Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Commons vote in favour of same-sex marriage
Zero
Veteran
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21347719
Doesn't mean it will become law in England and Wales but it is a step in the right direction.
I tried to find a previous thread on same sex marriage to add to that but no cigar so thought I'd put it here for those interested.
Doesn't mean it will become law in England and Wales but it is a step in the right direction.
I tried to find a previous thread on same sex marriage to add to that but no cigar so thought I'd put it here for those interested.
9
Comments
Oh, dead against it meself......
All onto the Lords now... I'll update here if I read more on it.
Link to Hansard debate yesterday (also available on internet on BBC website somewhere - likely in iplayer section):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130205/debindx/130205-x.htm
Lords debate will eventually be available here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/
He'd had an epiphany about the importance being fair to all people (whether he'd agreed with them or not) but what suprised me was him saying
"given the current dismal record for the wide failure of heterosexual marriages, the only vocal group of supporters for the sanctity of marriage seems to be coming from the gay lobby".
I thought that was an interesting take on it all.
"Well, my opinion is that if heterosexuals are entitled to be miserable, then so should they!"
That creased me up!
Being over 50 meself, I am still amazed by this radical departure from traditional societal values.
Lest I be misunderstood here, let me be quick to add that I believe that any unconventional act of kindness or of love that is not ego-centered helps raise the spiritual consciousness of ones milieu and therefore might possibly awaken people from spiritual slumber.
I don't think, BTW, that the Church of England, being established in that country by law, should have any latitude in deciding how it should conduct itself in this matter. Surely, they will have to perform the rites in church, if the parties be members, unless there be lawful barriers in the way.
also as in the vein of what Federica said with the joke above.. Ajahn Brahm always talks about how silly it is to be married lol.. One of my favorite quotes is " If love is blind.. then what is marriage but an institution for the blind"
I could care less about the whole religious side of it, I'd prefer to go the Justice of the Peace route anyways. Who wants to get married by a preacher that doesn't support your union? Lol. At least in the US, where we are supposed to have separation of church and state, that shouldn't even be a consideration.
All the best,
Todd
I think the same sex marriage 'debate' is a wider issue while the issue of whether the Bill should be law or not seems to be a narrower one.
Its purpose is to allow 'choice' rather than to impose a regime - ironically this is the same spirit of 'choice' that dissenters exercise when they vote against it!
In that purpose at least, the two sides are unified.
Sorry, Bud, those days are done for.
Yeah, like now with the Eurozone, Europeans no longer have to think morally! They can let people who get paid to travel to Brussels do it for them.
You want to be a thought police.
But, back to the OP,
this gay marriage thing is way over the top
blows my mind.
People can be kind
People can be who they really are.
It's a better world when we just give in
and let go.
If human life has a purpose
it's to bring joy to others,
not to withhold its fullness from them.
So if people want to go all the way
I hope there's nobody gonna interrupt them when they're doing their thing.
Otherwise it'll just be wasting precious time.
People are entitled to their mistakes, if they truly be mistakes!
Don't interrupt them with your scolding fingers.
Just let them learn in their own time.
Peace, bro!
My parents are in their late 50s and early 60s. They were never prejudiced, but they lived their entire lives in a town with less than 3000 people. Until my sister announced she was a lesbian, they had never knowingly known a gay person. My best friend, who is like a member of our family from the day he was born, also announced he was gay around the same time. Their first reaction was "well, acting on it is a sin but we still love you." In the past 20 or so years, their views have changed drastically. Being "old" is not a reason to be unaccepting or intolerant. The world changes and you opt to be open to changing with it, or digging in your heels. Both of my parents fought hard so the anti marriage amendments didn't pass in our state, and are highly supportive of marriage equality. I have faith it will come to my state too one day, hopefully soon so I can watch my sister, and my best friend, get married (though not to each other, LOL)
And yes, the states in the US that have passed it always leave allowances so that religious institutions are not forced to perform marriage ceremonies for those who do not meet their requirements.
"I'm all for this gay marriage stuff, can't way for gay divorces, imagine the drama!"
I used to wonder why in the world any two sane people of the same sex would want to marry, and that was just a few years ago. And, you know, I couldn't tell you whether I thought it was silly or if I just thought these people would be opening themselves up to a lot of ridicule. I actually thought it was a fringe-group idea.
I wasn't being mean and I was quite comfortable with varieties of human sexuality.
It takes laborers in the field, pathfinders, and precedent to bring about culture change such as this. Most people, I believe, don't see the railroad tracks for the train, and when it shows up early it takes them some time to get their act together.
As for religious bodies in the United States, I have nothing to say at present. My stance on the Church of England, though, is that it must marry same-sex members in good standing if Parliament makes it the Law of the land --for reasons I have stated above. But my position is a political one, not a religious one. If Parliament would disestablish the Church of England) which I certainly do not advocate) 'twould be another story.
In the further advancement of human rights, I think this is the only path the Anglican Church should and could take. Let the crazies in places like South Carolina (where I live) do whatever griping they will; they've already pulled out, claiming to be the True Church, precisely over this very issue.
It makes me think of what Hillary Clinton said when she spoke to the UN, arguing that gay rights should be human rights... What really stuck with me is when she said, "Be on the right side of history." Because almost everyone can see this trend now... one day this won't be such a big deal.
A number of years ago, her own Anglican church after much gnashing of teeth split into two separate congregations over this issue. Long standing friendships were ended and the building sold.
When I asked my mom how the gay members of her congregation felt about all of this she said, " Oh, we haven't anyone in the congregation who is gay".
When I asked her "why the schism then", she said the topic just made everyone too uncomfortable and comfort is why they attended.
She finished it by saying that that type of comfort is just for fools too fearful to face themselves or God..
She might of had something there.
I have known very good people who are against gay marriage. They may be wrong, but they are not shameful.
Gosh, I hope that we in the West are gonna get beyond all that arrogance and silliness. World peace absolutely depends on the peoples rising to that challenge.
Now only if the U.S. will have this happen.
It sounds crazy now. I frequent a military forum and no-one seems and there's an openly gay soldier on there and no-one gives a hoot.
Some things change for the better.
It somehow makes the hetero unions sound like a lot less fun.
There is a growing trend of people my age and younger not even bothering. Marriage is definitely an out dated thing who's original purpose is long since no longer needed.
I don't mean to judge you harshly, but your last couple of posts on this subject strike me as disrespectful to people who are married, intend to marry, would like to marry, and to the marriage you had to the woman that you tragically lost.
I am closer to your parents generation coming of age in the seventies. There were many of us who didn't marry.
I don't know what the statistics say, but it doesn't seem to me that any fewer of the present generation of twenty and thirty something's are choosing to marry.
The last statement in your post is entirely your own opinion.
I do try to not make statements out of the blue, of course it could depend on what country you are in as well. I am talking America , as is this study -
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/20/no-reversal-in-decline-of-marriage/
"The decline in nuptials from 2008 to 2011 is in keeping with a general trend away from marriage in the U.S. Barely half of adults (51%) were married in 2011, according to ACS data, compared with 72% in 1960. Marriage increasingly is being replaced by cohabitation, single-person households and other adult living arrangements."
as for my other statements.. If people took offense to any of that they have more things to worry about then my comments. I did say that some people are "built" for it, others are not. yes my marriage ended in the death of my wife, and that may of course shade my thoughts on marriage, but in all honesty even before her death in good times and in bad times, Marriage just never fit me like I always thought it would. I'm too independent, I enjoy being able to be free to make my own decisions and do what I want. In the 7 years since i've been single, i've had two girlfriends(the last was almost 4 years ago) and I am enjoying being single. I am the best looking and the most in shape I've ever been ( I use to be 373lbs, now I'm normal and very in shape) so there is no shortage of woman i could date. I don't want to bother with the wasted time and money.. I don't see it being worth what I get out of it.
of course if my mind wasn't inclined towards renunciation.. I'm sure I may be looking for another partner, so I'm definitely not in the "norm" and never claimed to be.
It's certainly not needed for the survival of the species anymore. Marriage is definitely still a very economically based activity, but it is not really "needed" anymore with the exception of being for the expression of attachment between two people which of course is important to those people, and others like the gay community who would like to have the "right" to do so which btw you already do.
it's a god/natural given right for people who own their own self(philosophy of liberty - link below ) to be able to enter into contracts freely, but government is force(of the gun) and muddles with those rights. no one can TELL you that two(or more) people are married or not, that is an affront to our natural rights, so is taxes but that is another topic for another time
the long and short of my rambling as I said before is that marriage is a contract between two or more consenting adults that the government should have no part in. Further that the "institution" of marriage, and marriage being this "big" thing does not really exist as strongly as it use to but still half of people get married.. then half of them get divorced hehe. Which leads to the statement said above in this thread " I believe gay people should be as miserable as the rest of us" lol
Philosophy of liberty
Face it. You're being insensitive.
and I'd hardly call personal liberty, which is at the heart of the whole gay marriage issue(and many others) "bullshit".
So while a couple can certainly be a couple without legal recognition by the state (like my girlfriend and I, who've been together for 9 years), the legal benefits, etc. of such a union are limited without it (which, as @zombiegirl has already mentioned, is a real concern for her). And in my opinion, it's unconstitutional for states to deny same-sex couples the right to marry since marriage is also a civil right and section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Ironically, I think this is a perfect example of the 'tyranny of the majority' conservatives so often criticize these days when giving sermons on the virtues of limited government and the inherent superiority of a constitutionally limited republic vs. a democracy; and who'd wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Jefferson in any other circumstance that "the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society" (Letter to Dupont de Nemours, April 24, 1816).
Essentially, the Constitution is supposed to prevent a majority of citizens who are united and motivated by a common interest from taking away the rights of the minority of other citizens, as James Madison argued in Federalist No. 10. Marriage is a civil right that should be available to all adult citizens equally; and as such, it shouldn't be subject to the whims of the majority (or anyone else for that matter) according to the founding principles of the Constitution.
But as I've already mentioned, marriage isn't just a civil right, it's also a legal contract that confers certain privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits to committed couples; and in my mind, denying same-sex couples equal access to those privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits merely because of their sexual orientation and/or gender is as ridiculous and as unconstitutional as denying interracial couples the same thing. (And when it comes to marriage vs. civil unions, I think the unconstitutionality of 'separate but equal' applies.)
In my opinion, sexual orientation should be considered a 'suspect category' in equal protection jurisprudence along with race because they're similar in that they're both 'minorities' that have at one time or another been unable to effectively use the political process to insure fair treatment from the majority. As Kenneth D. Wald notes in his review of The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection: Considering the amount of discrimination and unfair legal treatment that gays and lesbians have endured throughout the years, I think sexual orientation deserves to be placed in the same classification as race; and I wholeheartedly believe that laws targeting gays and lesbians should be subject to the same rigorous review under 'strict scrutiny' as those targeting race.