British government to legislate for same-sex marriage

[Strelok]

'Gay couples will get equal right to marry' - Telegraph

The bill will likely get the 70 votes of the Lib Dems, the Green party, probably nationalists combined. Getting the other 250 or so votes is the question.

 

[Gipper]

I'm not all that keen on politics across the pond, but I'd assume that any BNP votes are as good as no, and that most of the Tories would turn it down. There's still a distinct conservative movement in merry ol' England, remnants of Thatcherism that probably won't go away barring a major sociological shift.

Good luck with it though. The only thing in England that should be illegal is smiling when your picture is being taken.

 

[Laila]

They can already marry as far as I know

 

[digsbe]

Yet again we have another government trying to legalize gay marriage without looking to the voters... I hope this fails. Homosexual unions are not marriage.

 

[MaggieD]

This is one subject I am soooo tired of hearing about. What difference is it going to make in a hundred years? We'll have legalized it long before then. We'll find that our children won't turn gay because of it. Our morals won't decay one iota faster because it's legal. Life will go on. Marriage is a piece of paper that will legitimize the union of two same-sex people who love each other. What on earth is so bad about that?

A good merlot marries quite well with a sharp cheese. If cheese and merlot can get married, what's all the fuss about? Let them suffer right along with the rest of us.

 

[alexa]

I'm not all that keen on politics across the pond, but I'd assume that any BNP votes are as good as no, and that most of the Tories would turn it down. There's still a distinct conservative movement in merry ol' England, remnants of Thatcherism that probably won't go away barring a major sociological shift.

Good luck with it though. The only thing in England that should be illegal is smiling when your picture is being taken.

That is indeed true as none of these xxxxxxx have a seat in our parliament.

 

[alexa]

Yet again we have another government trying to legalize gay marriage without looking to the voters... I hope this fails. Homosexual unions are not marriage.

What makes you think UK voters have the same prejudice as you?

 

[alexa]

They can already marry as far as I know

At the moment they can have a 'civil partnership' which apparently does not have the same rights. The change in law would allow them exactly the same rights as hetrosexual marriages.

 

[spud_meister]

Yet again we have another government trying to legalize gay marriage without looking to the voters... I hope this fails. Homosexual unions are not marriage.

according to whom?

 

[winston53660]

Homosexual unions are not marriage.

Yes they are:kitty:

 

[Arcana XV]

Yet again we have another government trying to legalize gay marriage without looking to the voters... I hope this fails. Homosexual unions are not marriage.

What's the difference? They love and support each other in sickness and in health, many are raising families. Many have been together longer than my own heterosexual marriage lasted. Is it just the word marriage you have a problem with? Because it really doesn't matter what you personally decide to call it, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... it's usually a freaking duck! :lol:

 

[Gardener]

[/url]

The bill will likely get the 70 votes of the Lib Dems, the Green party, probably nationalists combined. Getting the other 250 or so votes is the question.

Conspicuoulsly absent from this list is labor.

I can very well imagine the calculations involved concerning the potential alienation of various aspects of their power base.

 

[spud_meister]

What's the difference? They love and support each other in sickness and in health, many are raising families. Many have been together longer than my own heterosexual marriage lasted. Is it just the word marriage you have a problem with? Because it really doesn't matter what you personally decide to call it, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... it's usually a freaking duck! :lol:

but this duck has two penises :shock:

 

[Arcana XV]

but this duck has two penises :shock:

That's ok, the duck down the block has two vaginas. It all evens out in the end.

 

[Deuce]

according to whom?

Conservative opposition to gay marriage, as they see it: Literally semantics
Conservative opposition to gay marriage, as it really is: EWWW ICKY TWO DUDES!

 

[PeteEU]

'Gay couples will get equal right to marry' - Telegraph

The bill will likely get the 70 votes of the Lib Dems, the Green party, probably nationalists combined. Getting the other 250 or so votes is the question.

Considering that the Lib Dems and Conservatives are in government, chances are it will get almost unanimous approval. I doubt the Conservatives will risk getting the coalition broken up over such a small insignificant thing. Plus as this states..

During the election campaign, the Conservatives were the only main party to suggest that they would consider allowing full homosexual marriage

So one thing is for sure... British Conservative party disagrees on this front considerably with their American counterparts ... then again so do most conservative parties in the civilized world.

 

[digsbe]

according to whom?

According to me and God.

Yes they are:kitty:

No they aren't.

What makes you think UK voters have the same prejudice as you?

Why is it that I am automatically prejudice because I don't define homosexual unions as marriage?

What's the difference? They love and support each other in sickness and in health, many are raising families. Many have been together longer than my own heterosexual marriage lasted. Is it just the word marriage you have a problem with? Because it really doesn't matter what you personally decide to call it, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... it's usually a freaking duck! :lol:

The difference is that sex is natural only between a man and woman. The male and female sexual union is vastly different from the homosexual one. Not all married couples must have kids (and I'm not advocating for that). But heterosexual unions are different from homosexual unions in that heterosexuality is biologically natural, it is how we reproduce, and it is the natural foundation for the family. I have a problem with society saying that marriage is defined as a union between any two people and that those who disagree are not allowed to have their opinion heard because they are "bigots" or "prejudice." What does matter to me is how the government would define marriage.

 

[winston53660]

According to me and God..

There are a lot of gods and goddess:

THE PANTHEONS

AFRICAN GODS
AUSTRALIAN GODS
AZTEC GODS
CARIBBEAN GODS
CELTIC GODS
CHINESE GODS
EGYPTIAN GODS
FINNISH GODS
GREEK GODS
INCAN GODS
INDIAN GODS
JAPANESE GODS
MAYAN GODS
MESOPOTAMIAN GODS
MIDDLE-EASTERN GODS
NATIVE AMERICAN GODS
NORSE GODS
OCEANIC GODS
ROMAN GODS
SLAVIC and BALTIC GODS
SOUTH AMERICAN GODS
SOUTH-EAST ASIAN
TIBETAN GODS

Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods. Mythology with a twist!

I really don't know why any one god goddess should be be true over another.

 

[Dav]

The UK has a population of about 62 million.

So, if this bill passes, there will be about as many people living somewhere that recognizes gay marriage as there are people living in the United States (about 310 million).

 

[Manc Skipper]

Conservative opposition to gay marriage, as they see it: Literally semantics
Conservative opposition to gay marriage, as it really is: EWWW ICKY TWO DUDES!

Did you read the OP link?

" ... During the election campaign, the Conservatives were the only main party to suggest that they would consider allowing full homosexual marriage. ... "

 

[Strelok]

According to me and God.

I guess you also have extraordinary for the claim, right?

AThe difference is that sex is natural only between a man and woman.

False and is a fallacy anyway.

The male and female sexual union is vastly different from the homosexual one. Not all married couples must have kids (and I'm not advocating for that). But heterosexual unions are different from homosexual unions in that heterosexuality is biologically natural, it is how we reproduce, and it is the natural foundation for the family.[/quote]And our reproduction is doing fine with our number of homosexuals. So what's the problem? Also, it's natural because homosexuals are born with traits that make them homosexual. It's not an artifical conscious choice. Therefore, homosexuality is natural.

What does matter to me is how the government would define marriage.

Definitions evolve. The concept of marriage is still alive within homosexuals. Why should homosexual couples NOT get the same marriage benefits as heterosexuals?

 

[Laila]

At the moment they can have a 'civil partnership' which apparently does not have the same rights. The change in law would allow them exactly the same rights as hetrosexual marriages.

Hm, I didn't know that.
I'll drop a line to my MP asking how he will vote in this. It probably will pass the HOC considering the Tories are the ones who expressed support for it.

 

[spud_meister]

According to me and God.

well you and your god don't have to have a gay marriage then, and for the people who don't believe in your god, why should they have to listen to him?

 

[Arcana XV]

The difference is that sex is natural only between a man and woman.

Don't use the appeal to nature fallacy or I'm going to bombard you with links to scientific proof that homosexuality exists in many species in the most natural world of all: the animal kingdom. Humans may be highly evolved animals in terms of intelligence, but we're still animals.

The male and female sexual union is vastly different from the homosexual one. Not all married couples must have kids (and I'm not advocating for that). But heterosexual unions are different from homosexual unions in that heterosexuality is biologically natural, it is how we reproduce, and it is the natural foundation for the family.

Here's a novel idea: SEXUALITY is biologically natural and has more than just one function. Yes, the primary function is the reproduction of the species, but there are other reasons why humans have sex. I suggest you look into that in a little more depth as there are tons of studies out there that deal with this very thing and since you're such a fan of nature, I suggest you also look into the sexual habits of out closest ape cousins, the bonobos. Have fun.

I have a problem with society saying that marriage is defined as a union between any two people and that those who disagree are not allowed to have their opinion heard because they are "bigots" or "prejudice."

I don't think you're prejudiced or a bigot. I think you care too much what some Middle Eastern tribal god allegedly said.

What does matter to me is how the government would define marriage.

If that were true you would set aside your religious beliefs on this issue as they have no place in government whatsoever. Your god may frown on homosexuality, but that is not the case for all gods. Why should your religious beliefs trump those of other American citizens whose religious beliefs are diametrically opposite?

 

[Gardener]

I don't think you're prejudiced or a bigot. I think you care too much what some Middle Eastern tribal god allegedly said.

The reaction all depends on which Middle eastern tribal God you're talking about, I guess. One of them gets a free pass for the same things ctiticized in the other, and for attitudes much greater in magnitude.


Oddly, enough, nobody here seems to notice the irony involved in the Conservative party being the only one taking up the liberal cause, while the leftist parties are so worried they might alienate the extremely conservative part of their base that they are frozen in apoplexy.