Gay marriage thread

[Beef Oven]

Endorsed.

The "side" that FF is on is that of reasoned, polite debate, whatever the opinion. No smart alec jibes - from any "side".

[Beef Oven]

That is not what I wrote, nor may it be concluded therefrom; even if we agree for the time being to draw a veil (sorry!) over any exception of Muslims in this issue, however, the point still stands that there is no hard and fast evidence - or at least none that has been submitted here for consideration - that among subscribers to religious groups the majority view is against SSM and, in any case, no consideration has been given to the possibility of changes of viewpoint within such groups arising from increasing legal endorsement and social acceptability of SSM.


Which side is that, then - and who decides or has decided this - FF?

Why are you bringing ff into this?

[MrGongGong]

I agree with the Marquess of Lothian, a little further down at 8:04pm.

"Rather—and this is my main concern—this Bill is highly offensive to many decent, tolerant and moderate Christians and to many decent, tolerant and moderate Muslims, and indeed to many others, including people of no religion at all, who see it understandably as an attack on something they hold very special and very dear and which has been held so for many years before them. They are angered by the fact that they were not consulted about this. They were not asked about it before the previous election."





We weren't asked about any of the nonsense this joke government are doing
and I seem to remember mrPee insisting that we had a "democratically elected" government with a viable mandate

So only when it suits you I guess ?

[ahinton]

Why are you bringing ff into this?

For the answer to that, please read the question posed immediately before I did so; anyway, FF has now clarified (as if that were necessary for most of us) what her "side" is here although, unless I misunderstand your emoticon use, your post suggests that you find this funny.

[ahinton]

I agree with the Marquess of Lothian, a little further down at 8:04pm.

And the noble Lord is as entitled to his opinion and to express it in HoL as you are to agree with it, but if his and others' like arguments do not represent a majority in that place against the legislation, so be it, surely? After all, as Mr GG reminds us, you have in the past insisted that we have "a "democratically elected" government with a viable mandate" and, whilst we admittedly do not have an elected HoL, we do have an elected HoC which had already passed this legislation before popping it upstairs for lordly consideration.

[MrGongGong]

They really do talk a load of DB's these so called "Lords" (The only "Lord" worth bothering with is probably "Lord" Tufnel of Spandex ? and YES he really IS a real one )

This , for example .......

The defining process of marriage is consummation, which is for the entirely practical purpose of bringing children into the world—the creation of families which have been the building block of society for centuries. The marriage of two men or two women cannot naturally bring about the purpose of marriage; legally perhaps, but naturally not.

eeerrr NO it's not
It might be for YOU
but not to a great many people,
I don't see all these defenders of "traditional marriage" (another iffy phrase indeed along with CP , 1950's housewife etc etc .......) campaigning to prevent women from getting married after the menopause ? or those of us blokes who have had the snip being likewise banned ?

[Mr Pee]

We weren't asked about any of the nonsense this joke government are doing

Yes we were.

and I seem to remember mrPee insisting that we had a "democratically elected" government with a viable mandate

And yes I did because yes they were.

That doesn't mean one has to agree with everything they do.

[MrGongGong]

Yes we were.

False memory syndrome methinks ?

Were mr Gove's plans in any manifesto ?
for example ......

and the (old one I know , so sorry to bring it up again !!) so called "Pledge" that Clegg signed ?
and so on
and so on

We were asked
but most people wanted something else
but never mind because that's what we voted for eeeeeeer or didn't in the majority of cases

sad indeed

BUT at least they have got this one right !!! so here's to a step in the right direction (Talisker as i'm now in Scotland)

[ahinton]

They really do talk a load of DB's these so called "Lords"

Some of them, perhaps...

This , for example .......

The defining process of marriage is consummation, which is for the entirely practical purpose of bringing children into the world—the creation of families which have been the building block of society for centuries. The marriage of two men or two women cannot naturally bring about the purpose of marriage; legally perhaps, but naturally not.

eeerrr NO it's not
It might be for YOU
but not to a great many people,
I don't see all these defenders of "traditional marriage" (another iffy phrase indeed along with CP , 1950's housewife etc etc .......) campaigning to prevent women from getting married after the menopause ? or those of us blokes who have had the snip being likewise banned ?

Indeed; there's never been a law to make successful reproduction a compulsory element of a marriage and (obviously) not all opposite sex marriages have resulted in children, whether by choice or otherwise so, if a "traditional marriage" has not only to be between two members of the opposite sex but also result in offspring, then an awful lot of perfectly legal and socially acceptable marriages are demonstrably outwith that "tradition", a fact that undermines such arguments about "traditional marriages".

Never mind; although it's not quite law yet, it almost certainly will be, just as it already is elsewhere and, as some who remain determinedly anti-SSM seem not always fully to appreciate when putting forward what passes for their arguments, no kind of marriage (or indeed civil partnership, for that matter) between two people of the same or opposite sex is actually compulsory!...

[ahinton]

Yes we were.



And yes I did because yes they were.

That doesn't mean one has to agree with everything they do.

No, of course it doesn't, but it does mean that legislation passed by government must be accepted as having been passed and thereby implemented, irrespective of what any individual voter might agree or disagree with; that's the real point here.

[Serial_Apologist]

,
I don't see all these defenders of "traditional marriage" (another iffy phrase indeed along with CP , 1950's housewife etc etc .......) campaigning to prevent women from getting married after the menopause ? or those of us blokes who have had the snip being likewise banned ?

Well my guess is that the Christian lobby's answer to that one is that God hath preordained some married couples to have offspring and others not. It's not for "us" to question the whys and wherefores. If so, that automatically undermines those claiming marriage's primary purpose being procreation. On the other hand, what it says is that what happens, , happens.

[MrGongGong]

Well my guess is that the Christian lobby's answer to that one is that God hath preordained some married couples to have offspring and others not. It's not for "us" to question the whys and wherefores. If so, that automatically undermines those claiming marriage's primary purpose being procreation. On the other hand, what it says is that what happens, , happens.

So is that in the book ? (which is made up)
or in the doctrine ? (which is also made up)

Why not make up something that is more suitable to the way that people really are ?
and anyway no one is forcing Gay Christians who believe this to get married anyway
so it seems to be a case of them (and the other religionists ) wanting to impose their
"morality" (or a selected bit of it, I wouldn't mind them trying to impose the bits where
Jesus suggests that maybe we don't kill each other and so on !) on the rest of us......

(Surely a "Christian Lobby" is a "vestibule" ?)

[Serial_Apologist]

So is that in the book ? (which is made up)
or in the doctrine ? (which is also made up)

Why not make up something that is more suitable to the way that people really are ?
and anyway no one is forcing Gay Christians who believe this to get married anyway
so it seems to be a case of them (and the other religionists ) wanting to impose their
"morality" (or a selected bit of it, I wouldn't mind them trying to impose the bits where
Jesus suggests that maybe we don't kill each other and so on !) on the rest of us......

(Surely a "Christian Lobby" is a "vestibule" ?)

I am assuming it to be the intention, rather than the realisation, that is supposed to fulfil the Christian requirments for marriage, though I'm no expert on the doctrine. To me it's mostly a load of cassocks, and surplice to requirements.

[MrGongGong]

though I'm no expert on the doctrine. To me it's mostly a load of cassocks, and surplice to requirements.

[amateur51]

You think it's strange that the apartheid treatment of black people is 'bigger' than your desire for "The right to decalre your commitment to your partner before friends and family in the church/temple/mosque, whatever if you want to and the temple etc has no objection"?

You think the Holocaust is no worse than the murder of Lee Rigby in your absolute-moral scheme?

How much is a return ticket to your land? I'd like to have a look around.

I guess this may have escaped your razor-sharp notice but this debate concerns possibly the last few planks in the emancipation of lesbians and gay men in this country. The persecution of lesbians and gay men started way back of course, I can point to you to various histories if you're interested, but what we have had to put up with includes the German members of he tribe being included in the Nazi death-camps.

I'm sorry you've chosen to play the Holocaust card but I'm not in the least surprised.