Equal Marriage Debate & Vote [LIVE NOW on BBC Parliament]

[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/forums/showthread.php?t=220577

This needs merging into your thread

[arista]

Its not a Free Vote
MP told Daily Politics today

[Jack_]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.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]

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churches which reflect the progressive nature of modern society and are not stuck in the Middle Ages or bogged down by outdated religious dogma...!!!!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 :love:

[Jack_]

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]

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]

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_]

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_]

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]

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/politics/9849153/Gay-marriage-ban-on-same-sex-church-weddings-may-not-be-legally-watertight.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]

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.

[arista]

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


Long Day

7PM the Vote


Ideal for Ch4News start

[arista]

Roger Gale MP
claims it will go to
the €uro Court.

And a Labour Young Woman MP North East
N Engel
says she is voting against it

she also says children must have Dad and Mum

[Nedusa]

Just watching the debate in the commons where an MP who is against the Bill is using the analogy of allowing a new bill called civil unions for which any two people could apply, including man man, woman woman, brother brother, brother sister

Yes I kid not be was advocating legalised incest and saying it was the same as same sex union ????

Suffice to say he got Roundly booed and he also got a rebuke from the front bench speaker.

What an ar**hole....!!!!!

[Jack_]

Roger Gale MP
claims it will go to
the €uro Court.

And a Labour Young Woman MP North East
N Engel
says she is voting against it

she also says children must have Dad and Mum

:bored:

Makes me sick.

[arista]

Yes Labour this morning claiming the Conservative is Split on this.
Well Feckin' Check your Own party.

The Man and Woman Only View
is all over the place with Church people

[Kizzy]

Just watching the debate in the commons where an MP who is against the Bill is using the analogy of allowing a new bill called civil unions for which any two people could apply, including man man, woman woman, brother brother, brother sister

Yes I kid not be was advocating legalised incest and saying it was the same as same sex union ????

Suffice to say he got Roundly booed and he also got a rebuke from the front bench speaker.

What an ar**hole....!!!!!

Who said that nedusa?.... :shocked:

[arista]

Who said that nedusa?.... :shocked:


Loads of Labour MP's

[Black Dagger]

Roger Gale is a vile old **** and will hopefully be dead soon.

Lovely speech by Nick Herbert, loved his Elton reference.

[Nedusa]

Not sure he he was , conservative MP against the Bill with a vengeance , large Man grey hair, Gold rimmed glasses sat at very back row...

[Nedusa]

Not sure he he was , conservative MP against the Bill with a vengeance , large Man grey hair, Gold rimmed glasses sat at very back row...

I think it could be Roger Gale

[Jack_]

Sir Gerald Howarth, making reference to earlier points about how children raised in a mother and father marriage fair better than those who are not:

'By introducing this legislation we are affecting children's life chances'

What a nasty ******.

And now he's quoting a Daily Mail poll...and these people are MPs? I have seen it all this afternoon.


'There will be huge consequences if this bill is passed'

Yeah, people like you will become the minority, instead of homosexual couples.

[reece(:]

What utter arseholes some of these MPs are

[arista]

What utter arseholes some of these MPs are


Yes Strict Church People MP's
Labour, Conservative and Irish
and Scottish Labour



Well Done the PM David Cameron

[arista]

The Vote Is Live Now

They Won

400 Yes

175 No

Ch4News is Live in a Soho Bar

[reece(:]

175 ****s.

[Jack_]

:D :D :D :D :D

A victory for equality, and a smack in the face with a nice big cock to the backwards, bigoted arseholes who opposed such progression.

[Niall]

I'm ecstatic to see this come through. It's great to know that I'll be on a level playing field if ever I do want to tie the knot with someone in future. :love:

That speech that Jack posted by Yvette Cooper was phenomenal anyway. I couldn't agree more with what she said. I'm just so glad to see this happen, it's another big step taken in furthering equality. Wonderful. :lovedup:

[armand.kay]

175 are soo lame.

[arista]

Well Done David Cameron Our PM

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/2/5/219654/default/v1/i-newspaper-february-6-1-329x437.jpg

[Harry!]

I am so glad that the MPS voted for the allowance of gay marriage. Jesus said "Love your neighbour as yourself." so Christians should be in acceptance of Gay relationships. Victory!

[Marc]

Good news.

-marries Ben-

[bbfan1991]

Same sex marriages should happen:).

[Marc]

Serious question: I'm all for equality and as a result I don't understand the negatives to legalising it, so could someone explain the big deal with making it legal?

[Niall]

Serious question: I'm all for equality and as a result I don't understand the negatives to legalising it, so could someone explain the big deal with making it legal?

It means that same sex couples can get married rather than having to get a getting a civil partnership. It's equal now.

Before, straight couples could have civil partnerships or marriage, and gay couples could only get a civil partnership. But now gay couples and straight couples can have either.

[Marc]

No I know that but why is it so fundamentally wrong to allow gay people to have the exact same?

[Niall]

No I know that but why is it so fundamentally wrong to allow gay people to have the exact same?

Oh. :laugh:

Well it's something that's been so deeply entrenched in society for so so so many reasons. Let's just be thankful that it's finally dying off.

[Black Dagger]

BECAUSE IT'S WRONG AND THE BIBLE SAID SO...

And it will ruin the sanctity of marriage!!!!!!!!!

[joeysteele]

I caught some of this debate, obviously I would have supported the bill and also think it has taken too long to get to this point anyway.

I am impressed that David Cameron continued to press ahead with this and it may be revealing that 136 Conservative MPs were among the 175 who voted against this bill.
I believe though that David Cameron does have public support with him on this issue and also it is clear now, Parliament too.
From what I saw, I would also have to commend Yvette Cooper and her contribution to this issue,really strong performance from her definitely.

I felt Nadine Dorries was a big fail on this one and she came across as very amateur too.
Really good to see this go through with such overwhelming support form all parties in the house overall.

[bbfan1991]

I thought we are ALL supposed to be equal? Some people being against this proves that is not certainly the case in their eyes although I understand that for some people it is on religious grounds whether I agree or disagree with their views.

(I am in favour of Equal Marriage) btw.

[Livia]

I am so glad that the MPS voted for the allowance of gay marriage. Jesus said "Love your neighbour as yourself." so Christians should be in acceptance of Gay relationships. Victory!


Love your neighbour as yourself is one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus said the words because he was a Jew who also said that he "upheld the Laws of Moses". So you're taking those words completely out of context. I'm not sure why you think Christians should uphold gay marriage when other religions won't be expected to. We're back to one law for one, and one law for another.

But that's another debate entirely.

I think it's entirely right that gay people should be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony in the same way heterosexuals can.

[Shaun]

:amazed:

[MTVN]

Love your neighbour as yourself is one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus said the words because he was a Jew who also said that he "upheld the Laws of Moses". So you're taking those words completely out of context. I'm not sure why you think Christians should uphold gay marriage when other religions won't be expected to. We're back to one law for one, and one law for another.

But that's another debate entirely.

I think it's entirely right that gay people should be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony in the same way heterosexuals can.

Who actually says there should be one law for Christianity, and one law for other religions though? Cameron has often said that Churches won't be forced to carry out gay marriages and have the right to be exempt if they choose, there are several Christianity churches who do support same sex marriage though

[Livia]

Who actually says there should be one law for Christianity, and one law for other religions though? Cameron has often said that Churches won't be forced to carry out gay marriages and have the right to be exempt if they choose, there are several Christianity churches who do support same sex marriage though

The word "law" was a poor choice of words on my part. A better one would have been "expectation".

If a church chooses to marry gay people, they obviously, there can't be a problem with it, and I personally would have no problem with it (although I'm not a Christian). It's the assumption by some people that the Church of England is a bit of an easy target and will be labelled bigots if they refuse that I find a bit out of kilter.

[MTVN]

The word "law" was a poor choice of words on my part. A better one would have been "expectation".

If a church chooses to marry gay people, they obviously, there can't be a problem with it, and I personally would have no problem with it (although I'm not a Christian). It's the assumption by some people that the Church of England is a bit of an easy target and will be labelled bigots if they refuse that I find a bit out of kilter.

Ah ok, yeah I can see where you're coming from

[Kizzy]

The issue has been raised due to pressure from LGBT christians though, maybe this is why the focus is on this faith specifically?

[Nedusa]

Offering exemptions to certain churches allowing them to "Opt out" is just a big red herring . The Govt know that cannot force any churches to conduct gay marriages if they do not wish to. The law when it comes into force will allow civil marriages to be open to same sex coues as well as hetero couples. The religious side of this debate is a separate issue one that is not really covered by today's events.

[Ninastar]

This is great news!

I do however, think if a church doesn't wish to partake, then they should be allowed to do so.

[iRyan]

Does this mean gay marriage will essentially become legal in Britain now? Great news and long overdue.

[arista]

Does this mean gay marriage will essentially become legal in Britain now? Great news and long overdue.


Only after the the Real Old Ones
if the House Of Lords approve it

[Nedusa]

I think like the Bill on Fox hunting this Bill on same sex marriage will eventually become law but this will take a long time as it will have various amendments added and subsequent readings in the commons before it ever goes to the Lords where the same process could also apply .

So yes it will become law in some form at some point but David Cameron has reaped the initial benefit increasing his overall popularity to the countries electorate.

Job done one might say.....!!!

[Omah]

So yes it will become law in some form at some point but David Cameron has reaped the initial benefit increasing his overall popularity to the countries electorate.

Not really :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21339877

Anthony Wells, YouGov associate director

However much attention it is getting in the media at the moment, gay marriage is not the sort of issue that will have a big impact on people's votes come the general election when, as usual, people's votes will be decided upon the bigger issues.

Polls claiming to show that it will change a large number of votes are because the question asked singles out just that one issue. By May 2015, (when the election is due) gay marriage will have been on the statute book for two years and will be broadly accepted. More importantly, it will fade to insignificance next to bigger issues like the economy, health, crime and the merits of the party leaders.

Our most recent polling shows only 7% of people say that gay marriage would be an important issue in deciding their vote, and they are evenly split between people who support and oppose the issue.

The more important impact will be on how the Conservative party is perceived: in or out of touch, modern or stuck in the past, or - as our present polling and today's vote suggests - just hopelessly divided.

[Omah]

Fewer heterosexual couples are getting married :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250207/Marriage-rates-drop-lowest-level-1862.html#axzz2K2j76vX1

The number of people marrying has hit a historic new low, official figures have revealed.

They show that women are now three times less likely to get married than were their mothers' generation.

Fewer than one in 50 women in England and Wales went through a wedding in 2008.

The figures from the Office for National Statistics showed 232,990 weddings, the fewest in a year since 1895, when the population was just 30million against around 51million now.

The marriage rate - the proportion of the single population who married - was the lowest in a non-war year since records began in 1862.

The figures were 19.6 per 1,000 single, divorced or married woman and 21.8 per 1,000 men.

More heterosexual couples are getting divorced :

•The number of divorces in England and Wales in 2010 was 119,589, an increase of 4.9 per cent since 2009, when there were 113,949 divorces
•The divorce rate rose in 2010 to 11.1 divorcing people per thousand married population from 10.5 in 2009
•22 per cent of marriages in 1970 had ended in divorce by the 15th wedding anniversary, whereas 33 per cent of marriages in 1995 had ended after the same period of time
•The number of divorces in 2010 was highest among men and women aged 40 to 44

Marriage may be important to those who can't get married but its increasingly less so for others.

[Nedusa]

Not really :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21339877

Anthony Wells, YouGov associate director

Although the same sex marriage Bill did not go down well with all Conservative MP's and yes there may be some disunity for a period , the real aim of this Bill and the timing of it was to enhance Mr Cameron's standing to the wider voting public because in the next election it will come down to a straight fight between Ed Miliband and David Cameron in a sort of Presidential election. It is this battle that David Cameron is looking to win and by being a popular PM to the wider electorate by granting Bills like same sex marriage and a referendum on Europe this is his strategy to win a second term in office ( but a first term in a Conservative only Govt) ...!!!

[Omah]

Although the same sex marriage Bill did not go down well with all Conservative MP's and yes there may be some disunity for a period , the real aim of this Bill and the timing of it was to enhance Mr Cameron's standing to the wider voting public because in the next election it will come down to a straight fight between Ed Miliband and David Cameron in a sort of Presidential election. It is this battle that David Cameron is looking to win and by being a popular PM to the wider electorate by granting Bills like same sex marriage and a referendum on Europe this is his strategy to win a second term in office ( but a first term in a Conservative only Govt) ...!!!

That's different to what you stated in your previous post (the effect has been achive) but it's what I agree with - Cameron has forgone his manifesto promises and ignored the mandate given by the electorate in order to popularise his party amongst gullible punters while in the pursuit of personal power and the enrichment of the "ruling" (i.e. monied) elite.

Whether that plan works or not ..... :shrug:

[joeysteele]

I think like the Bill on Fox hunting this Bill on same sex marriage will eventually become law but this will take a long time as it will have various amendments added and subsequent readings in the commons before it ever goes to the Lords where the same process could also apply .

So yes it will become law in some form at some point but David Cameron has reaped the initial benefit increasing his overall popularity to the countries electorate.

Job done one might say.....!!!

I cannot see a bounce coming for the Conservatives on this one, had he been able to carry the bulk of his MPs on this issue then definitely he would have likely reaped some extra support from the voters.
However what this has done despite the gentle disagreements as to this bill from the Conservatives,has shown a divided party.

The voters don't like divided parties.
Although this was A freevote in the commons last night, it has in fact only got through thanks to Labour and the Lib dems,had those 2 parties been badly divided by this bill then it would have been lost.

175 votes were cast against this bill and 136 of those votes came from the Conservative party,that is actually 10 more than supported the bill.
So I cannot see the Conservative party reaping any great support from the voters as to this one although I do agree David Cameron's standing will likely have risen with them and so it should,he made a brave decision in going ahead on this issue in my opinion.

[Kizzy]

Due to the weight of public opinion what choice did he have?

[Omah]

Due to the weight of public opinion what choice did he have?

:conf:

[Livia]

I think like the Bill on Fox hunting this Bill on same sex marriage will eventually become law but this will take a long time as it will have various amendments added and subsequent readings in the commons before it ever goes to the Lords where the same process could also apply .

So yes it will become law in some form at some point but David Cameron has reaped the initial benefit increasing his overall popularity to the countries electorate.

Job done one might say.....!!!

This issue has caused more members to leave the Conservative Party than any other single issue in years. If David Cameron made this into an issue to make himself more popular with the electorate, he's done it at the expense of a lot of his core voters. Gay marriage wasn't in the manifesto... it wasn't in any party's manifesto, and personally I think it was a smoke-screen to deflect attention from the other countless issues that are going against the Tories at the moment. I'm not saying I'm against gay marriage or that it's a bad thing, only that this is going to cost the Conservatives dear at the next election and probably the party who will benefit will be UKIP.

[Kizzy]

:conf:

Meant to quote joey, I assume that is all that is confusing you?

[Nedusa]

This issue has caused more members to leave the Conservative Party than any other single issue in years. If David Cameron made this into an issue to make himself more popular with the electorate, he's done it at the expense of a lot of his core voters. Gay marriage wasn't in the manifesto... it wasn't in any party's manifesto, and personally I think it was a smoke-screen to deflect attention from the other countless issues that are going against the Tories at the moment. I'm not saying I'm against gay marriage or that it's a bad thing, only that this is going to cost the Conservatives dear at the next election and probably the party who will benefit will be UKIP.

Yes I agree he has suffered slightly more than he would have expected, he probably thought he would have more Tory MP's voting for the Bill than was the case. However I still maintain he will weather the storm within his own party and as they say time is a great healer. The vast majority of people in this country will applaud David Cameron for the personal risk he took to his political career and reputation in order to push through such a much needed and much overdue change to our laws. This is what voters will remember in two years time and although I do think UKIP will take an increased share of the vote I think the main battle will be between Miliband and Cameron and I think Cameron will have the edge entirely because of bills like this one and the offer of a referendum on Europe. People see him as a politician with a conscience and not just a figurehead at the top of the Tory machine.

[Omah]

Meant to quote joey, I assume that is all that is confusing you?

No ..... what do you mean by "weight of public opinion" ?

[Omah]

This issue has caused more members to leave the Conservative Party than any other single issue in years. If David Cameron made this into an issue to make himself more popular with the electorate, he's done it at the expense of a lot of his core voters. Gay marriage wasn't in the manifesto... it wasn't in any party's manifesto, and personally I think it was a smoke-screen to deflect attention from the other countless issues that are going against the Tories at the moment. I'm not saying I'm against gay marriage or that it's a bad thing, only that this is going to cost the Conservatives dear at the next election and probably the party who will benefit will be UKIP.

Yeah, definitely, a "smokescreen" or distraction from the real issues that are affecting most of the electorate.

[Omah]

The vast majority of people in this country will applaud David Cameron for the personal risk he took to his political career and reputation in order to push through such a much needed and much overdue change to our laws.

"The vast majority of people in this country" couldn't care less about "such a much needed and much overdue change to our laws"

This is what voters will remember in two years time .

No, they won't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21339877

Anthony Wells, YouGov associate director

However much attention it is getting in the media at the moment, gay marriage is not the sort of issue that will have a big impact on people's votes come the general election when, as usual, people's votes will be decided upon the bigger issues.

Polls claiming to show that it will change a large number of votes are because the question asked singles out just that one issue. By May 2015, (when the election is due) gay marriage will have been on the statute book for two years and will be broadly accepted. More importantly, it will fade to insignificance next to bigger issues like the economy, health, crime and the merits of the party leaders.

Our most recent polling shows only 7% of people say that gay marriage would be an important issue in deciding their vote, and they are evenly split between people who support and oppose the issue.

The more important impact will be on how the Conservative party is perceived: in or out of touch, modern or stuck in the past, or - as our present polling and today's vote suggests - just hopelessly divided.

[Kizzy]

Let me start again....

175 votes were cast against this bill and 136 of those votes came from the Conservative party,that is actually 10 more than supported the bill.
So I cannot see the Conservative party reaping any great support from the voters as to this one although I do agree David Cameron's standing will likely have risen with them and so it should,he made a brave decision in going ahead on this issue in my opinion

Due to the weight of public opinion what choice did he have?

[Omah]

Let me start again....

175 votes were cast against this bill and 136 of those votes came from the Conservative party,that is actually 10 more than supported the bill.
So I cannot see the Conservative party reaping any great support from the voters as to this one although I do agree David Cameron's standing will likely have risen with them and so it should,he made a brave decision in going ahead on this issue in my opinion

Due to the weight of public opinion what choice did he have?

Since you have not answered the question, let me repeat :

What do you mean by "weight of public opinion" ?

[Jack_]

centuries of oppression and decades of campaigning and it's not a 'big issue'. lul.

[Kizzy]

Since you have not answered the question, let me repeat :

The opinion of the LGBT christians campaigning and also the public backing them in support of the issue.

[Omah]

centuries of oppression and decades of campaigning and it's not a 'big issue'. lul.

That's what most of the electorate seem to think.

:idc:

[Omah]

The opinion of the LGBT christians campaigning and also the public backing them in support of the issue.

That's not "the weight of public opinion" - how many of the electorate constitute "the public backing the LGBT christians" ......:conf:

[Nedusa]

"The vast majority of people in this country" couldn't care less about "such a much needed and much overdue change to our laws"



No, they won't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21339877

Anthony Wells, YouGov associate director

Thanks for your rather detailed reply, you show some interesting points but my views are my views so I guess time will tell.... !!!

[Jack_]

That's what most of the electorate seem to think.

:idc:

Most of the electorate aren't lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual.

And to be quite honest, on this issue I couldn't give a toss how much support it has received from the rest of the population or opinion polls on the matter, it's an important, progressive and long overdue piece of legislation that a minority group have waited and fought for centuries to have passed. Yes there are many other issues facing the coalition, but this bill I'm afraid cannot be put off any longer.

The interests of an oppressed and unequal minority come before anybody or anything else on this matter.

[Kizzy]

That's not "the weight of public opinion" - how many of the electorate constitute "the public backing the LGBT christians" ......:conf:

I disagree... what do you constitute a 'weight of public opinion' if it is not manifested as support for an issue?
:conf: :conf:

[MTVN]

It seems though that contrary to what you said this wasn't something Cameron was forced into doing because of overwhelming public demand

[Kizzy]

Oh I don't think he was forced either, although I do believe there is overwhelming public support for and this countered the MP's who were against.

[Omah]

Oh I don't think he was forced either, although I do believe there is overwhelming public support for and this countered the MP's who were against.

So where is this "overwhelming suppport", who are is constituents and what are their numbers ?

You have singularly failed to provide any evidence of such support - IMO, that is because there never was any - most of the electorate have other fish to fry.

[Omah]

Most of the electorate aren't lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual.

True

And to be quite honest, on this issue I couldn't give a toss how much support it has received from the rest of the population or opinion polls on the matter

That's a rather selfish of you.

It's an important, progressive and long overdue piece of legislation that a minority group have waited and fought for centuries to have passed.

I am somewhat confused over this grandiose claim, since the Women's suffrage movement in the United Kingdom only took 98 years to achive its main aim - the right to vote on the same terms as men.

The interests of an oppressed and unequal minority come before anybody or anything else on this matter.

Well, that's precisely why the rest of the electorate think otherwise ..... :pipe:

[Livia]

Yes I agree he has suffered slightly more than he would have expected, he probably thought he would have more Tory MP's voting for the Bill than was the case. However I still maintain he will weather the storm within his own party and as they say time is a great healer. The vast majority of people in this country will applaud David Cameron for the personal risk he took to his political career and reputation in order to push through such a much needed and much overdue change to our laws. This is what voters will remember in two years time and although I do think UKIP will take an increased share of the vote I think the main battle will be between Miliband and Cameron and I think Cameron will have the edge entirely because of bills like this one and the offer of a referendum on Europe. People see him as a politician with a conscience and not just a figurehead at the top of the Tory machine.

I agree that it has given Cameron a better rep in some areas, but sadly not with the people that are likely to vote for him. The core Tory voters are turning in their membership cards in droves. He didn't get a majority at the last general election and he certainly won't next time. Many Conservative supporters have stated their intention of backing UKIP and that will split the Tory vote. The last time there was sizeable rebellion amongst Conservative members where people actually left the party was the cutting of the armed forces, but that pales into insignificance when put up against the rebellion over gay marriage. If it was a big issue to any of the parties it should have been in their manifesto, as it wasn't I can only conclude that is it, like I said earlier, a smoke-screen to deflect attention away from the other burning issues of the day. Suggesting people now see him as a politician with a conscience shows how this issue has deflected from benefit cuts, the NHS, fuel costs, the economy... all the other things that would have been in the news if gay marriage hadn't been on the agenda.

[Kizzy]

So where is this "overwhelming suppport", who are is constituents and what are their numbers ?

You have singularly failed to provide any evidence of such support - IMO, that is because there never was any - most of the electorate have other fish to fry.

Well maybe over the next few days some statistics may come to light....we can only hope eh? :pipe:

[Jack_]

Decades then Omah, there's no need to be pedantic.

Here's a column from The Independent, written by Owen Jones, who explains just how much LGBT people have had to go through to get to this stage. It is not just an issue that can be brushed aside to suit the largely apathetic and straight electorate's other concerns; for people who have been at the forefront of the battle for equality, those who have personally experienced the hardship of this campaign, this is an important step towards eradicating homophobia and giving them the freedom and opportunity to legally marry someone they love. To suggest that we should further postpone this legislation is an insult to those who have had to wait far, far too long for this day to come.

Equal marriage: As we celebrate, let's not forget those who fought to get us here
And countless centuries of bigotry haven't disappeared with one fell swoop

Just over 40 years ago, Britain’s first gay rights march ended in Trafalgar Square, half a mile away from where MPs yesterday voted in support of equal marriage. These few hundred courageous demonstrators – popularly regarded as perverts, *****, deviants – were outnumbered by up to twice as many police officers.

As Tottenham Labour MP David Lammy reminded the House, Parliamentarians once looked the other way when policemen beat gay protesters. What progress has been made, when the last legal hurdle faced by same-sex lovers is cast aside – and when a (partly) Conservative government is in power.

There is no doubting that yesterday’s vote was a historic moment. We are finally at the end of the legal emancipation of LGBT people, a process that only began in 1967 with the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Centuries of state-sanctioned prejudice have been obliterated in the last 40 years: some of the last set of laws denying full rights to a minority are now being overcome. But, as ever, it was not the goodwill and generosity of those above that brought us here, but rather the struggle and sacrifice of countless LGBT people who were spat at, ridiculed, demonised, beaten and imprisoned.

Not that countless centuries of bigotry have simply vanished; their death rattle echoed in the Chamber. Tory MP Peter Bone described it as his “saddest day” in the House, claiming a lack of democratic legitimacy for a policy that polls show has majority support.

Sir Gerald Howarth frothed at the mouth, damning the lack of “mandate for this massive cultural change”. The DUP’s Ian Paisley – the son of a man who once launched a campaign to “Save Ulster From Sodomy” – suggested that the ability of same-sex couples to marry would drive straight people away from the altar: MPs laughed at him, and rightly so. And Sir Roger Gale – fulfilling the role of cardboard cut-out, clichéd bigot – compared being gay to incest. The 17th century called, Sir Roger, and they want their speech back.

Tragically, a handful of Labour MPs joined Tory protests at history’s unstoppable march. Stephen Timms affirmed he would vote against the Bill at Third Reading, suggesting that marriage was about children: at a stroke, apparently annulling the marriages of countless childless couples. His fellow Newham Labour MP, Lyn Brown, wondered – having wed too late to have children – if her marriage was therefore not legitimate.

It was refuseniks such as Timms who stopped Labour imposing a three-line Whip on this vote by threatening to resign: Labour’s official view is that civil rights are a matter of individual conscience.

More movingly, some MPs gave an insight into the hardship caused by prejudice. “Progress has come in fits and starts and has not always been easy,” said gay Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams. Tory MP Nick Herbert spoke of gay children bullied in schools and athletes who would not come out. “They have civil partnerships, why do they need it to be called marriage?” demanded critics who would be reduced to rage if their own relationships were called anything else. “This is how it has always been,” they argued, refusing to accept that traditions can sometimes be injustices that have prevailed for too long.

They were schooled with a potted history of marriage by Yvette Cooper: of how women were once mere objects, granted by fathers to their husbands; of civil non-religious marriages – once a huge, controversial innovation – being introduced in 1836; of women still legally being able to be raped by their husbands until the early 1990s.

And so yesterday was not simply about the right of same-sex couples to be legally accepted. It was not simply the acceptance that love is love – with its excitement, warmth, companionship, fear and heartbreak – whatever the gender of those involved. It was about the state finally recognising that LGBT people are the same as anyone else.

That does not mean complacency: homophobic abuse will still be yelled at same-sex couples; young LGBT men and women will still be consumed with self-loathing and terror; and yes, LGBT people will still be punched, kicked. Yet we have come so far, and, in the years to come, homophobia will continue its inevitable retreat. But don’t get too grateful for those Parliamentarians. It was huge sacrifice that got us here. Never forget it.

Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/equal-marriage-as-we-celebrate-lets-not-forget-those-who-fought-to-get-us-here-8482365.html)

Also, another great speech from yesterday's debate:

uWIoULRrvxM

[Omah]

I disagree... what do you constitute a 'weight of public opinion' if it is not manifested as support for an issue?
:conf: :conf:

You said "THE weight of public opinion", which, if I understand English idioms correctly, means the preponderance, usually the pronounced preponderance, of a public (i.e. of the people as a whole) judgement or view ..... there is patently no evidence for your assertion on the extent of public feeling on this issue.

[Omah]

Well maybe over the next few days some statistics may come to light....we can only hope eh? :pipe:

YOU can hope, I have other fish to fry ..... ;)

[Jack_]

And just as an extra to my post...

Well, that's precisely why the rest of the electorate think otherwise ..... :pipe:

Well of course they would, because they're not an oppressed and unequal minority. That speaks for itself really :pipe:

[Kizzy]

YOU can hope, I have other fish to fry ..... ;)

Cheers! :thumbs:

[Omah]

Decades then Omah, there's no need to be pedantic.

Here's a column from The Independent, written by Owen Jones, who explains just how much LGBT people have had to go through to get to this stage. It is not just an issue that can be brushed aside to suit the largely apathetic and straight electorate's other concerns; for people who have been at the forefront of the battle for equality, those who have personally experienced the hardship of this campaign, this is an important step towards eradicating homophobia and giving them the freedom and opportunity to legally marry someone they love. To suggest that we should further postpone this legislation is an insult to those who have had to wait far, far too long for this day to come.



Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/equal-marriage-as-we-celebrate-lets-not-forget-those-who-fought-to-get-us-here-8482365.html)

Also, another great speech from yesterday's debate:

uWIoULRrvxM

I thought the topic of this thread was gay marriage not gay rights in general - if you want to discuss that complex issue then I suggest you open another thread - I will happily join you there to tell you how I did my bit for the cause in days of yore ..... :pipe:

[Omah]

Well of course they would, because they're not an oppressed and unequal minority. That speaks for itself really :pipe:

Of course it does - we live in a democracy where an oppressed and unequal minority has won substantial rights but where the interests of the majority hold sway.

:idc:

[Jack_]

Indeed it is about gay marriage, and you appear to be implying that such legislation should be pushed back further in order to satisfy the needs of the rest of the electorate, to which I'm saying the battle to get this day to arrive has been far too long and difficult for those involved for us just to turn around and say 'ah well it should've been done another day tbh!', the wait has been far too long. The interests of this particular minority group are, in this instance, more important than anything else.

[Jack_]

Of course it does - we live in a democracy

That's another debate entirely.

where an oppressed and unequal minority has won substantial rights but where the interests of the majority hold sway.

:idc:

Again, said 'majority' have, by and large, not experienced for themselves the hardship that has faced LGBT people for decades, and not understood the desperation that they have to get married. It's very easy for Dave, a 40 year old married, straight man with two children to say 'well I want the immigration problem to be sorted out before this gay marriage stuff!', regardless of whether he supports it or not, when he himself has not experienced first-hand what it is like to be a gay man with a partner, wishing to get married, and having wished and hoped for that all of his life.

This issue has gone on for far too long to just be brushed aside. Once it's dealt with, and LGBT have been given the equality they so rightly deserve, then, just as I hope and understand too, the focus can return to the other issues facing the UK. I am no Tory, and I too certainly question whether this is a ploy by Cameron to deflect attention away from other coalition policies, but quite frankly I couldn't care less - pushing this legislation forward is much more important than endless cynicism.

[Omah]

Indeed it is about gay marriage, and you appear to be implying that such legislation should be pushed back further in order to satisfy the needs of the rest of the electorate, to which I'm saying the battle to get this day to arrive has been far too long and difficult for those involved for us just to turn around and say 'ah well it should've been done another day tbh!', the wait has been far too long. The interests of this particular minority group are, in this instance, more important than anything else.

No, they're not.

[Omah]

That's another debate entirely.



Again, said 'majority' have, by and large, not experienced for themselves the hardship that has faced LGBT people for decades, and not understood the desperation that they have to get married. It's very easy for Dave, a 40 year old married, straight man with two children to say 'well I want the immigration problem to be sorted out before this gay marriage stuff!', regardless of whether he supports it or not, when he himself has not experienced first-hand what it is like to be a gay man with a partner, wishing to get married, and having wished and hoped for that all of his life.

This issue has gone on for far too long to just be brushed aside. Once it's dealt with, and LGBT have been given the equality they so rightly deserve, then, just as I hope and understand too, the focus can return to the other issues facing the UK. I am no Tory, and I too certainly question whether this is a ploy by Cameron to deflect attention away from other coalition policies, but quite frankly I couldn't care less - pushing this legislation forward is much more important than endless cynicism.

Quite frankly, on this issue, the electorate couldn't care less.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/04/gay-marriage-conservative-party

The politics of same-sex marriage provide a drama at two levels. One is the issue itself; the other is the impact on voters of the dispute inside the Conservative party.

As for the intrinsic merits of the issue, most people back a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. YouGov's latest poll for the Sunday Times finds that 55% support reform, while 36% oppose it.

Not only is opposition to reform a minority view; it's also an issue that commands the passions of only a tiny number. We asked people which three or four issues, out of a list of 15, "will be important to you in deciding how you vote at the next election". The top three are the economy (56%), immigration (42%) and health (26%). Same-sex marriage comes 12th, cited by just 7%. And that 7% divides 4:3 in saying they would be "more likely" rather than "less likely" to vote for a party that supports same-sex marriage.

In short, this is not an issue that will decide the next election. Politicians who claim to form their views by "listening to voters" should be wary of employing "my postbag" as a reason to resist gay marriage. This is one of those controversies – fox-hunting a decade ago was another – where the number and intensity of letter-writers bears no relation to the views of the wider public.

:idc:

[Glenn.]

Again, said 'majority' have, by and large, not experienced for themselves the hardship that has faced LGBT people for decades, and not understood the desperation that they have to get married. It's very easy for Dave, a 40 year old married, straight man with two children to say 'well I want the immigration problem to be sorted out before this gay marriage stuff!', regardless of whether he supports it or not, when he himself has not experienced first-hand what it is like to be a gay man with a partner, wishing to get married, and having wished and hoped for that all of his life.

This issue has gone on for far too long to just be brushed aside. Once it's dealt with, and LGBT have been given the equality they so rightly deserve, then, just as I hope and understand too, the focus can return to the other issues facing the UK. I am no Tory, and I too certainly question whether this is a ploy by Cameron to deflect attention away from other coalition policies, but quite frankly I couldn't care less - pushing this legislation forward is much more important than endless cynicism.

:worship:

I'm not one for politics but since the Coalition began running this country, passing this bill seems to be the only good thing they've actually done.

[Omah]

Again, said 'majority' have, by and large, not experienced for themselves the hardship that has faced LGBT people for decades, and not understood the desperation that they have to get married. It's very easy for Dave, a 40 year old married, straight man with two children to say 'well I want the immigration problem to be sorted out before this gay marriage stuff!', regardless of whether he supports it or not, when he himself has not experienced first-hand what it is like to be a gay man with a partner, wishing to get married, and having wished and hoped for that all of his life.

and your experience?

[Glenn.]

Why should gay marriage be pushed aside though? That's what I don't get.

[Jack_]

No, they're not.

Yes, they are. A marginalised section of society's opportunity to bring themselves up to the level of the rest of the country who can already get married is of much greater importance than issues facing the majority of the electorate. Issues that, whilst important, can wait - especially considering this piece of legislation has had just about enough of a wait, thanks.

Quite frankly, on this issue, the electorate couldn't care less.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/04/gay-marriage-conservative-party



:idc:

You're not getting it are you? No opinion poll or statistic is going to change the fact that regardless of your political beliefs, what you consider to be pressing issues facing this country, whether you support same sex marriage or not - this is a long overdue piece of legislation that a minority group have waited decades for and it is essential that it is passed sooner rather than later (as it should have been passed years ago), so that equality prevails, bigotry is given a kicking and we as a society can move on and this no longer has to be an issue.

[Jack_]

and your experience?

...which is completely irrelevant considering the debate here is over the lack of experiences the majority of the apathetic electorate have had on this issue. I'm not apathetic to this bill, therefore I am not part of this majority that you continually keep referring to.

[Omah]

Why should gay marriage be pushed aside though? That's what I don't get.

The issue, AFAIC, is not that it should be pushed aside but that Cameron has brought gay marriage to the fore on a pretext that was neither in the Conservative Party manifesto nor given to the government as a mandate by the electorate - since well over 40 election promises have already been broken, why has Cameron placed so much emphasis on the success, and publicity, of an issue which concerns almost none of the electorate but which antagonises his own party while satisfying the aims of the opposition?

:conf:

[Omah]

...which is completely irrelevant considering the debate here is over the lack of experiences the majority of the apathetic electorate have had on this issue. I'm not apathetic to this bill, therefore I am not part of this majority that you continually keep referring to.

You were, apparently, quoting other people's experiences, presumably because you could not draw on your own, then criticising the electorate for a lack of experience, which would appear to be your own dilemma.

[Glenn.]

The issue, AFAIC, is not that it should be pushed aside but that Cameron has brought gay marriage to the fore on a pretext that was neither in the Conservative Party manifesto nor given to the government as a mandate by the electorate - since well over 40 election promises have already been broken, why has Cameron placed so much emphasis on the success, and publicity, of an issue which concerns almost none of the electorate but which antagonises his own party while satisfying the aims of the opposition?

:conf:

Its the govt. Since when do they stick to anything they promise?

And you say it concerns almost none of the electorate. I think the LGBT community would disagree with that completely, and to suggest such a thing is absurd.

[Jack_]

You were, apparently, quoting other people's experiences, presumably because you could not draw on your own, then criticising the electorate for a lack of experience, which would appear to be your own dilemma.

Again, you're missing the point.

You: Quoting opinion polls that are supposed to show the lack of current interest towards this issue by the majority of the electorate.

Me: Explaining how it's likely that they're disinterested because it doesn't directly affect them (that's not to say they disagree with the legislation, they are merely apathetic towards it, at least at the moment) - they're not LGBT (and the majority aren't) and so the chances are that they won't have had much experience with LGBT campaigns. Some will have, but the majority won't, and that is how I would explain their supposed lack of current interest in this bill, and why they regard other issues as more important.

In fact, it's one thing even having this bill passed, but the day that a LGBT issue becomes the main concern of the majority of the British public, over other issues that you have raised, will be even more of a historic moment. That day, as sad as it is, is still quite a way off I believe.

[Omah]

Yes, they are. A marginalised section of society's opportunity to bring themselves up to the level of the rest of the country who can already get married is of much greater importance than issues facing the majority of the electorate. Issues that, whilst important, can wait - especially considering this piece of legislation has had just about enough of a wait, thanks.



You're not getting it are you? No opinion poll or statistic is going to change the fact that regardless of your political beliefs, what you consider to be pressing issues facing this country, whether you support same sex marriage or not - this is a long overdue piece of legislation that a minority group have waited decades for and it is essential that it is passed sooner rather than later (as it should have been passed years ago), so that equality prevails, bigotry is given a kicking and we as a society can move on and this no longer has to be an issue.

"You're not getting it are you?"

It may be a "Big Issue" for you, but if you can't see the importance of other issues to the majority of the electorate then that makes you a bigot, too.

[Omah]

Again, you're missing the point.

You: Quoting opinion polls that are supposed to show the lack of current interest towards this issue by the majority of the electorate.

Me: Explaining how it's likely that they're disinterested because it doesn't directly affect them (that's not to say they disagree with the legislation, they are merely apathetic towards it, at least at the moment) - they're not LGBT (and the majority aren't) and so the chances are that they won't have had much experience with LGBT campaigns. Some will have, but the majority won't, and that is how I would explain their supposed lack of current interest in this bill, and why they regard other issues as more important.

In fact, it's one thing even having this bill passed, but the day that a LGBT issue becomes the main concern of the majority of the British public, over other issues that you have raised, will be even more of a historic moment. That day, as sad as it is, is still quite a way off I believe.

OTOH, Kizzy believes that Cameron has the public backing in support of the issue.

So which is it ?

IMO, "they are merely apathetic towards it", as you say, and as the poll proves.

The bill will now get lost in the House of Lords for a few years and the "Big Issue", having distracted the punters for a few days, will assume its rank in the interests of the electorate (currently 12th, IIRC).

[Omah]

And you say it concerns almost none of the electorate. I think the LGBT community would disagree with that completely, and to suggest such a thing is absurd.

No, it isn't ..... it's borne out be facts.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464951/Marriage-rate-falls-lowest-level-records-began.html#axzz2K2j76vX1

Marriage rate falls to its lowest level since records began

Marriage has slumped to its lowest level since records were first kept more than 150 years ago, official figures have revealed.

The proportion of couples tying the knot has fallen back into line with its declining long-term trend following a clampdown on sham weddings.

The popularity of marriage has been waning since 1973.

The Office for National Statistics said the long-term fall in the popularity of marriage was continuing, with millions of couples choosing instead to live together and delay having a family. The figures show the number of weddings in England and Wales dropped by more than 28,000, from 273,070 to 244,710.

The fall brought the marriage rate, the number of people marrying compared to the population as a whole, to its lowest level since records were first kept.

The proportion of married people among the adult population is now only a fraction over a half, at 50.3 per cent.

This figure compares with 54 per cent in 1997 and more than two thirds in the 1970s.

Nearly half the electorate aren't bothered about marriage at all and that proportion is set to increase.

[Kizzy]

OTOH, Kizzy believes that Cameron has the public backing in support of the issue.

So which is it ?

IMO, "they are merely apathetic towards it", as you say, and as the poll proves.

The bill will now get lost in the House of Lords for a few years and the "Big Issue", having distracted the punters for a few days, will assume its rank in the interests of the electorate (currently 12th, IIRC).

Here's what I believe, the public are far more forward thinking in this respect than a few stuffed shirts in the consrvative party on this issue yes....Is it the most pressing thing facing everyone in the UK today? probably not.

[Glenn.]

The thing is Omah, it may not seem to be a 'Big Issue' with you, but it to thousands of others.

[Omah]

The thing is Omah, it may not seem to be a 'Big Issue' with you, but it to thousands of others.

I understand and am happy to accept that, but I do not accept the view (of another poster) that it eclipses all other issues of interest to the electorate.

[Jack_]

Bumping this in time for the debates and subsequent votes today. Starts at 3:30 I believe.

[lostalex]

If France can do it, so can Britain. Don't let us down!

[Vicky.]

Why is this down to a MP vote? MPs get to vote on basic human rights now?

If anything, the public should get their say. I trust them more.

[arista]

Why is this down to a MP vote? MPs get to vote on basic human rights now?

If anything, the public should get their say. I trust them more.


its to to try to Wreck the Gay Vote

[Jesus.]

its to to try to Wreck the Gay Vote

Crystal.

[Jack_]

The debate has started.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive

[Jack_]

I love the suggestion of opening civil partnerships up for heterosexual couples but I feel the MP that raised it (and the other backbenchers supporting it) are doing so to try and derail this bill, which is why I'm reluctant to hope that that amendment is passed.

I mean the MP in question is against this bill but is suggesting we have straight people being allowed to have civil partnerships. Pathetic.

This tweet just about sums it up (https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/336404240069189632)

[arista]

They want the Gay Vote in the River
on a Sludge Boat

[Jack_]

Absolutely no way should teachers be allowed to opt-out of teaching same sex marriage in sex education classes.

[arista]

Absolutely no way should teachers be allowed to opt-out of teaching same sex marriage in sex education classes.

But Jack if its a Church School
that do what they want.





There is No God

[Jack_]

This bloke is doing my nut in. The only people being 'alienated' are gay couples wishing to marry, not those who believe in the 'traditional' view of marriage

[Jack_]

But Jack if its a Church School
that do what they want.





There is No God

Which isn't acceptable. And I know that and you know that.

What this man is suggesting is that if a teacher wishes to say in a classroom that only marriage between a man and a woman is 'right' (when that would actually be incorrect in the eyes of the law anyway, if this bill goes through), they should be entitled to do so. Well I'm sorry but no, any other workplace and I'd have no issue - but in a school, as a public servant? Around children? Impressionable children? Then not a chance.

[Jack_]

David Lammy :love: he was great last time, doing well again today

[Black Dagger]

Who was the one who made the Elton John joke last time? He was fabulous, he needs to come back <3.

[Jack_]

Some of these MP's are just so repulsive.

[Jack_]

'the aggressive homosexual community'

****. me.

:yuk:

[Black Dagger]

Get him off, stupid old cockhead.

[Jack_]

I feel physically sick having to listen to this odious man.

https://twitter.com/Joel_Pearce/status/336522870714949632

:joker:

[Black Dagger]

Has he not bloody finished yet.

[Jack_]

He keeps stumbling on his words and doesn't know what to say. Basically, he doesn't have a point and is just making up excuses to prevent allowing gay people the same rights he's entitled to because he's a homophobic bigoted backwards ******.

[Jack_]

'a measure which is going to have a huge impact on our human lives'

el oh el

[Vicky.]

Absolutely no way should teachers be allowed to opt-out of teaching same sex marriage in sex education classes.

I never learnt about any kind of marriage in sex ed classes...

[Black Dagger]

OMG, yes he's here. :love:

You go Nick Herbert.

[Apple202]

go nick :love:

[Jack_]

http://i.imgur.com/G3lYL1T.jpg

My local MP in the background. A vile man with an abhorrent voting history:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/andrew_turner/isle_of_wight

But LOL @ the screenshot I took

I never learnt about any kind of marriage in sex ed classes...

We did relationships and so as such touched a bit on marriage, but the MP in questions point was more about teachers being allowed to openly express their contempt for same sex marriage and that it was 'wrong'.

[Jack_]

Clause to allow registrars to opt-out was defeated - Ayes 150, Noes 340. Thank **** for that.

[Jack_]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKus3bCCcAABnWd.jpg:large

:laugh3:

[Jack_]

Oooh, the debate and subsequent vote is now on extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. This'll be an interesting one.

[Vicky.]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKus3bCCcAABnWd.jpg:large

:laugh3:

As much as I support equal marriage..whoever said this is an utter twat.

I understand what they are trying to say..but theres absolutely no need to be like that about it. Just creating more 'them and us' type mentalities really :/

[Livia]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKus3bCCcAABnWd.jpg:large

:laugh3:

Yeah... way to sabotage your own argument.

[Jack_]

I'm guessing he's a comedian, so the way in which he said it wasn't serious. The point was but the anger that he said it was was exaggerated.

[Jack_]

Yeah... way to sabotage your own argument.

Is that supposed to be directed at me or the guy that said it?

[Livia]

Is that supposed to be directed at me or the guy that said it?

Well, at him for saying it, and to you for posting it on a serious debates thread with a laughing smiley. It's an important and serious subject.

[Jack_]

Well, at him for saying it, and to you for posting it on a serious debates thread with a laughing smiley. It's an important and serious subject.

Yeah, I think I know that more than anyone in this thread. But I don't think finding something a comedian has said funny devalues my argument or has derailed this thread either. It's one post in seven pages. In fact, I was the only one talking to myself in here so it's hardly been a debate.

[Kizzy]

This is all a smokescreen anyway, what else is going on that they had to have this debate again?
Not that it isn't a serious issue but I can't help but suspect it's a cover for something more controversial.

[Jack_]

This is all a smokescreen anyway, what else is going on that they had to have this debate again?
Not that it isn't a serious issue but I can't help but suspect it's a cover for something more controversial.

It's the report stage, people are getting confused and thinking that because the bill passed last time, that's it, it's done with.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/marriagesamesexcouplesbill.html

[Jack_]

I really don't know how I feel about this civil partnership amendment.

[Kizzy]

It's the report stage, people are getting confused and thinking that because the bill passed last time, that's it, it's done with.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/marriagesamesexcouplesbill.html

I know but why the drama, these days bills get rushed through so quick there is none of this... Especially anything to do with welfare so why is this being forced back in the public eye?

[Vicky.]

I really don't know how I feel about this civil partnership amendment.

I agree that straight coples should be able to have civil partnerships if they wish.

But I think that should be a seperate issue..as it will just slow this down I think

[Jack_]

I agree that straight coples should be able to have civil partnerships if they wish.

But I think that should be a seperate issue..as it will just slow this down I think

I think I'm leaning more towards this argument too, although some are suggesting that the claims that it'll push this bill back to after the general election, and that it'll cost £4billion are 'exaggerated', so I'm not really sure what to believe. Perhaps Livia would know more on the ins and outs of this.

[Jack_]

One thing I don't like is that this amendment has been raised by an MP who opposes same sex marriage. That's just pathetic and really does make it look like an attempt to derail this.

[Ninastar]

one thing i don't understand is hating on people's religion for not being supportive of gay marriage. surely it's hypocritical to hate on them for not believing in something?

[Jack_]

Well well well...look who has had his say...

https://twitter.com/JohnLoughton/status/336565520138657792

:joker:

[Redway]

one thing i don't understand is hating on people's religion for not being supportive of gay marriage. surely it's hypocritical to hate on them for not believing in something?

[2.] I'm obviously in favour of gay marriage but if religious institutions choose to not wed a same-sex couple, I fear that people will develop negative attitudes towards religious people, even though I hate religion in general.

[Ninastar]

there's a guy on my FB like that. He's constantly belittling and hating on religion and it's pretty harsh. fair enough if you're not religious and don't believe in it. but to hate on it because they don't agree with something you agree with...? it's just a cycle and it makes them just as bad.

[Redway]

there's a guy on my FB like that. He's constantly belittling and hating on religion and it's pretty harsh. fair enough if you're not religious and don't believe in it. but to hate on it because they don't agree with something you agree with...? it's just a cycle and it makes them just as bad.

I agree but I was guilty of this as recently as last year LOL. I'm sure there are plenty of religious people out there who are not homophobic but simply don't condone practicing homosexuality..but the fact that the Bible and all are constantly making out that natural tendencies are tantamount to murder is why I really don't like organised religion.

[Shaun]

don't really see the cause for contention with that Louis CK quote... the man's a genius, and it's a small frustrated comment about how silly this all is.

[Jack_]

They've voted in favour of clause 16 :o

[Benjamin]

I feel like I'm the only gay guy who really doesn't care about this.

[Jack_]

Oh, clause 16 is just a review of the civil partnerships amendment I believe, but clause 10 is something else (I'm searching Twitter to find out)

[Shaun]

THE ONLY CLAUSE I CARE ABOUT IS SANTA, hurry this along ******s

[Vicky.]

I feel like I'm the only gay guy who really doesn't care about this.

Nah, all my gay mates (and here are a lot of them) dont give a **** either.

A couple I know are planning a wedding and say even if same sex marriage is available by the time they do it, they still want a civil partnership :laugh:

[Jack_]

Overwhelming vote against clause 10, which was Tim Loughton's proposal which would have supposedly slowed the entire bill down.

So good result.

[Jack_]

I hope they have this review soon though, not in five years as the clause suggests.

[Livia]

I think the thing to remember here is that any decision will have to be passed by the House of Lords. And there's no way it will get through the H of L unscathed. The place is full of dinosaurs, many of whom are lawyers and judges.

As far as civil partnerships for heterosexual couples goes... if same sex marriage becomes law I don't see how they could deny civil partnerships to heterosexuals without it being discriminatory.

[joeysteele]

It has been a really good debate though, some MPs you just wished would sit down quickly again but they have the right to say their piece even it is coming across in a bigoted way.

Chris Bryant was impressive and for me the speaker of the debate from the parts I have watched was an MP from Newcastle upon Tyne, Catherine Mckinnell. Liked her story and how she came to decide the way she was going to as well.

Pleased Clause 10 was resoundly beaten and that clause 16 was passed with a very large vote too.

[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22605011

MPs will vote later on an amendment to the Bill, put forward by the Humanist Association, to allow officially recognised groups, such as charities or voluntary organisations, to officiate at marriage ceremonies.

At the moment, anyone taking part in a humanist ceremony must still have their marriage made legal through a register office. Humanist ceremonies have been a fully legal form of marriage in Scotland since 2005.

Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said: "The amendment does not open up legal recognition for any new weddings other than humanist ones.

"Humanist weddings are popular and meaningful and legal recognition for them would be fair, timely, and not at all controversial."


Hear, hear ..... :pipe:

If I were to get married again, I'd like a legal Humanist ceremony ..... :banana:

[Nedusa]

Why can't the bride and groom at a humanist wedding simply just sign the marriage register after the ceremony like they do at most religious wedding services ??

[Livia]

For the same reason that you can't jump over a broom and then sign the register - because it isn't recognised in British law. Neither is a Hindu wedding ceremony, for instance, recognised by British law. Hindus have to marry in a religious ceremony and also at a register office.

[Niamh.]

For the same reason that you can't jump over a broom and then sign the register - because it isn't recognised in British law. Neither is a Hindu wedding ceremony, for instance, recognised by British law. Hindus have to marry in a religious ceremony and also at a register office.

That sounds like fun................if you're a witch

http://i.imgur.com/aYF0YpU.gif

[Livia]

That sounds like fun................if you're a witch

http://i.imgur.com/aYF0YpU.gif

I'm with the Mentalist on this one, they don't exist. They are mostly fat goths in panne velvet.

Present company excepted LOL...

[Niamh.]

I'm with the Mentalist on this one, they don't exist. They are mostly fat goths in panne velvet.

Present company excepted LOL...

:laugh:

[Nedusa]

For the same reason that you can't jump over a broom and then sign the register - because it isn't recognised in British law. Neither is a Hindu wedding ceremony, for instance, recognised by British law. Hindus have to marry in a religious ceremony and also at a register office.

Oh.... So only Christian churches have this dispensation to not have to have another Civil ceremony ??

[Vicky.]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/george-takei-responds-to-traditional-marriage-fans

:D

[Niamh.]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/george-takei-responds-to-traditional-marriage-fans

:D

:laugh2:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2zfmoeq.jpg

[Niamh.]

lol I like this comment someone made about the girls who wrote "yolo" in the corner of her Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve "Surely YOLO isnt a very christian term. "You Only Live Eternally in Heaven or the Fiery Pits of Hell" YOLEHFPH?"

[Shaun]

voted through 366 to 161 :pipe:

[joeysteele]

It has been a good debate over the last 2 days,all that I have been able to see of it.
A good and convincing result

I don't disagree with a lot he says but for me,somehow, what an irritating MP Dr Julian Huppert is.

[Kizzy]

Gay marriage being debated on question time, in Belfast...

[MTVN]

We've a QT thread itself in the TV section btw kizy

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214506&page=2

Just in case you hadn't realised

[Kizzy]

Of course I knew do you fink i'm fick? :joker:
Just thought if jack was about he may want to continue his thread based on the comments.

[MTVN]

lol fair enough, just thought you might have overlooked it

If I'm honest I think the gay marriage debate has become very tired now and this QT discussion has just gone over old territory, for the record I am in favour of equal marriage but I do think that some of those who are against it get unfairly vilified at times, although those comments of Ian Pailsey that Dimbleby quoted were pretty disgraceful

[Ninastar]

i'm all for gay marriage too, but I think that if you don't believe in it yourself, it's fair enough. you shouldn't get hate for having an opinion.

however, if you go about it in awful ways, trying to cause arguments etc, then yes, you deserve hate. and I think this happens in both cases of being for and against gay marriage.

[Shaun]

if those who aren't fussed about gay marriage are getting bored of it, imagine how those who are pro feel :tongue:

[lostalex]

The guy on Question Time tonight, i think he was from the Democrat Union party? never heard of it before, but, man he was the most bigoted politician i've ever heard. I couldn't believe my ears. he makes Sarah Palin seem tolerant.

[joeysteele]

The guy on Question Time tonight, i think he was from the Democrat Union party? never heard of it before, but, man he was the most bigoted politician i've ever heard. I couldn't believe my ears. he makes Sarah Palin seem tolerant.

He's an Irish politician and an MP from Northern Ireland Lostalex, he is Ian Paisley jnr, the other Ian Paisley was even worse.
I agree he is really bigoted,he says little I have any agreement with.

They used to be the Ulster Unionist party and were for a long time closely bonded to the Conservative party.
They,the Ulster Unionist party, then went through arguments and his Dad Ian Paisley snr formed and led the Democratric Unionist party.

[Kizzy]

It was never going to be as readily accepted in Ireland due to the religious aspect.
That is in no way a slur, I was surprised there weren't more audience members who felt the same as Paisley jr on that.