How your MPs voted - Gay marriage - News - getwokingham

@mavdo - You're probably right - I was switching off on a rather uninspiring episode of QT last night. It was an amicable panel though which was good, without the usual points scoring (apart from Hamza who seemed to pointlessly go out of his way to do so).

alex_f, Wokingham
08/02/2013 at 11:31

@alex_f - there is no need for hatred or threats when it comes to challenging someone's option. I support you there without question. The guy supporting gun law when debating with Piers Morgan just lost his argument by not actually defending his position and getting childish, defensive and insulting. It wins you nothing, and loses you much of any defence you'd built up.

It is, however, very difficult in my mind to see that chap's views on QT last night as anything other than promoting homophobia. I don't believe his attempt at justifying it dealt with the real issue, and placed other people's "human rights" over and above homosexuals. He needs to listen and people get understandably frustrated when he doesn't seem to do that. Resorting to insults and threats, however, resolves nothing.

mavdo, Wokingham
08/02/2013 at 11:12

@mavdo - I agree views are there to be contested, but there is contesting, and then there is harassment and hate which Brian had alluded to yesterday. There is no need for that. I have also seen on various platforms Brian being called a homophobe and a great deal of hate for him over Section 28 and his appearance on Question Time.

I agree though with you that the 'not the biggest issue' argument is complete rubbish. Parliament debates numerous issues at any one time, and the idea that economy would magically recover or even get slightly better if they didn't 'waste' time on items like this is ridiculous.

alex_f, Wokingham
08/02/2013 at 10:58

@Alex_f/Tonk - I agree that people have opinions and beliefs and those should be heard and respected. But views are there to be contested, and everyone should be open to the possibility they might want to change their mind after careful consideration, and that should also be respected (I used to think that, but now I think this, because... etc). Logically, if you are for equality, members of the LGBT community should be able to marry. To prevent them doing so is discrimination on grounds of sexuality.

The biggest argument against gay marriage on the program last night was "it's not really the biggest issue facing people and so we should bury our heads in the sand and hope it goes away". Not the best counter argument I've ever heard.

I really am uncomfortable with this idea that if gays are allowed to marry, that teachers will have to "promote" homosexuality to children. I don't think it is "promoting" anything, but introducing the concept at an earlier age may help remove the stigmas associated with it. The number of times that "gay" was used as an insult, or just to mean "wrong" (as in "that's gay"), when I was a kid is unbelievable, thinking back. Some of those in my class did turn out to be gay (and they used the terms too - think how confused they were at some point in their life if "I'm gay" = "I'm wrong").

I do understand Tonk's argument that his opinion is guided by his upbringing. But believing something just because that is what you've been brought up to believe is also not really sufficient justification. It just makes it hard to challenge that belief. Most never will. We should always think long and hard about our own beliefs and morals and question whether they are actually sound and logical. If you can't justify your morals then you haven't argued sufficiently. Justify why this is morally wrong, and then your argument will gain much more weight. I'd listen intently.

mavdo, Wokingham
08/02/2013 at 10:18

Tonk - indeed, we are mostly a product of our environment which is generally shown by the division on this issue over generations. Having just watched question time where this very item was debated, it's somewhat disappointing to see perfectly reasonable opinions and thoughts being given by someone opposed to equal marriage, then met with a sea of scorn and hate. It does indeed work both ways. I believe that people of the Lgbt community should be allowed to marry, just as someone opposed to equal marriage should have the right to at least express their opposition to it.

alex_f, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 23:44

Many thanks for those that have taken the time and effort to comment on my posts.

As I stated but perhaps not too clearly, I feel everyone is a product of the times during which they were raised: most of us take our moral values from those that influenced us during the first Twenty years of our lives. My parents, my teachers, my church, the establishment and the press and media of that time, were very anti homosexuality. It was still a criminal offence during the first Twenty odd years of my life and it is difficult for those of my generation to change our minds and values. I am not saying our values and beliefs are right or wrong: they are merely our values and beliefs. I have heard many younger people say that the law shoud be changed because it is the "right" thing to do: that again is merely their opinion based on their morals and beliefs. I am not saying that their views are wrong or right, merely that they are different to my own.

When the law that made criminals of homosexuals was changed, I supported it because I felt what people wanted to do in the privacy of their own homes was a matter purely for them. I do not want to see two men nor two women engaging in heavy petting in public places such as a pub or bar but, I do not want to see hetrosexual couples doing it neither: my moral up bringing says there is a time and place for everything and that heavy petting is something that should be reserved for behind closed doors and in private.

Although I find the thought of homosexual sex repulsive, I accept that some people lead that lifestyle and should not be criminalised for their lifestyle and, in general terms, I accepted the concept of civil partnerships I do however, feel that redefining the current meaning of marriage, which has served us well and is also a definition endorsed by the UN, is a step too far.

Tonk, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 19:39

@Twyford - good post. I would add that I see no reason why marrying animals or object shouldn't be allowed, **provided both parties fully consent**. But as animals do not posess the mental capacity to understand what it is they are consenting to, such a marriage would be illegal in the same way that two humans marrying would be illegal if one party did not have the mental capacity to consent. For THIS reason, marriage to animals or inanimate objects is not allowed, not because they are animals or objects.

mavdo, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 15:17

PoneRana can you please give further detail as to just what you mean by "I personally object to it because it is destroying our history."

Which part of history is being destroyed? Or do you mean tradition rather than history? Tradition changes quite frequently, traditionally women were kept quiet, in the kitchen and even the occasional slap was traditionally acceptable. Rightly this would be unacceptable now.

Traditionally and historically people were used as slaves, should we not have changed that?

There's the part of tradition and history that only started with Henry VIII wanting to be able to get divorced and have another wife. Clearly doing nothing to undermine the sanctity of marriage, just like all the marriages that end so fast these days!

@Tonk, If you look beyond this site you'll very much find that the “nasty names” works both ways. Even the suggestion that it's "not natural" or is "unnatural" I find to be highly offensive. In fact the argument about it being unnatural was historically used to try and prevent interracial marriages. I'm sure no one would support that any more either.

When people then start talking about the potential for people to marry animals then all sensible debate has gone out of the window. Historically that reasoning has been used for... well in fairness it hasn't as people have never been that silly before. It's like saying "We mustn't eat meat as it'll only lead to us eating humans".

Though there is the theory with the "it'll lead to people marrying animals" argument that it's largely one made by people who'd not trust themselves to not marry an animal if the choice was there.

I saw a cartoon yesterday with a protester at a same sex wedding saying "You people can't get married! Without the social pressures, tax incentives, animalistic impulse to reproduce, you're only getting together out of love and commitment to each other - Can't you see how that makes the rest of us look?"

Twyford, Woodley
07/02/2013 at 15:00

Where's the 'like' button? Comment of the day IMO :)

mavdo, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 14:54

Mind you, the first Lesbian divorce will be interesting - How can both of them get 75% of everything???

Gromit, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 14:37

@PR - There is no assumption that objections are based on religious reasons. However, only religious institutions will benefit from an opt-out, and the question was around why churches, mosques and temples should be allowed this opt-out at all. I simply said that in order to get a gay marriage bill through, you have to keep the opt-out for now and challenge that separately.

Objecting to equality on the basis that people were not equal before is not sufficient justification. If it were, women wouldn't be allowed to have jobs at all, education for women would stop at 16, and as soon as women had children they would be prevented from working (in most cases, but certainly in teaching). Also, white and black people would be kept separate in the services provided to them and "no blacks allowed" would be allowed as a sign outside a public building (eg a pub, or a shop). This was the way things were in my great-grandmother's day. As Tonk says, historically homosexuality was illegal, but we've changed that because it was wrong. We cannot live with historical treatment of individuals such as this and given an opportunity to change for the better, we should.

Civil ceremonies do not provide complete equality - almost but not quite, but those who want marriage to be allowed say simply that it causes a distinction between homo and hetero that they want removed. If they were the only option available to you, you may not say they were equal.

@Tonk - "men and women are different in many ways" - I absolutely agree, and this is why I don't agree with positive discrimination to ensure that exactly the same numbers of men and women do a particular job, for example. BUT, whether a man or a woman, gay or straight, black, white or mixed race, Christian, athiest, Muslim or Hindu (other options are available), we must all have an equal *opportunity* as everyone else to do something that is available to someone else. That is equality. That does not exist here.

mavdo, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 13:54

Why is everyone assuming that the objection to gay marriage is based on the objectors faith.

I personally object to it because it is destroying our history. I see no reason why it is needed as the civil ceremony provides all the equality that is needed.

As I have said previously it is like merging the meanings of the words green and red so that colour blind people achieve equality.

PoneRana, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 12:39

cont/-

Many people have tried to present the debate as about equality, I disagree with this notion. Being "equal" and being "the same" are two different concepts for example, men and women can be equal under the law but, men and women are different in many ways.

We do actually have equality already in marriage; any person, whether homo or hetro sexual can marry a person of the opposite sex providing they are in their majority, (over 18) not too closely related and sane enough to be able to give valid consent. At present no one, whether homo or hetro sexual, can marry someone of the same sex, nor someone closely related, nor their pet nor their car, what the bill is trying to do is re-invent marriage: an institution that has served mankind well, for their own agenda. If this really was about equality, hetrosexual couples would be able to opt for civil partnerships, as I understand it, our dear leader has no intention to allow this.

If we do redefine marriage for this "special case" why should we not redefine it for other special cases: when I was in my late teens, I loved my parents and siblings, I loved my dog, my BSA roadrocket and my made to measure Italian suit, but I was not allowed to many any of them....Not that I wanted to by the way! Should I lobby to be allowed to?

It has came to light that the reason our dear leader is pushing this bill is because the EU has told him to: one way or another, it will be written into law by the end of June this year.

Tonk, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 12:38

Personally, I support Mr Redwood's action.

My personal thoughts on this matter:

When I grew up, being a homosexual was a criminal offence just as many things today are criminal offences. Changing a law does not change the way people think.

I find it very difficult to accept that sex between two people of the same sex is "normal" however, I am sure that as my generation dies out, which we will in the next decade or two, so public opposition to same sex activities will diminish. Our education system, which has become little more than a state indoctrination system, has taught people that homosexuality is fine and normal and our media constantly ram homosexual relationships and activities down our throats, so of course, people of today will think it is right and normal.

I notice that some people that are in the pro-camp, are using the tactic of branding people with views different to their own nasty names, fortunately I am of the generation that believed sticks and stones etc, so I am not bothered by the name calling.

Tonk, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 12:26

mavdo - that's fine, nothing at all wrong with that, people are allowed to have feelings and views. Being heterosexual and with no close LBGT friends (well that I know of), it is still probably not fully comfortable with me yet (due to growing up when we did - this will no doubt change now for future generations where it becomes the norm) - but those who are LBGT of course have a right to feel accepted as a part of society and equal.

I have alot of friends whose beliefs vary. As an atheist, they respect my desire not to practice a religion, just as I respect theirs to believe. We get along like a house on fire with a mutual understanding and respect for each other. Fundamentally I think as long as it does not encroach on or is forced upon others, then there is no harm done and people are free to believe what they want to believe. This brings us back to the original point and what mavdo says. If equal marriage doesn't harm anyone or affect the lives of those who are not LGBT, then I can't see the problem, given religions (the main contentious issue) can opt-out. People who would be offended would have to go out of their way to be affected, e.g. attending a ceremony.

alex_f, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 09:53

@DT - getting married to, or being with, another man (sorry to disappoint those who may think I'm female), is to me repulsive. I can understand that sentiment, but I think that is at least reasonably prevelant amongst the average heterosexual. But that doesn't mean that I have any right to say it is repulsive in general, or to stop those who wish to do it, doing so.

mavdo, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 09:35

(Waiting patiently to hear why two people getting married (who happen to be of the same sex) is repulsive...)

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 09:25

@Gromit - I said this was my opinion, but it is based on observation. Homosexuality is generally not approved of by the church, and homosexuals are not allowed to marry. Therefore homosexuals are not equal with heterosexuals in the eyes of the church. Also, women are not allowed to perform certain roles in the church, and therefore males and females are not equal either. Therefore not everyone is EQUAL under God. Please explain how this is incorrect?

This comment applies to any religion because from an outsider's point of view, I see all religions having a defined role of what a man and a woman are and what they do, to varying degrees, and a definition (vague or clear) of "normal" with any variance from that norm seemingly castigated and being told it is wrong with guidance often offered back to "the right path". People should find their own faith and their own oneness with their god(s) and let the higher power determine whether they are living the right path or not, not a bunch of self-righteous people who claim to know what is best, and, oh look, it's exactly they way they want to live their life! Quelle surprise.

Just because YOU find the idea of gay marriage quite replusive is irrelevant. You are not part of anyone else's marriage, homosexual or otherwise, and you do not have to attend the ceremony. You cannot stop people doing what they want to do if it doesn't impact on your life, and this doesn't. You have a right to a private life, and so do they. If you have a right to marry who you want, so should they. To prevent this is against equality, and that is fundamentally illegal.

mavdo, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 09:22

Gromit - why do you observe the idea of equal marriage as repulsive? (just interested, not judging!)

As for Maggie's quote - surely this could be taken both ways (equal marriage being the idea and it being 'repulsive' being people's feelings).

alex_f, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 09:15

"As welcoming as the church try to be, they do not treat everyone equally because for some reason they do not believe everyone is equal under God"

Sorry Mavdo, this is poor form, definitely not up to the usual quality of your observations.

Back to JR - Excellent vote, couldn't agree more, I find the whole idea repulsive. Quite right on the church too. They cannot be forced to compromise on a fundamental belief.

As one great leader said "one of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas"

Gromit, Wokingham
07/02/2013 at 09:06

@ mavdo thank you for your response.

I'm not sure that I am wrong, but I do agree with your answer which should be directed at the faith(s) you speak of.

Jeppo
06/02/2013 at 22:12

@Jeppo - where you go wrong is believing that religion is a public service. It isn't like public transport where everyone has a right to use it equally. As welcoming as the church try to be, they do not treat everyone equally because for some reason they do not believe everyone is equal under God (in my opinion). Can you tell I'm also not religious. :)

mavdo, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 18:28

@ Damiano, thank you for your reply.

This couple were taken to court because of their religious beliefs, like some within the church they felt this relationship was wrong not because they were black or other. I find this quite odd that this has happened to the couple yet the organisation to whom they are being loyal to have an opt-out, basically don't practise what we preach. They both provide a public service so introducing such an opt-out is discriminatory in itself.

Jeppo
06/02/2013 at 17:58

@DT - exactly. I would add that the CoE opt-out seems to be legally binding and would require a change in legislation to remove, whereas other religions have the same so that they aren't discriminated against in comparison to CoE.

Another manifestation of this is that if you get married in a CoE church, you only need the church to do everything - legal and religious. In any other religious building, including the Catholic church, you need also a registrar from the council to be present, to perform the legal side.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 17:41

@DT - that's not quite what I meant. Lobbies like the gun lobby are *supposed* to be a bulk representation of the people they purport to represent. They do not necessarily wield direct power, but there are significant supporters of their cause directly elected within government, and the lobbies will put their point across to them to gain support. Therefore, if a law is brought in that affects gun owners, an organisation that represents gun owners' views will try to influence that decision by putting it's point of view directly to those who will make the decision. Individuals do not have that level of influence in any way.

Lobbies are good in one way because they should reach a majority opinion after considered internal debate within a significant group of people. That is democracy. They are bad in others because, as in any organisation, certain people with big mouths tend to wield an unreasonable level of influence over some other people, and this is seen as the views of the majority when it isn't. These individuals often have a lot of money, but the two are not necessarily directly connected.

I know a few Americans and I'm astonished by those that had the view that to prevent all these shootings, everyone needs to be armed with concealed weapons! Europeans do not have this view and so see the issue as being so simple. Democracy of a people who really do want guns will be that they have guns. I'll just choose not to visit the US thanks.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 17:37

Hello Jeppo.

I think the distinction is purely that religious organisations have an opt-out. So if you own a B&B and refuse to let someone stay with you because they are gay, black, or for any other unjustifiable discriminatory reason, you are breaking the law.

Whereas with gay marriage, homosexuals have the right to be married - but religions have the choice to opt-out. So if you were Catholic, for example, and wanted to marry; you could get your marriage licence, marry a man or woman, be legally married - but the Catholic church may tell you 'we will not perform a marriage ceremony for you in the eyes of God, because we believe our God disagrees with your lifestyle'.

There are two parts to marriage; the legal side, and the (optional) religious ceremony.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 17:20

Hi Mavdo.

Have to agree wholeheartedly with:

"If they (established religions) are trying to influence the way that religious marriages are conducted, they absolutely should have a say."

"moving to an impartial and secular society is something that I massively approve of"

"you can't force other religions to do it and exempt CoE"

"swearing on the bible in court etc - why do we do this?"

Disagree with:

-'Should the US gun lobby be allowed to influence gun law? Well yes. Should they be allowed to influence oil exploration? No.' - In any democracy, the will of the people has to be considered. If individuals are only able to democratically influence the industry in which they work, that's not proper democracy - and if anything, sends the system down a road of self interest. If the will of 1,000 people who own gun companies and are billionaires are able to influence government and legislation to the detriment of the other 500,000,000 people in that country, or are able to exert an influence greater than that of any other citizen, then it is not a fair representation of democracy. Real democracy is when my voice is worth exactly the same as yours; not 'the same as yours, unless you're rich or own a media outlet that could bad-mouth politicians'.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 17:15

HELP ME WITH THIS POINT OF LAW

Churches provide a service to the community but the law would not force them to conduct gay marriages. yet with the same belief Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the owners of the Chymorvah hotel in Cornwall, were taken to court by a homosexual couple for refusing them board. Judge Andrew Rutherford ruled in January last year that the Bulls had breached equality legislation and ordered them to pay the couple a total of £3,600 damages. I'm CONFUSED !

Jeppo
06/02/2013 at 17:07

@alex_f - excellent point - the CoE are embedded in politics. Getting rid of that and moving to an impartial and secular society is something that I massively approve of. Those in power tend to be highly bigotted and inflexible in my opinion. But this separation is a separate issue. They DO have power, so they DO have an influence.

Also CoE holds a special position over other religions and therefore cannot be affected by certain legislation. Cameron himself said that it would not be possible, legally, to force CoE churches to conduct gay marriages. This dates back to Henry VIII I suspect. You can't force other religions to do it and exempt CoE. To change that special exemption, for I see no justification for it, is a huge undertaking, and not something that would be quick, easy or cheap, simply because it is so entangled in our legal and political systems (eg swearing on the bible in court etc - why do we do this???).

mavdo, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 15:50

@DT - yes, as per the The Suicide Act 1961. It is not a crime.

You draw an interesting comparison with the US a very good one. Should the US gun lobby be allowed to influence gun law? Well yes. Should they be allowed to influence oil exploration? No.

Marriage was originally tied to religion. Non-religious marriages are relatively recent. If religions are trying to influence non-religious marriages through this legislation, they should not have a say. If they are trying to influence the way that religious marriages are conducted, they absolutely should have a say. If the majority of people think they are wrong, the views will change. But it takes time.

The US gun lobby will have to pull in their heads because their arguments seem to be almost wholey based on flawed logic, but it won't happen overnight because they hold so much weight and power where it matters. That's democracy.

I wasn't saying that we allowed the religious to do A so they should be allowed to do B. I was giving an example of where religous freedom allows them to do something that others can't. In the case of marriage, you would be forcing them to do something they don't want to do in their own religious building. I think that is a step too far. You could take away a license to conduct marriages if a non-religious venue didn't comply. I believe you could technically do it with mosques, temples and catholic churches, but unfortunately you can't do that with the church of England, so we should apply the same to all religions fairly.

If religions accept, but don't approve of, gay relationships, it is a step too far to ask them to also bless those relationships. At the moment anyway. We need to work on the acceptance, and one step is legalising gay marriage.

In the end, I think they should conduct ceremonies, but let's get them to accept it first.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 15:43

I hate to muddy the waters further with state and religion, but how about the Church of England? As the established church and with seats in the House of Lords, should they have been exempt (actually more so than others)?

alex_f, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 15:29

mavdo, I appreciate that they do hold sway (in a similar way to the gun lobby in the USA which insists that the murder of thousands of its citizens using guns every year is not a case to change gun law); my question was should they be able to influence law? I would say not, and that it is anti-democratic and divisive.

"There are still certain things that people are allowed to do in the name of religion that would otherwise not be allowed... For that reason, I don't see why a religious body should be forced to conduct homosexual marriages at the moment." - now that doesn't work for me; I read that as 'we let them get away with A, so I don't see why we shouldn't them get away with B'. We can't base our laws on that logic.

Suicide is not a crime? Are you sure?

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 15:16

@DT - whether you like it or not, religions hold a very big sway over our politicians and influence over their communities' voting powers, so yes they will influence the outcome. Also, whether you like it or not, this country is not secular. That is and should be a separate debate and not be one that clouds whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

There are still certain things that people are allowed to do in the name of religion that would otherwise not be allowed, such as the wearing of religious jewellery at work when other jewellery is banned; or the killing of animals without using a stun method first (ie halal meat).

For that reason, I don't see why a religious body should be forced to conduct homosexual marriages at the moment. We must work on them slowly and not ignore their opinions. Reasoned debate is the only way around it, and as there are a high proportion of opponents within religious insitutions, that process will take longer. Let's take this one step at a time and not complicate the issue which will just slow down the realisation of homosexuals' rights.

A religious person who is conducting a non-religious service, eg as a registrar, should not be allowed to protest or opt-out on a religious basis.

I would also like to note that suicide is no longer a crime. It was a pointless crime as "attempted suicide" was never a crime, and you can't punish those who succeed. Therefore if someone wished to starve themselves to death, it would not be ciminal to do so. Encouraging them to take this path, however, would be a crime. Of course, if they were found before it was too late, as with any suicide attempt, treatment would and should be available.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 15:04

Like with level of house building in Regeneration project if John has wanted to do what the people of Wokingham wanted then he should have done some random doorstepping.

The bill does not demand that practitioners who are against gay marriage should marry them so the forcing your beliefs (of equality) on others part is null and void regardless of the fact that we have historically forced people with blatantly immoral beliefs / wishes to succumb to decency in the past. Slave owners in America would being the obvious correlation. 'But my dad bought his dad!'

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 14:33

Hi Mavdo.

Should a church - any church - 'yield enough power in our democracy' (to paraphrase) to dictate to parliament and you and I what the laws of this land should be?

My understanding of religious freedom is that it refers to the choice we all have to follow whichever religion we choose as individuals. That is to say, you are free to be Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc. (let's ignore Jedi - that's people being 'humorous'). It does not mean that a given religion is free to make any rules that it wants. As a ridiculously broad example, if the Anglican church decided not to admit redheads in future it would be illegal and prevented from doing so. If a faith decided it would start to sacrifice people, it would be prevented. (I saw an episode of QI once where they talked about a sect of Buddhist monks who would starve themselves to death to show their dedication; the practice has since been stopped because it is illegal - a form of suicide).

Here's hoping that in time, all churches will show the tolerance and love that they claim to hold dear, and conduct same sex marriage ceremonies.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 14:32

@DT - Whilst I'm in favour of gay marriage in principle, I don't think we should cloud the issue by bringing politics into religion...yet. Forcing churches to change their beliefs will just get this bill thrown out because of the power they yield in a democracy. Religious freedom is built into our democracy and so removing that is going to be a step too far. Plus forcing opinion as "democracy" onto people is simply a contradiction in terms. So let's allow gay marriage in general, forcing the provision where religion plays no part, and allow it to gradually modify the beliefs of those who still oppose it so they too force democracy in their own communities.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 14:21

That's exactly it, alex_f. I confess I'm not a religious scholar myself (nor am I gay, for the record) but I'm aware of plenty of rules and restrictions within certain religions which just are not mentioned because they don't fit with today's needs. Such as not eating meat on a Friday...

There's a passage in Leviticus that says 'Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death' (which means 'if you swear at your mum or dad, you should be executed'). if we're going to pick and choose which bits of these millennia-old, written-by-humans-centuries-after-the-event books, can we at least pick the bits that preach tolerance and acceptance?

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 14:19

DT - you're right - like you see quite often in forums and reviews, it's usually only the extreme ends of the scale who make the effort to actually have a say. Especially when it comes to sending in letters - which is quite alot of effort (compared to what we are used to with emails an all).

Religious opt-outs is an interesting one, and again probably something I'm not passionate (or religious / educated) enough to understand or comment properly. On one hand I can see it being unfair that someone would need to perform a ceremony which goes completely against their very core beliefs and teachings. On the other, I can see that the religions of a society also need to progress alongside the society they sit in, otherwise they might eventually be rendered irrelevant or completely incompatible with society and cohesion. There are plenty of things from religious readings which would take us back to the dark ages if we retained them at face value. Anyway I'll stop now on that one as I actually don't have a clue what I'm talking about(!).

alex_f, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 14:10

alex_f, the blog is very odd, isn't it; the principle of 'well, most constituents are against so I will vote against' is admirable, but has that actually been applied? I think you'd find that the majority of those in favour are quietly getting on with life, while the minority that are against are rabidly writing to their MPs, because their understanding of a particular Latin-originated word is being challenged.

As you say, "does it harm/disadvantage" anyone? At all? No, it hurts no-one and no-thing.

Does it add - does it bring homosexuals closer to equality in our society, encourage society to accept homosexuals and stop the gay-bashing, bullying and prejudice, encourage them to 'come-out'? I'd say it probably does, to one extent or another.

The only objections I have to the bill are that 1) there are currently still unnecessary differences between hetero- and homo-sexual marriages (with regards to adultery, for example) and 2) I'm uncomfortable with the religious opt-outs; I'm not sure it's right that society can say 'these people have the same rights as other people - expect in certain churches, who are free to discriminate'.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 13:53

The question I always ask myself on questions like this is does it harm/disadvantage other sections of people if this goes ahead.

Given that religious institutions can opt out of this, the answer to this can only be 'no'. This won't change the lives at all of heterosexuals, only bring more equality, acceptance and possibly meaning to the lives of the LGBT community.

So if it doesn't harm anyone, doesn't force people to do things against their religious beliefs, and makes us a more progressive and equal society - what's the big deal?

alex_f, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 13:45

John Redwood has attempted to justify his vote on his website: http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/02/05/the-single-sex-marriage-bill/

In a nutshell he apparently received objections in their plenty. I'm not sure I believe him - there was actually a public post (on his website) where he asked the question, and the public responses to this for equal marriage far outweighed the objections.

alex_f, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 13:36

Words changing meaning? Outrageous. There ought to be a law against it.

Nowtas, West Berkshire
06/02/2013 at 13:32

@PR - which dictionary are you basing your comments on, by the way. The one I am looking at includes the union of two people of the same sex in the definition. Or do you just believe that is the dictionary definition because it supports your otherwise unjustifiable (in my opinion) belief?

mavdo, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 13:24

Agree mavdo, and well put. "Look at almost any dictionary and it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman" - totally irrelevant. Any other arguments from anyone, beyond 'well, in the past, it meant man and woman'?

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 13:06

@PR - is the dictionary the law? Should we go back to the 1950s where a woman was supposed to wait at home and not burden a man with her problems? Where his satisfaction was more important than hers?

Marriage is defined as that because that is traditionally what it has been. It is wrong under the dictionary definition of equality, and so YES they should rewrite the dictionary. There is absolutely NO reason why marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Absolutely none.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 13:01

Come on Redwood - justify yourself. I see no reason to vote against it apart from the age old "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" or "marriage is for the church which do not approve of homosexuality because it says so in the bible".

For the former, I say simpley 'why'? Why should marriage bet ONLY for a man and a woman. Why should they get something special? That is not equality. There is nothing special about a union between two people of the opposite sex. It is not stronger or weaker than that between two of the same sex.

For the latter above, that is just not true as marriage is no longer a solely religious matter - two people getting married at a registry office, or other appointed venue, in a non-religious ceremony, are still married. Therefore religion no longer plays a part in this debate - if marriage is allowed outside the church between a man and a woman, the church cannot decide whether it should be allowed outside the church between two men or two women, although I don't see why they should be forced to conduct ceremonies in a religious venue at the current time - that is a separate debate. If they are allowed to influence this debate, then any marriage outside of church should be stopped completely and it should be termed a "civil partnership" instead, with the same privileges as marriage.

I am not homosexual, but I do not understand why so many people are against those who are marrying. They are allowed to adopt under equalily laws, whether you agree with that or not (it's a similar debate that I again don't understand because there are some disgraceful heterosexual parents that are allowed to have kids, being homosexual doesn't make you a bad parent or role model), so why can they not marry?

Redwood - you do not represent my views or the majority of my friends. Justify yourself and have a debate on the matter.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 12:59

An entirely sensible vote by John. Look at almost any dictionary and it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Parliament should not be rewriting the dictionary.

What next green will be defined as red so that colour blind people have equality?

PoneRana, Wokingham
06/02/2013 at 12:51

Good old Redwood, doing nothing of national consequence once again. :)

Nowtas, West Berkshire
06/02/2013 at 11:57

I'd like to understand why those who voted against, or abstained, came to that conclusion. I've heard a lot about this debate, and am yet to hear of a single reason why the bill should not be passed.