Marriage

[MrGongGong]

I watched the end of this on TV
and was more than delighted that not only have the Tories been split
but, for once, we will get tolerance and equality
so well done (which is not something I would often say to any politician )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220

:ela:

[amateur51]

Good news indeed MrGG and a huge majority in favour in the Commons tonight - Yesterday in Parliament should be a good listen :biggrin:

However experience has taught us that things can still go badly awry once the churches and the neanderthals get their oars in, both in the Commons and in the House of Lords.:erm:

[MrGongGong]

Good news indeed MrGG and a huge majority in favour in the Commons tonight - Yesterday in Parliament should be a good listen :biggrin:

However experience has taught us that things can still go badly awry once the churches and the neanderthals get their oars in, both in the Commons and in the House of Lords.:erm:

Indeed
but it feels like a great step forward for us all
I've always felt that my gay friends who have civil partnerships are as married as I am and this should enshrine this in law as well as make it possible for people other than heterosexuals to have legal rights outside the UK so :ela:
and very timely with regard to Britten & Pears

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, the numbers were very heartening, the vote unequivocal. But the creatures that always appear from the rightwing woodwork on THIS subject! I do LOVE the bit about marriage "celebrating the differences between a man and a woman" :laugh::winkeye:!

The Church will certainly have to reflect upon its, er, bedfellows...

[Mr Pee]

After witnessing the fall-out from the Huhne/Pryce marriage, I cannot imagine why anybody, whatever their sexual persuasion, would wish to follow in their footsteps!!

Seriously, though, I am of the view that this vote re-defines marriage to suit a vocal minority. The whole thing is rendered somewhat meaningless anyway since the Churches are exempt.

And of course none of this was mentioned in the Conservative manifesto. It is a desperate attempt by Cameron to shake off his Bullingdon club image in the hope that it will make the Conservative party more appealing to the Gay community, and by extension the Guardian reading chattering classes. It is little more than political opportunism, and all it has done is split the Conservative party down the middle over a matter that matters not a jot to the vast majority of voters, most of whom have far more important things to worry about than gay "marriage".

[Boilk]

Ten years from now, many will wonder what all the fuss was about!

However, the script will now have to be rewritten, of sorts.

"I now pronounce you: man and husband/man and man/husband and husband ... you may kiss the groom, but take it in turns"

"I now pronounce you woman and wife/woman and woman/wife and wife ... you may kiss the other bride"

[ahinton]

After witnessing the fall-out from the Huhne/Pryce marriage, I cannot imagine why anybody, whatever their sexual persuasion, would wish to follow in their footsteps!!

Do you mean by this that you cannot imagine what any two people of the opposite sex would any longer wish to consider marriage? If so, where does this fir into your argument, such as it may be? If not, then what?

Seriously, though, I am of the view that this vote re-defines marriage to suit a vocal minority.

Not a minority in the HoC, evidently...

The whole thing is rendered somewhat meaningless anyway since the Churches are exempt.

But what difference does or can this make? Are ALL Churches exempt from this, or ae you speaking only of CoE? which is itself is entitled to marry gay people if it so chooses - but in any case marriage between any two people, whether of the same or opposite sex, if hardly something upon which any Church in UK has a monopoly, for plenty of atheists, agnostics and the rest are married and there are likely to be more such now that the law has changed.

And of course none of this was mentioned in the Conservative manifesto. It is a desperate attempt by Cameron to shake off his Bullingdon club image in the hope that it will make the Conservative party more appealing to the Gay community, and by extension the Guardian reading chattering classes. It is little more than political opportunism, and all it has done is split the Conservative party down the middle over a matter that matters not a jot to the vast majority of voters, most of whom have far more important things to worry about than gay "marriage".

Lots of things weren't mentioned in the Conservative manifesto at the 2010 General Election. The Conservatives did not in any case attain a majority at that election. Cameron's not shaken off his Bullingdon Club image as a consequence of this vote today. Quite a few gays already vote Conservative and did so before the last General Election and certainly well before the gay marriage matter came up for a vote in HoC. It's unclear what Cameron's relationship, real or intended, may be with what you call "the Guardian reading chattering classes" (whoever they may be and as if there were no other chattering classes besides those who typically read The Guardian more often than any other major British newspaper) but, whatever it is or is not, Cameron himself is but one Conservative and today's vote has hardly been reliant only on his influence (even though it has been reported that one significant encouragement of his pushing of this has been his wife).

Most voters have many more things to worry about besides gay marriage - that's true - but to suggest that this subject is only a minority interest in more general terms is to suggest that gays are very much in a tiny minority; where are your facts in support of such a notion? The Conservative Party is already split into many fragments just as are all the other parties except perhaps UKIP which is at least small enough for its comparative lack of internal splits not to matter in any case (anent which please do remember that, just like Marine le Pen in France, UKIP's leader and second in non-command are all MEPs).

Oh dear - quite a few mishaps here, Mr Pee, it would seem!

I have to admit that I remain uncertain as to what view to take about gay marriage, but this is solely because I am not homosexual and I know and fully accept that I have no more right to dictate to - or endorse anyone else's dictation to - homosexuals as to how they should behave and feel about partners, sexual and otherwise than they have to dictate to me (which in my experience they have never done) about the same; I admit that, to me, marriage should be between a man and a woman who are able and prepared to commit themselves to one another sufficiently to justify and sanctify a marriage but, as I say so, I recognise that I am not homosexual and must therefore stress that I am simply offering what is my personal opinion as a heterosexual and that to do otherwise would be both insensitive and grossly arrogant.

[ahinton]

Ten years from now, many will wonder what all the fuss was about!

However, the script will now have to be rewritten, of sorts.

"I now pronounce you: man and husband/man and man/husband and husband ... you may kiss the groom, but take it in turns"

"I now pronounce you woman and wife/woman and woman/wife and wife ... you may kiss the other bride"

Very funny - not; methinks that thou are taking the kiss...

"I now pronounce you married", surely? And, in any case, the anything that might dispose of the ghastly legacy of "I now pronounce you man and wife" as distinct from "I now pronounce you husband and wife" (the former of which has always sounded to me as though whoever is blessing the marriage is doing so to only half of its participants) can only be a good thing.

[Flay]

However, the script will now have to be rewritten, of sorts.

Marriage has always been defined in terms of a union between a woman and a man. To be legitimate (in English law at least) it requires consummation. Forgive me, but I am not really sure how that can be defined in terms of a female/female union. Would anyone care to explain?

I would have preferred to have kept the term "marriage" to relate to a life-long heterosexual commitment, but to have brought in an equivalent term for a gay union ("garriage" perhaps :erm:) which would have the same legal obligations and entitlements.

[jayne lee wilson]

Marriage has always been defined in terms of a union between a woman and a man. To be legitimate (in English law at least) it requires consummation. Forgive me, but I am not really sure how that can be defined in terms of a female/female union. Would anyone care to explain?

I would have preferred to have kept the term "marriage" to relate to a life-long heterosexual commitment, but to have brought in an equivalent term for a gay union ("garriage" perhaps :erm:) which would have the same legal obligations and entitlements.

These homophobes are SO inventive in their variations...

OR you're not homophobic at all, just misled by language...

But you love Bruckner, so there's hope of Redemption...

You want a lesbian love-manual? Here? As proof of...?

But we both love Bruckner! LOVE is all we need...

As you opened your ears to Bruckner, open your heart to all manwomankind...

[gingerjon]

whole thing is rendered somewhat meaningless anyway since the Churches are exempt.

People who get married in a register office aren't married?

Some notes on that 'vocal minority' by the way.

And a less serious but somewhat more convincing response to some of the arguments against gay marriage.

On a personal level, I'm in favour. Not because I think married people are superior but because I believe wholeheartedly that the long-term relationships I see amongst my gay friends are the same as amongst my straight friends and I believe they should have the same options. This last-minute installation of the word 'Orwellian' by people who have a passing knowledge of '1984' is bizarre, as if the word 'marriage' had not already undergone legal change after legal change practically since the dawn of legal time.

My local MP voted against as it was always likely she would. She was unlikely to be getting my vote anyway. Knowing how she feels about the gay and lesbian members of her constituency I now have all I need to know that there's no X going next to her name from me.

[gingerjon]

I would have preferred to have kept the term "marriage" to relate to a life-long heterosexual commitment,

The thrice-married MP Roger Gale agrees with you.

He said so in parliament.

I do wonder what he calls his non life-long sex-satisfying relationships though?

[Flay]

OR you're not homophobic at all, just misled by language...

But you love Bruckner, so there's hope of Redemption...

I should stay out of these debates...

No, I am not homophobic, and forgive my flippancy. But I think we need to expand the language, rather than converge and re-use words.

In the same way I wish that the term "partner" would not be used for social union. Surely another term could be found? It once caused considerable confusion when I introduced one of my business partners to somebody... :blush: :laugh:

[gingerjon]

No, I am not homophobic, and forgive my flippancy. But I think we need to expand the language, rather than converge and re-use words.

But that does rather suggest that you do see a difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one? That's the bit I don't follow. In every way they are the same. I imagine a lot of straight people would be surprised by what does or does not go on in other straight couples' bedrooms so why get fixated on consumation, procreation or the need to know that it's military medium once a fortnight with the occasional rumpy on birthdays or after too much wine?

If it's a loving commitment between two people then it's a loving commitment between two people.

(Partner is an amusing one in that I have had people refer to their 'partner' and assume, when presented with the apperance and attitude of the person speaking, that they are thus gay. It is, however, quite nice to have one's preconceptions overturned!)

[ahinton]

These homophobes are SO inventive in their variations...

Indeed; I don't know that they can't seem to leave that to the composers...