. - Page 3 post '46.

With my english and your maths we could conquer the world

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Reading through this thread it seems like no matter how many totally credible arguments are put to those in the 'no' camp, it always seems to boil down to "well I just don't think it's right".