[Jack_]

Second reading of the bill this afternoon and you can watch it being debated in the House of Commons here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/bbcparliament/live

I really hope that tonight those on the side of equality shall be able to laugh in the faces of bigots. We shall soon see.

[Shaun]

please let sanity prevail

[Black Dagger]

Surely these voters can't be that bigoted and clueless can they? Probably but hopefully the right outcome shall prevail.

[Jack_]

This Irish bigot going on about how overall rates of marriage have declined in countries where gay marriage has been introduced. Boo ****ing hoo. Who cares?

[arista]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=220577

This needs merging into your thread

[arista]

Its not a Free Vote
MP told Daily Politics today

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by arista

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=220577

This needs merging into your thread

I consider that a separate issue. That's a news story about the effects this is going to have on the Conservative party, this is about the actual vote and the issue and debate of equal marriage itself.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I consider that a separate issue. That's a news story about the effects this is going to have on the Conservative party, this is about the actual vote and the issue and debate of equal marriage itself.

True


Spunker

[Jack_]

We must bear in mind though that although today could be a massive step in the right direction, and is leading the way for progression, there are still many issues that will need be ironed out in the future, the main one of them being that this should not be a choice for any religious institution and no religious institution should be exempt from taking part in this either.

But beggars can't be choosers. This is long overdue, but at least we're getting somewhere.

[Nedusa]

I look forward to the day when everybody in this country has equal rights in law and people in loving committed relationships can get married whether that be hetero, same sex , transgender.. Whatever its about love and commitment not type of genitals.

I would like to see civil partnerships scrapped and marriage in law apply to everyone.

Oh and if churches don't like that then we should boycott them or start our own churches which reflect the progressive nature of modern society and are not stuck in the Middle Ages or bogged down by outdated religious dogma...!!!!

[Jack_]

This is a fantastic speech by Yvette Cooper

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I look forward to the day when everybody in this country has equal rights in law and people in loving committed relationships can get married whether that be hetero, same sex , transgender.. Whatever its about love and commitment not type of genitals.

I would like to see civil partnerships scrapped and marriage in law apply to everyone.

Oh and if churches don't like that then we should boycott them or start our own churches which reflect the progressive nature of modern society and are not stuck in the Middle Ages or bogged down by outdated religious dogma...!!!!

I'd quite like civil partnerships to be made available to heterosexual couples.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I'd quite like civil partnerships to be made available to heterosexual couples.

But then would you not still have a two tier marriage structure ??

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I look forward to the day when everybody in this country has equal rights in law and people in loving committed relationships can get married whether that be hetero, same sex , transgender.. Whatever its about love and commitment not type of genitals.

I would like to see civil partnerships scrapped and marriage in law apply to everyone.

Oh and if churches don't like that then we should boycott them or start our own churches which reflect the progressive nature of modern society and are not stuck in the Middle Ages or bogged down by outdated religious dogma...!!!!

In Muslim countries they still stone people to death for being gay. Good luck forcing them to marry gay couples. Because if you're going to force one religion into it, you're going to have to force them all. You can't just choose the easiest target, insist they change their whole dogma, but let the others do their own thing.

I really don't know why there was a differentiation made between civil partnerships and civil marriages in the first place. They are really the same thing.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

But then would you not still have a two tier marriage structure ??

But then it gives those who strongly oppose being united in the eyes of God the opportunity to not have to take part in such practices.

Fair's fair then, if you wish to be married, be it for religious or traditional reasons, you are free to do so regardless of your sexuality, and if you wish to have roughly the same rights as married couples, but do not wish to take part in religious ceremonies, then you are also entitled to do so, regardless of your sexuality.

All in all though the issue of equal marriage is of much greater importance to me, I just believe if we're going to keep civil partnerships they should at least be extended to include heterosexual couples.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Livia

In Muslim countries they still stone people to death for being gay. Good luck forcing them to marry gay couples. Because if you're going to force one religion into it, you're going to have to force them all. You can't just choose the easiest target, insist they change their whole dogma, but let the others do their own thing.

And that's exactly what they should do. I don't think any person in support of equal marriage really disputes that.

This should not be a choice for any religious institution.

[Jack_]

Oh **** off Nadine Dorries.

An extract:

This bill in no way makes a requirement of faithfulness from same-sex couples. In fact, it does the opposite.

In a heterosexual marriage a couple can divorce for adultery, and adultery is if you have sex with a member of the opposite sex. In a heterosexual marriage a couple vow to forsake all others ... A gay couple have no obligation to make that vow [to faithfulness] because they do not have to forsake all others because they cannot divorce for adultery. There is no requirement of faithfulness. And if there is no requirement of faithfulness, what is a marriage?

What a lousy excuse for such laughable bigotry.

[arista]

The Ex Jungle woman
has her 4mins Live

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Oh **** off Nadine Dorries.

she is tough

[arista]

The Ex Jungle woman
has her 4mins Live

[Jack_]

I have to say just watching this debate really highlights just how alarming the influence religion still has on social policy is.

[Kizzy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...atertight.html

"The view of the legal profession is not unanimous," the research says, as some lawyers believe the new laws will make it illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples. Other QCs argue that religious groups have special protection under human rights laws.



Seems theres a chance to force the hand of the church of England, the muslims however?.....forget it! haha

[Jack_]

Some extracts from Yvette Cooper's speech. From The Guardian:

As people live longer, the family commitments involved in marriage are much wider than bringing up children.

Most MPs will know the sadness but also the inspriration they have drawn from visiting a married couple where for example the wife is now struggling to cope, struggling to remember the world around her and struggling to recognise even the husband she has shared decades of her life with. Yet he carries on. Cooking for her, washing her, getting her up, putting her to bed, talking to her even as she becomes a stranger in front of him. That is marriage.

But I also visited a gay man who died some years ago, after a long illness in which he was cared for every day – at home, in hospital and eventually in a hospice - by his long term gay partner. I don’t see why that can’t be marriage too.

The idea that the biology of procreation should deny same sex couples the respect that comes with marriage, is to ignore the full richness, the happiness but also the tragedies of modern family life For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health That is marriage ...

The truth is that gay and lesbian couples have been locked out of too much for too long. People locked up, or punished for loving someone of the same sex until the 1960s. Gay men told by the Home Secretary in the fifties they were a “plague” on this country. Lesbian women forced to hide their relationships Teenagers bullied at school with no protection. Teachers until the early nineties unable to tell the child of a same sex couple that their family was OK for fear it would break Section 28 So much has changed – and in a short time too ...

When civil partnerships were introduced, most of the Bishops in the Lords voted against. Yet now Anglicans from such widely different traditions as the former Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries and the evangelical preacher Steve Chalke support blessings for same sex partnerships. Soldiers and sailors now wear their uniforms in Gay Pride parades.

We’ve come a long way. And with each step forward the sky hasn’t fallen in, family life hasn’t fallen apart, the predictions passionate opponents made at the time simply haven’t come true. And those opponents in the most part, have changed their minds and moved on. I hope the same will be true again. I hope the opponents today will look back in ten years and won’t be able to remember what the fuss was about.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Jack_

But then it gives those who strongly oppose being united in the eyes of God the opportunity to not have to take part in such practices.

Fair's fair then, if you wish to be married, be it for religious or traditional reasons, you are free to do so regardless of your sexuality, and if you wish to have roughly the same rights as married couples, but do not wish to take part in religious ceremonies, then you are also entitled to do so, regardless of your sexuality.

All in all though the issue of equal marriage is of much greater importance to me, I just believe if we're going to keep civil partnerships they should at least be extended to include heterosexual couples.

I think ultimately what we will see is one legal secular version of marriage for everyone hetero, same sex etc... So there will only be one state of marriage in the eyes of the state.

As far as marriage within religious institutions then that will be where the differences will persist and will continue to persist as you cannot realistically easily change long established , long held deeply entrenched religious doma. So for marriage within churches it will be for the church in question to explain their position based on their doctrines.

Now I don't believe the govt has any business forcing or trying to force serious change on these institutions because quite simply they can't. Better still for people to be part of religious institutions that accept and are happy to celebrate within the eyes of god the sacrament of marriage for two people that love each other and are committed to each within their love for God.

These churches are the ones that will flourish and the ones that will represent all people together . The others will stagnate, shrink and will be eventually consumed in their outdated, narrow, bigoted religious dogma only to realise too late that the world is for everyone and God's message of love is also for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

[arista]

Scottish Labour MP
says it wrong.