UK: Gay Marriage by 2015?

Scroll to see replies

About time. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one.

I don't understand why some people are so outraged, just a bunch of busy body curtain twitchers that like to interfere in the lives of everyone else.

It's the fact that we will be changing law to suit them ? i don't care too much but why after thousands of years do they want to change it so they are allowed to get married aswell ? can't they just leave it the way it is and still love one another

Reply 61

Selkarn

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

Tolerance is overrated. Why tolerate a religion that given the chance would like nothing more than to wipe me and my ilk from the face of the earth? I will not tolerate religion, I am sick of being told to respect your beliefs - they are wrong. No, more than that - they are abhorrent. Racism and sexism are wrong because you cannot change what you are in terms of your biological makeup, as a consequence I do not tolerate such beliefs. If you're a theist of any stripe then frankly you're fair game - you chose to believe a bunch of crap about your eternal soul and a celestial North Korea (thanks, Hitchens!), so don't expect us to let up any time soon.

So? You're the ones in the wrong here, you're just going to have to deal with it. Not our problem if you're bigoted against a natural variant of human sexuality.

I doubt you'll watch it, I doubt even more that if you do watch it, it will be with an open mind.

What are "you and your ilk"? :rolleyes:

Reply 62

Aphotic Cosmos

Original post by theoferdinand

Because the law has been wrong for those thousands of years.

Reply 63

theoferdinand

I do think they use the words holy matrimony for a reason

Reply 64

fexysucker

Original post by Selkarn

Many Muslims/Christians will feel like there is a devaluation of their religious values.

boo hoo.

21st century Britain is a secular society where religion is given little credibility, get used to it.

Reply 65

Chav Princess

Original post by Selkarn

Fixed for you, but you were nearly there.

Frankly, who cares? That's secularism. Theists may wish to keep their views and practices stuck in a time centuries ago, but society does not have to.

Wrong, it does. Many Muslims/Christians will feel like there is a devaluation of their religious values. Whereas previously there was a strict man/woman criteria for this marriage, it would be a free for all with no criteria whatsoever, and many Muslims/Christians will feel like a part of their religion has been devalued due to this.

Gay marriage does not affect Muslims or Christians. Full stop. You yourself admitted it will not affect you so long as 'true' practitioners of faith do not carry out religious gay marriage ceremonies.

And how convenient of you to ignore my mosque/church analogy. Because if we ban gay marriage not to upset theists who may feel marginalised, then we must also ban the construction of mosques and churches so as to not upset homosexuals who may feel marginalised.

Reply 66

Selkarn

Original post by Chav Princess

Frankly, who cares?

So you don't care about marginalisation of large sections of the British population.

Never go into politics. :rofl:

Original post by Chav Princess

Gay marriage does not affect Muslims or Christians.

I've just explained to you how it does:

"Many Muslims/Christians will feel like there is a devaluation of their religious values. Whereas previously there was a strict man/woman criteria for this marriage, it would be a free for all with no criteria whatsoever, and many Muslims/Christians will feel like a part of their religion has been devalued due to this."

Reply 67

Selkarn

Original post by theoferdinand

There's one thing you soon come to realise when you observe this political theme - many homosexuals (such as some in this thread) aren't interested in equality. That's beneath them. What they're interested in is supremacy and preferential treatment from the government.

From the homosexual bigot bullies who sued a pub owner just because he didn't want them kissing in the pob, to the homosexual bigot bullies who sued b&b owners because they exercised their right to let who they wanted stay in their home, to the homosexual bigot bullies who want to eradicate the long tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman. Things never change, there will be no stopping them - their greed is endless - unless we stand up to them at one point, preferably sooner rather than later.

Reply 68

fire2burn

Original post by theoferdinand

It is simply the natural progression of things towards parity and equality. Why should they have to put up with some bodge job second class civil partnership system? The whole thing would have been lot simpler had they just legalised it and called it gay marriage from the start rather than wasting time setting up the civil partnership's.

Reply 69

Sovr'gnChancellor£

I think there is a lot of dilly-dallying about nothing. Parliament should just get it over and done with and stop dithering. We have more important matters to address, for goodness' sakes!

Original post by Selkarn

So you don't care about marginalisation of large sections of the British population.

Never go into politics. :rofl:

So, providing equality to a minority marginalises large sections of the British population who subscribe to a belief system - that happens to be theistic? That's like saying allowing interracial marriage marginalises BNP members and people who subscribe to racist ideologies.

That does not directly or even indirectly marginalise Muslims/Christians - it does not affect them in their day-to-day lives and they are not being forced to witness, ordain or be any part of gay marriage.

And why shouldn't we devalue religion? Why do theists need to have their feelings protected?

I mean, should we refrain from adopting capitalist practices? Socialists and communists may feel marginalised and that the belief systems in which they subscribe to are being devalued.

Reply 72

tieyourmotherdown

This is great news. Perhaps most significant is that this is being passed by a Conservative government, as a lot of people (myself included), thought if gay marriage would come about it would be through Labour. We're not exactly the most progressive country in the World, so to have Conservative leader in favour of gay marriage, an issue which now has support from all of our main leaders, is quite something and makes you proud to be British.

But yes, this piece of legislation is overdue, but massively welcome. Thankfully also faith groups won't be forced to perform marriages, as that only creates problems, and hopefully this, albeit largely symbolic, change will help to reinforce the idea that LGBT+ people are not second class citizens.

Reply 73

ackbar

Out of interest, why is this such a big issue? Since the introduction of Civil Partnerships, homosexual couples have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples - what is the issue with what its called? The only people who seem to think of Civil Partnerships as a "second class" bodge job appear to be militant members of the LBGT community.

Personally I believe that the amount of time, effort, and taxpayers money that will be spent on a consultation over what is essentially a change in wording is unnecessary at a time when every government department needs to save money. That money and time could be better spent on much more important issues such as the revision of the NHS, social inequalities and unemployment. I'm not trying to belittle civil unions, but seriously, why all the fuss over a technicality?

Reply 74

Cornish student

Original post by Selkarn

If it was between a man and a woman, yes. :smile:

As I said. This doesn't really bother me, as it doesn't affect me. No real Islamic institution will perform a male/male Islamic marriage, and nobody will ever be able to force them to either, and that's all that matters to me, not what some silly pseudo-Christian modernist church does. Therefore in my opinion, and the opinion of other Muslims/Christians, there is no such thing as gay marriage, and there never will be, no matter what the government call it. Accept that fact :smile:

The current laws mean that civil partnerships are not allowed to take place in a religious setting. Some homosexuals are religious and so would like their partnership to be recognised by their church. Some churches believe that homosexual marriages do not conflict with scripture or have different/more liberal interpretations and would like to offer such a service to homosexuals but are unable to due to the law preventing them from.

Since you aren't bothered by it then I suppose you aren't against churches being allowed to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies, so long as other denominations are not forced into doing it (which isn't being proposed).

To the OP, I think that homosexual couples should be allowed to get married in churches which support gay marriage. However, it should not be forced on churches which believe it is a violation of their scripture. Personally I would never have a gay marriage as I am an atheist. I will however like to become civil partners with someone to affirm my love for them in front of the fam/friends (the legal benefits aren't bad either).

Reply 75

dennisraymondsmith

The thing is marriage has turned into such a FARCE nowadays so you might aswell let them .

Reply 76

ackbar

Original post by Cornish student

A change in the definition of marriage wouldn't necessarily mean homosexuals can have a religious ceremony. At the end of the day the Church (as an organisation) would have the final say as to whether to allow same-sex unions.

Call me a cynic but all that would happen is certain parts of the country would allow a religious same-sex union in order to raise money for their community, BUT, you would still have a situation where some areas allow it whilst others don't. Unless of course you want the government to start dictating to the church about how they should administer their religion!

Reply 77

JacobW

Typical Lib Dem rubbish. Civil partnerships don't oppress gay people or make them second-class citizens; I can't see what benefit changing the word used to refer to their relationships would confer on anyobody. With so many genuine problems facing the country, it's extordinary that a Cobservative-lead government is wasting time and money on some dreary consulatation over a policy that achieves nothing except satisfying liberal ideology. If it could be done in five minutes at a cost of to the taxpayer of 50p, I'd be all in favour of gay marriage; otherwise, I couldn't care less about the issue.

Reply 78

TomDut

Original post by bouillabaisse

It is a waste of government time. With civil partnerships now available their is no reason for gay people to get married.

True. Just as there was no need for black people to want to use white-only cafes and schools when they had their own during apartheid.

Reply 79

ackbar

Original post by TomDut

True. Just as there was no need for black people to want to use white-only cafes and schools when they had their own during apartheid.

I'm sorry did you just compare Gay Marriage to the oppression and persecution of an entire section of society based on the colour of their skin!?!

Society is not persecuting, bullying, de-humanising and ostracising the entire LBGT community over civil unions! Civil Partners are not regarded as a sub-species, civil partnerships are regarded in the eyes of the law as equal and identical to marriage. To compare your campaign to change the definition of marriage to the struggle of a race of people to get equal recognition is NOT the same, and quite frankly an insult!

Admittedly it took far too long to achieve legal recognition but seriously, comparing it to apartheid!?! :angry: