Gay Marriage - The Vote

[User removed 4]

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

With my english and your maths we could conquer the world

I thought you might pull me up on that , if you could have felt the crushing humiliation that I felt when I realised what I had done, and my smug , self satisfied persona rapidly deflated you'd have pissed yourself , in fairness , I was juggling a lot of other numbers at work at the same time

 

[supaseagull]

Voted no. I'd be genuinely interested to know why. Why 'no' to gay marriage? Do gay people deserve to not be allowed into Churches for ceremonies? Are their relationships more likely to fail? Is it a good think to distinguish between marriage and civil partnerships? Really I can't fathom it? Perhaps it's just intolerance of people you see as different? I have no idea! If someone, anyone, can present a decent argument, I'd love to see it.

I explained my reasons...However, you have clearly contradicted yourself and it's surely YOU who is the one being intolerant of other peoples views and beliefs by saying we should all conform to what YOU believe in?

 

[skipper734]

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.

We agree then. Apart from the fact that you are making assumptions as too the feelings of people affected by this Law.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Secondly and probably more importantly, same sex civil partnerships have the highest "divorce" rate in the country and it has increased last year by 28.7% compared to 2010. The whole culture around same sex relationships is completely different to male/female marriages and that is statistically proven by the Office of National Stastics to be more likely to break down.

I think you may have your statistics a bit confused there supa, the dissolution rate of civil partnerships rose by 28%, but the actual rate was really low in the first place, so the 28% increase meant the actual rate of civil partnerships ending in dissolution (it's a different term to divorce as they are not married...) is still only about 8%.

Compare that to the same sex divorce rate; its still just over 40%.

 

[BadFish]

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.

Maybe this proves your point but I don't really see this (like i said I haven't read the whole thread). I see people having a discussion about something (it is unfortunate that we can't have a discussion without name calling but that is the nature of NSC).

I think maybe it is as bad to belittle peoples opinions by accusing them of "taking idiotic standpoints because they have been told thats the right thing to say" as it is to call people bigots because they struggle with the idea of gay marriage (it seems to me most people who voted no, did so on religious grounds rather than bigotry).

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

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

I agree, but some people on here do not seem to realise it... and sadly probably never will. Why They no listen.

 

[Acker79]

We agree then. Apart from the fact that you are making assumptions as too the feelings of people affected by this Law.

My "assumptions" are based on the comments of people affected by the law both at the time civil partnerships were introduced and in various debates since then.

 

[El Presidente]

in fairness , I was juggling a lot of other numbers at work at the same time

A couple of 36DD's by any chance [MENTION=11956]bushy[/MENTION] ?

 

[User removed 4]

A couple of 36DD's by any chance [MENTION=11956]bushy[/MENTION] ?

Snigger ! Have to say I dont like 'em " too big"

 

[Mellotron]

I'm a Christian and have voted Yes but can understand and to an extent respect the viewpoint of most who have voted No.

 

[Common as Mook]

I'm a Christian and have voted Yes but can understand and to an extent respect the viewpoint of most who have voted No.

I think that pretty much covers it. It's by no means the black and white issue it has been made out to be by the noisier element on here.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

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.

I understand that for the majority of gay men and women, it is not a lifestyle choice. However, I do ask that they understand that as a result of their sexuality certain things which are accessible to heterosexual couples, may not be open to them. That includes having children (as anatomically we have evolved on the basis that a union between men and women is the norm, like it or not) and that the church, has decreed that single sex relationships go against the teachings of the church and therefore cannot be sanctified in church. All of us have to make choices in life and sometimes have to put up with things not being accessible to us.

If I was born Jewish, a bacon sandwich would be a no no. I would have to leave the faith or put up with it. Same if I had been born a muslim. All of us have had to deal with the hand we were born with, but do not expect society to give in to us every time we feel unequal.

 

[The Large One]

I understand that for the majority of gay men and women, it is not a lifestyle choice. However, I do ask that they understand that as a result of their sexuality certain things which are accessible to heterosexual couples, may not be open to them. That includes having children (as anatomically we have evolved on the basis that a union between men and women is the norm, like it or not) and that the church, has decreed that single sex relationships go against the teachings of the church and therefore cannot be sanctified in church. All of us have to make choices in life and sometimes have to put up with things not being accessible to us.

If I was born Jewish, a bacon sandwich would be a no no. I would have to leave the faith or put up with it. Same if I had been born a muslim. All of us have had to deal with the hand we were born with, but do not expect society to give in to us every time we feel unequal.

... which completely undoes the concept of free-thinking.

Thankfully, not everyone lives their lives by such dogma, and even the biological obstacles you've thrown up there can be overcome.

 

[boik]

I think that pretty much covers it. It's by no means the black and white issue it has been made out to be by the noisier element on here.

Surely racism is "the black and white issue"?

 

[FREDBINNEY]

... which completely undoes the concept of free-thinking.

Thankfully, not everyone lives their lives by such dogma, and even the biological obstacles you've thrown up there can be overcome.

Well perhaps in your free thinking world you can accept that not everyone holds the same view as you , and the biological obstacles really , really cant be overcome ,no matter how much you may wish, same sex couples cannot procreate, sure you can make a mockery of what nature intended, but you cannot overcome the obstacles, I want to play football for England, nature has decreed I cant, guess what, I accept it.

 

[father_and_son]

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".

Agree, I can not see a single valid argument being put forward.

Religion: That's great, but you have the 4locks to protect your religion, now butt out of everyone else's decisions
Children: True, a male and female role model would be great for every child. But then children grow up to be model citizens from non-traditional households and role models can (and most often do) come from outside the immediate family group. Now, butt out of everyone else's decisions
Marriage: The word "means" one man and one woman. Whoa... when we stopped selling daughters for a camel and two goats, we FUNDAMENTALLY changed the meaning of marriage. This is no different. Now, butt out of everyone else's decisions
Homophobia: Oh ok you are a bigot, but you can't catch "gay". Growing up seeing it at close hand, whether from parents, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc has NEVER been shown to influence the sexuality of children (there is has been shown to be a statistical increase in OPENLY gay children where a close family member is also out but this is correlation NOT causation!). Now butt out of... no, wait... drop dead!

As straight male with no axe to grind and no agenda to keep, I am extremely happy that common sense has prevailed and we, as a nation, have taken one step closer to just butting out of everyone else's decisions!

 

[The Large One]

Well perhaps in your free thinking world you can accept that not everyone holds the same view as you , and the biological obstacles really , really cant be overcome ,no matter how much you may wish, same sex couples cannot procreate, sure you can make a mockery of what nature intended, but you cannot overcome the obstacles, I want to play football for England, nature has decreed I cant, guess what, I accept it.

In my free-thinking world, people are free to pick and choose what they wish, specifically regarding ancient dogma; the religious beliefs of our forefathers.

Regarding your dogma of biological issues, this is demonstrably untrue.

As I said in an earlier post, there have been children of same-sex couples (where one of the women is the biological mother) at my partner's school, and everyone is perfectly happy. The fact that there is a biological father in all this is beside the point - we're talking about same-sex partnerships / marriages here.

 

[Mackenzie]

Seems like its all turned out for the best then, the majority are satisfied and us bigots get to shrug our shoulders and have another thing to moan about.

Its a good news story.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Seems like its all turned out for the best then, the majority are satisfied and us bigots get to shrug our shoulders and have another thing to moan about.

Its a good news story.

IT'S NOT LAW YET
regards
DR

 

[Albumen]