Gay Marriage to be legalized in the UK

[BruceVC]

An interesting and long overdue, IMO, development in the UK

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gay-marriage-wins-key-uk-194646965.html

 

The UK House of Commons voted 400 in favor to 175 against. The issue being David Cameron's own party, the Conservatives, seemed primarily against this progressive move. But anyway it looks like Gay marriage will be now legally allowed.

 

Whats your view on this? I am a liberal and absolutely believe that Gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples. Love and commitment shouldn't just be the domain of straight people so why not allow Gay couples to get married? What is the view of Gay Marriage in your own country, in South Africa we have allowed Civil Unions of same sex couples for years so its not a big deal.

 

Well done David Cameron for pushing through this difficult legal change to UK laws.

Edited February 6, 2013 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

Meh, it's a step backward. I'm still campaigning for banning marriage altogether as an obsolete social institution.

[obyknven]

An interesting and long overdue, IMO, development in the UK

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gay-marriage-wins-key-uk-194646965.html

 

The UK House of Commons voted 400 in favor to 175 against. The issue being David Cameron's own party, the Conservatives, seemed primarily against this progressive move. But anyway it looks like Gay marriage will be now legally allowed.

 

Whats your view on this? I am a liberal and absolutely believe that Gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples. Love and commitment shouldn't just be the domain of straight people so why not allow Gay couples to get married? What is the view of Gay Marriage in your own country, in South Africa we have allowed Civil Unions of same sex couples for years so its not a big deal.

 

Well done David Cameron for pushing through this difficult legal change to UK laws.

[BruceVC]

Meh, it's a step backward. I'm still campaigning for banning marriage altogether as an obsolete social institution.

 

you funny

[Malcador]

For fun I should say I'm against it as it's immoral and unnatural to be a homosexual so this doesn't turn into an echo chamber.

[BruceVC]

Guys I have to honest but I am both surprised and disappointed by the lackluster response to this important development. I know there are many intelligent and sensitive people on these forums. We can discuss topics like sports, games and conspiracy theories for hours but when its comes to  controversial , yet important, issues around human dignity and equality there seems to be a general perception of reticence?

 

Is no one happy with this progressive move that will ensure that thousands of people can demonstrate there commitment and love to each other equally in the eyes of the UK law?

[Serrano]

It's good news but it's mired by the fact that 135 of those votes against came from the party in power at the moment.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Serrano

[BruceVC]

It's good news but it's mired by the fact that 135 of those votes against came from the party in power at the moment.

 

Yes thats is a concerning development, its makes it hard when David Cameron says the Conservative party "is a progressive party for change "

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

Is no one happy with this progressive move that will ensure that thousands of people can demonstrate there commitment and love to each other equally in the eyes of the UK law?

 

Personally I'm with Gorth, I think governments should get out of the marriage business had have civil unions for all (we should let the religious fight about what is a 'real marriage' and keep it out of public policy - instead having a nice, secular civil agreement between two consenting persons who want to live their life together and support each other). Hell, I'd even say we, that is people in general, should open civil unions up to any consenting persons who want one. Two friends decide they'd like to be life-long roommates but don't have a romantic connection? Sure! Let them have one. Marriage isn't really the important issue, I couldn't care less about the religious connotations personally, it's the rights and privileges that come with the term that matter - and I don't think we should hold those hostage to an outdated institution that has more baggage than your average family vacation. 

[Guest The Architect]

Are they going to release the hounds on the 175 who voted against it?

[TrashMan]

Meh... don't really care.

 

 

Personally I consider marriage to be (by defintion) a union between a man and a woman.

I don't have anything against gay couples having an union, I'd just prefer if it was called differenlty. But then again, definitions of words do change over time....

 

 

That said...

I don't consider homosexuality "normal" (for a given definition of normal) or a beneficial thing for the human race.

Natural? Maybe ... but natural is a very, VERY broad category.

 

You can start your attacks on me now.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

Personally I consider marriage to be (by defintion) a union between a man and a woman.

 

Exactly the kind of post that proves my point, everything would be so much easier if we got rid of government marriage and turned, instead, to universal civil unions! 

 

 

 

I don't consider homosexuality "normal" (for a given definition of normal) or a beneficial thing for the human race.

 

 

 

I am going to, hesitantly, agree with you on both points. While I don't see, personally, anything wrong with people being homosexual, I have issue when people try to claim that it should have the same status as heterosexuality. I'm not saying gays and lesbians should have less rights or privileges, but at the same time, just as with transgendered people, I do not think that embracing an 'there's nothing abnormal about it' attitude is the correct course of action. They're abnormal, there's nothing inherently wrong with that but it's true - they fall outside of the norm and people shouldn't be coddled into thinking otherwise else they get shocked and pissy later on. 

 

Sex-ed in schools, sure - although it really doesn't have to be specific (e.g. teach everyone safe sex techniques and you'll naturally cover oral and anal intercourse, as well as vaginal, so there's not a need to make 'homosexual sex-ed' a class by itself). Marriage, or whatever the government uses, sure. Telling people that they're not a minority and should expect to see homosexuals everywhere, nope - let's not have that. Let's avoid the 'special snowflake syndrome' that makes the most vocal homosexual and transgendered people, and let's not get started on the otherkin and their ilk, feel the need to cry 'privilege' and 'discrimination' everytime they see something they perceive as unfair because they're outside of the norm. 

 

I'm actually fairly liberal, but the number of people I know personally who get onto the bandwagon of 'if you're not a minority then shut up because you're privileged and cannot understand or comment on anything' has gotten to the point that I'm tired of it. If people want to claim they're normal, fine. But they shouldn't expect everyone to be happy when they try to cram that belief down everyones' throats... Sigh... I guess this turned into more of a personal rant and got slightly off-topic, but I am just sick of the political correctness and reverse discrimination that is going on when the more radical, and most vocal, members of these groups try to push their agenda onto everyone else (and then cry privilege and discrimination if anyone disagrees). It's also late and I've had a day where I had to deal with said people, so I'm likely being harsher than I normally would be... Although not by much, at least not until I don't have to deal with people like that on a regular basis (and, because of the situation, it's hard to call them out without causing even more drama because, obviously, unless you're a member of the minorities in question you cannot say anything because of your privilege - although that only seems to go one way as they're perfectly fine when someone is supporting them).

 

 

You can start your attacks on me now.

Natural? Maybe ... but natural is a very, VERY broad catego

 

I'm not sure why I would attack you, you're being rather polite and to the point (plus, if anything was attacked, I would hope people would not stoop to using an ad hominem).

[melkathi]

 

It's good news but it's mired by the fact that 135 of those votes against came from the party in power at the moment.

 

Yes thats is a concerning development, its makes it hard when David Cameron says the Conservative party "is a progressive party for change "

 

How can anyone seriously describe a group that labels itself as conservative as progressive and for change ?

[NOK222]

Meh, it's a step backward. I'm still campaigning for banning marriage altogether as an obsolete social institution.

Well, eventually maybe. 

[BruceVC]

Meh... don't really care.

 

 

Personally I consider marriage to be (by defintion) a union between a man and a woman.

I don't have anything against gay couples having an union, I'd just prefer if it was called differenlty. But then again, definitions of words do change over time....

 

 

That said...

I don't consider homosexuality "normal" (for a given definition of normal) or a beneficial thing for the human race.

Natural? Maybe ... but natural is a very, VERY broad category.

 

You can start your attacks on me now.

 

 

I find these topics fascinating so thanks to you and Nightshade for commenting, this whole debate on normal always fascinates me. If a homosexual relationship isn't normal can you explain what a normal relationship is in the context of why gay couples can't get married and have all the same legal rights as straight couples? So for example are gay relationships not normal because

 

• anal sex is  not normal
•  the fact that gay couples can't have children is not normal
• most religions say its not normal

 

I am genuinely interested in the point that gay relationships are not normal and can't receive equal legal married rights

[Guest The Architect]

a) Anal sex is normal according to Scientology... wait that's anal probing and what the **** would they know about normality? Seriously though, heterosexuals do the poop hole invasion, too.

 

b) Gay people can be parents through surrogacy and adoption so they can have families and do a damn good job of raising them every bit as well as any heterosexual couples can.

 

c) Most religions I say are not normal, in fact none of them are normal and I'm the freaking Architect, I know what I'm saying.

[BruceVC]

a) Anal sex is normal according to Scientology... wait that's anal probing and what the **** would they know about normality? Seriously though, heterosexuals do the poop hole invasion, too.

 

b) Gay people can be parents through surrogacy and adoption so they can have families and do a damn good job of raising them every bit as well as any heterosexual couples can.

 

c) Most religions I say are not normal, in fact none of them are normal and I'm the freaking Architect, I know what I'm saying.

 

 

This is my point and I agree with everything you have said, I don't understand what people mean when they say gay relationships are not normal and shouldn't be allowed the same rights both in and out of marriage?

[Hurlshort]

Bringing up anal sex when discussing gay marriage is always a head scratcher for me.  It really has nothing to do with it.  In fact bringing up sex in general when talking about a lifelong commitment to another person shows a lack of understanding about what it takes to have such a relationship.

[JFSOCC]

The Netherlands was the first country where it was legal to marry a same sex partner. We're all very curious why it's such a big deal for some people still.

[Malcador]

Marriage is a life long commitment ? Hm, interesting.  I agree they should just have civil unions for all to get the legal standing, works well for everyone. 

[BruceVC]

Bringing up anal sex when discussing gay marriage is always a head scratcher for me.  It really has nothing to do with it.  In fact bringing up sex in general when talking about a lifelong commitment to another person shows a lack of understanding about what it takes to have such a relationship.

 

 

There is some relevance , some people are opposed to Gay relationships because of the act of sodomy. I have had debates with people around this anachronistic perspective

[Hurlshort]

What I'm saying is that act is a lot more rare than most people think and it doesn't even apply to female relationships.  It's also a private matter between the couple and not really something that anyone else should concern themselves over.  There are plenty of ways to be intimate with someone that don't involve that.

 

 

It's also very unrealistic to simply say the government should get out of the marriage business.  I agree with those of you who state that, but there simply isn't a large movement to do so.  You are avoiding the issue when you do this though.  The fact is many governments ARE involved in marriage and there are many benefits to being married.  The question is should the government be allowed to discriminate between which couples deserve those benefits.

 

My answer is emphatically no.  Governments have a duty to protect the minorities against the tyranny of the majority.  Gay couples are not provided the same rights as straight couples, and that is a major injustice.

[BruceVC]

What I'm saying is that act is a lot more rare than most people think and it doesn't even apply to female relationships.  It's also a private matter between the couple and not really something that anyone else should concern themselves over.  There are plenty of ways to be intimate with someone that don't involve that.

 

 

It's also very unrealistic to simply say the government should get out of the marriage business.  I agree with those of you who state that, but there simply isn't a large movement to do so.  You are avoiding the issue when you do this though.  The fact is many governments ARE involved in marriage and there are many benefits to being married.  The question is should the government be allowed to discriminate between which couples deserve those benefits.

 

My answer is emphatically no.  Governments have a duty to protect the minorities against the tyranny of the majority.  Gay couples are not provided the same rights as straight couples, and that is a major injustice.

 

 

Hurlshot,  seriously dude you are a genius. I thought I was insightful but you "leave me quaking in my boots" 

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

 

I am genuinely interested in the point that gay relationships are not normal and can't receive equal legal married rights

 

 

You'll have to get TrashMan to respond for, as I have said several times, I am not against gay marriage and the extension of equal rights under the law. My point was more, given that, according to the CDC, only 6% to 14% of people report to be homosexual or bisexual for an average of  9%, that while homosexuals should be given equal rights under the law, they should not expect to be treated 'normal'. They should not expect discrimination or harassment. They should have the same rights. I am simply saying that they shouldn't be catered to (e.g. crys of 'heterosexual privilege' are often things that are true because that is the majority). I feel like I'm not being very clear, and I'm sorry if this is getting confusing.

 

 

EDIT:

Also, when I agreed it was not beneficial - I meant that it is likely not beneficial or harmful, it's just a thing. So, in retrospect, I should not have agreed on both points with TrashMan - I'll blame lack of sleep for that one, sorry if that confused things. I really don't have issues with homosexuality or homosexuals, I just have issues with some of the more radical elements and, because of having to deal with them in my personal life, I'm a bit skittish when it comes to agreeing to normality.

 

EDIT the Second:

Here is an example of what I mean, while some are things that should be fixed, the fearing bodily harm and other things of that nature, most of the last are complaints that there is not enough 'gay-ness' in society. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that artificially forcing minority groups into everything is a good idea. Sometimes people need to realize that they're not the majority and complaining about it will not make things any better (and this goes for all people, for example I'm a fairly nonreligious person and the quantity of religious media here in the US of A is sometimes annoying - but then I remember that there's plenty of other things and just because one radio station or movie is that way doesn't mean I cannot find something else to enjoy, or I might enjoy it anyways -even though I disagree with the premise-). The same is true of the assumption complaints, if you're a member of a fairly small minority it's natural that people are not going to assume that you're a member of that minority until there is evidence to the contrary. If you're a Scientologist most people aren't going to guess that, and that's not an issue as long as they accept things when they find out (although, in that case, some questioning might be in order - but I think you'll get what I was trying to say).   

Edited February 7, 2013 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

Gay couples are not provided the same rights as straight couples, and that is a major injustice.

 

I would agree, and while I'm not a fan of governments involving themselves with the headache that is marriage politics, as long as being married is the standard for couples it should be open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples - with both being provided the full rights and privileges that this conveys.