ForumGarden

Iain Dale: 'Secretly gay MPs are planning to vote against same-sex weddings... and two of them are married' | Mail Online

I can't see what the problem Is....

Any thoughts?

oscar;1419052 wrote: Iain Dale: 'Secretly gay MPs are planning to vote against same-sex weddings... and two of them are married' | Mail Online

I can't see what the problem Is....

Any thoughts?


In my life the whole homosexuality thingy went from, couldn't imagine it.

Reality set in, more homos out there than I ever could believe.

So now, it is a matter of social policy.

Problem is, do we sanction Gay Marriage as we do Straight marriages?

I suggest we remove the state from the business of Marriage.

Grant Same Sex couples the same rights, and responsibilities as normal people.

tude dog;1419109 wrote: In my life the whole homosexuality thingy went from, couldn't imagine it.

Reality set in, more homos out there than I ever could believe.

So now, it is a matter of social policy.

Problem is, do we sanction Gay Marriage as we do Straight marriages?

I suggest we remove the state from the business of Marriage.

Grant Same Sex couples the same rights, and responsibilities as normal people.


It's the state that wants to give them equal rights and the religious (well some of them) that argue homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of god and everybody should just agree with them. Maybe we need to formalise a de facto separation of church and state and do away with the lords spiritual.

Grant Same Sex couples the same rights, and responsibilities as normal people.


:yh_rotfl

Maybe 'average' surely not normal!

What's a normal person ?

I've tried marriage a couple of times and it's really not for me. But I think it should be an option for everyone, whatever their sexual orientation.

Is this another lame attempt to distract us from the economic mess we're in?

I am all for the state getting out of the marriage business.

Civil Unions seems like a neutral term to me.

I don't care why a couple want to live a life together. Not my business.

One thing that is everybody's business are tax ramifications.

Marriage made In Hell.

Attached files

delete

OK I am coming out....................

I am not anti gay.

I am not anti civil partnerships.

I have no hang ups about the the requirement of "Marriage" to be for the production of off spring, many marriages don't.

Why this clamour to call a happy long term loving relationship between same sex partners "Marriage"?

Why this clamour to call a happy long term loving relationship between same sex partners "Marriage"?


Who is clamouring? Why, it is the Gays themselves, clamouring for something the rest of us take for granted--the right to be miserable! Just kidding, lol. What I mean is, it is their wish & desire & must be granted for full equality. Anything else is not full equality. As our Supreme Court once ruled on segregation "Separate (Different) is Unequal". I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Bruv;1419120 wrote: OK I am coming out....................

I am not anti gay.

I am not anti civil partnerships.

I have no hang ups about the the requirement of "Marriage" to be for the production of off spring, many marriages don't.

Why this clamour to call a happy long term loving relationship between same sex partners "Marriage"? It's about protection of equal assets. Prior to civil partnerships, same sex couples could be together for life but If one died, the other had no legal claim on any property or assets.

Bruv;1419120 wrote: OK I am coming out....................

I am not anti gay.

I am not anti civil partnerships.

I have no hang ups about the the requirement of "Marriage" to be for the production of off spring, many marriages don't.

Why this clamour to call a happy long term loving relationship between same sex partners "Marriage"?


My point is the term "marriage" by definition is between a man and woman. It reflects historical/traditional cultural/religious concepts important to many people.

Get the government out of marriage business. Call your unions what ya want.

That's called freedom.

I hate to say it, but I believe I am agreeing with the dawg.

I can understand that two people committed to each other need official legal backing for financial security when one passes on.

As far as I understand they have that now with Civil Partnerships, it just seems they are demanding we say 'Uncle'

One of my grandchildren's father is in a long term civil partnership, they have been supportive and engaged in his upbringing for many years. They are 'married' to everybody that knows them,with all the legal implications, now it seems that is not enough and a desire to be "Married" is being requested, what exactly is that any different to what they have already ?

Bruv;1419163 wrote: I hate to say it, but I believe I am agreeing with the dawg.

I can understand that two people committed to each other need official legal backing for financial security when one passes on.

As far as I understand they have that now with Civil Partnerships, it just seems they are demanding we say 'Uncle'

One of my grandchildren's father is in a long term civil partnership, they have been supportive and engaged in his upbringing for many years. They are 'married' to everybody that knows them,with all the legal implications, now it seems that is not enough and a desire to be "Married" is being requested, what exactly is that any different to what they have already ? Civil Partnerships protect same sex couples rights In the courts now but are you suggesting that because a couple are same sex, they should abandon their faith In Christ ? Because that's what It's about. Couples want to me married and make their vows In the eyes of the Lord and the Church the same as a man and woman.

Why do you think they should not have that right?

The only thing I am against is the name 'Marriage', they have everything marriage gives in a civil partnership, legal recognition, protection from discrimination.

It seems they need to have the name marriage attached to their union.

The church's blessing is something else and nothing to do with me or my own prejudices.

Bruv;1419205 wrote: The only thing I am against is the name 'Marriage', they have everything marriage gives in a civil partnership, legal recognition, protection from discrimination.

It seems they need to have the name marriage attached to their union.

The church's blessing is something else and nothing to do with me or my own prejudices.


Why ?

We are not downtown Kabul. We pride ourselves as a Nation don't we as a free democratic society ?

Why should gays be treated any different from anyone else If we are such a free democratic society? So we pride ourselves on that but show prejudice over certain members of our society? If that's the case then we haven't progressed from the dark ages really have we?

If we accept homosexuality then we must accept It as a whole, not with caveats to suit.

Anyway, too late.... news just In... It's been passed.

Excellent answer oscar.

oscar;1419215 wrote: Why ?

We are not downtown Kabul. We pride ourselves as a Nation don't we as a free democratic society ?

Why should gays be treated any different from anyone else If we are such a free democratic society? So we pride ourselves on that but show prejudice over certain members of our society? If that's the case then we haven't progressed from the dark ages really have we?

If we accept homosexuality then we must accept It as a whole, not with caveats to suit.

Anyway, too late.... news just In... It's been passed.


I happen to agree with Bruv.

Be free and democratic as ya want. We are all equal before the law.

What some activists want is to make the government redefine a traditional definition of marriage. I find that offensive. What is offensive to me is using the powers of government to define for the rest of us what a marriage is.

I know I been kinda flippant about "homos" being different, and if I offended anybody here, I apologize.

Thing is for me accepting and understanding homosexuality was an evolutionary process. Being able to talk openly with family and homo friends. Shareing humor bla bla doesn't always work in short posts on the internet.

What's your point, td, in using homo instead of gay?

As for your being offended over a change in a definition we have used for thousands of years: I struggled with that one myself. I care about language & definitions. However, understanding of what this means to people, gays & their loved ones, has caused me to be able to renounce the old definition. When something is so important to someone, & it does not hurt me in any way, I find that an expanded definition is the least of my many worries. IMO.

AnneBoleyn;1419285 wrote: What's your point, td, in using homo instead of gay?

As for your being offended over a change in a definition we have used for thousands of years: I struggled with that one myself. I care about language & definitions. However, understanding of what this means to people, gays & their loved ones, has caused me to be able to renounce the old definition. When something is so important to someone, & it does not hurt me in any way, I find that an expanded definition is the least of my many worries. IMO.


OK, on a public forum homo is not polite. Face to face, depending on the circumstances, don't see the problem.

I have a problem with the concept, renounce old definitions. Just the same as when someone says my concept of morality, ethic, conduct are old and should be renounced.

We both care about language and definitions. The least of my concerns is that proper use hurts somebody.

tude dog;1419279 wrote: I happen to agree with Bruv.

Be free and democratic as ya want. We are all equal before the law.

What some activists want is to make the government redefine a traditional definition of marriage. I find that offensive. What is offensive to me is using the powers of government to define for the rest of us what a marriage is.

I know I been kinda flippant about "homos" being different, and if I offended anybody here, I apologize.

Thing is for me accepting and understanding homosexuality was an evolutionary process. Being able to talk openly with family and homo friends. Shareing humor bla bla doesn't always work in short posts on the internet.


Most species of the animal world has bi-sexual, homosexual and Asexual within the species. Only one species has prejudice, bias, Intolerance and socially outcasts all three.... Man.

Marriage also used to be a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of god

WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER




Some churches still do not accept divorce as legitimate many do but those that do not are not forced to if they want to excommunicate divorcees or prevent them marrying again in their church that is their choice they are not forced to comply with the views of the majority of those around them - by the same token they are not permitted to impose their views on everybody around them much as they would like to and even force non-believers to comply with their view of things. Some churches even try and forbid their members from dating members of different religions. There were the same ructions over the introduction of no fault divorce legislation.

This is state intervention to prevent the discrimination and preaching against the freedoms and right of a group of people in society to exist and live their lives as they choose. I'm not religious I don't really care but if they find a church that will marry a gay couple and they want their union recognised in a place of worship in the eyes of god should we allow those churches that will not allow it to prevent them doing so?

What is offensive to me is using the powers of government to define for the rest of us what a marriage is.




What is offensive to me is using the powers of government to impose a definition of marriage on people favoured by one group of churches on those who may not even be members if that particular sect.

Government in this instance isn't trying to define for you what a marriage is the intent is to allow a minority of the population the right to decide what a marriage is to them and not be dictated to by a bigoted religious establishment. It's the kind of freedom a secular society has that you will never find in one governed by a religious establishment. The freedoms we have and take for granted have often times been obtained in the face of fierce opposition from the religious establishments. Equal rights for women is probably the best example.

tude, I should not have used the word "renounce". I don't like the way that sounds either. Please allow me to change that to "modify".

PS-you said: "We both care about language and definitions. The least of my concerns is that proper use hurts somebody."

I'm really doing a bad job here expressing myself. I think I'll try again tomorrow!