Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

Poll: are you in favour of gay marriage? (31 member(s) have cast votes)

are you in favour of Gay Marriage

  1. Yes (17 votes [54.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 54.84%

  2. No (6 votes [19.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.35%

  3. Not bothered either way (5 votes [16.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.13%

  4. yes. But only in a registry office (3 votes [9.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.68%

  5. I am undecided (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#46    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:28 PM

View Postali smack, on 06 February 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

I think in my opinion that gays should be allowed to get married. But civil partnerships should be done away with because if we have equal rights.
Then why have a civil partnership if marriage is legal?
Also I believe that if a church is happy with it. Then by all means allow it.If there not happy marrying them then fair enough.I don't think churches should be bullied into marrying gays if they don't want to.I do hate the fact that people have been accused of homophobia who don't agree with it though.

Don't get rid of civil partnerships. I myself would have a civil partnership over a marriage anyday.

Marriage is the name of a sacrament in all christian churches. I don't want the name of my ceremony associated with ANY religion.

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 06 February 2013 - 11:29 PM.


#47    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:31 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 06 February 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

If gay people want to marry, then the church has no right to deny them this, not with their track history! Exactly, what difference does the name make? none! now if the gay people want to get married in a church, then thats a different story.
There are many different views on marriage, there are some religions where arranged marriages are accepted, I do not agree with them, but its still allowed to be called marriage.

They are called marriage because they are between a man and a woman. Much like we call poodles dogs, even though there is mcuh difference between different breeds. We could call civil unions marriage, but no matter how many feathers you glue to a dog, it doesn't make it a chicken.


#48    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 8,534 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:41 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 06 February 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

They are called marriage because they are between a man and a woman. Much like we call poodles dogs, even though there is mcuh difference between different breeds. We could call civil unions marriage, but no matter how many feathers you glue to a dog, it doesn't make it a chicken.
haha, but gay people are still people. So you can not say one is a chicken the other is a dog, we are all the same breed.
I am not gay, I am not religious, so why can I get married and yet Julia and Lisa can`t? I am no better than them just because my husband is a man.
Religion says it is between a man and a woman? But they will not let people who are not religious marry in their churches.....so I do not see how the church have a right to say what marriage is about and who it should be between, when their records are so flawed.
Times have changed, marriage is no longer just man and woman, just because some religions are still living behind the times, does not mean they can make others do the same.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#49    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:51 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 06 February 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

haha, but gay people are still people. So you can not say one is a chicken the other is a dog, we are all the same breed.
I am not gay, I am not religious, so why can I get married and yet Julia and Lisa can`t? I am no better than them just because my husband is a man.

You might have a point if they did not have equal rights. But so far the only thing that same sex couples can't do is say "we're married". Is that a right? Marriage in all its forms around the world is (with a few exceptions now) between a man and a woman. So we have to change the words definition for same sex couples to have that right. Can we change the definition of the word "woman" so that i can claim i am a woman? I feel discriminated against because i have a penis and can't call myself a woman! After all we are all human!

Or is that just a silly game of semantics, which is ultimately useless?


#50    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 8,534 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:57 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 06 February 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

You might have a point if they did not have equal rights. But so far the only thing that same sex couples can't do is say "we're married". Is that a right? Marriage in all its forms around the world is (with a few exceptions now) between a man and a woman. So we have to change the words definition for same sex couples to have that right. Can we change the definition of the word "woman" so that i can claim i am a woman? I feel discriminated against because i have a penis and can't call myself a woman! After all we are all human!

Or is that just a silly game of semantics, which is ultimately useless?
never knew they could not say "we`re married" but very much think they do say it.
I have said before, religion has caused enough problems, so they have no right to dictate. Marriage does not just relate to religion, again, i am not religious but am married and see no difference today why John and Paul can not say the same....as long as they do not try and enforce it in the church!

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#51    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:10 AM

View Postfreetoroam, on 06 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

never knew they could not say "we`re married" but very much think they do say it.
I have said before, religion has caused enough problems, so they have no right to dictate. Marriage does not just relate to religion, again, i am not religious but am married and see no difference today why John and Paul can not say the same....as long as they do not try and enforce it in the church!

Where do you think the term "marriage" comes from? It is a religious sacrament. So whether or not you are religious, you were a participant in a religious ceremony. I myself would not participate in any religious ceremony i did not believe in. Just because these days marriages performed by/in the church are "ratified" by the state/country they are performed in does not make them any less religious.

If gay marriage was legal, once a church refused to marry them on the grounds of their sexual orientation they could be prosecuted for breaching human rights. They could argue freedom of religion, but either way someones human rights will be breached. Why not leave things the way they are, where we are all equal and none of these issues would arise.

And just a side point, i was wondering if shakespeare was wrong with the "rose" line? Does the name matter more than the substance? In other words, would we still appreciate roses if they were called stinkers?

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 07 February 2013 - 12:13 AM.


#52    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:53 AM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 07 February 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

Where do you think the term "marriage" comes from? It is a religious sacrament. So whether or not you are religious, you were a participant in a religious ceremony. I myself would not participate in any religious ceremony i did not believe in. Just because these days marriages performed by/in the church are "ratified" by the state/country they are performed in does not make them any less religious.

First of, marriage is not a term owned by any religion and it predates all current ones. The ceremony is only religious if you choose it to be.

Marriage has, of course, changed a great deal. It is an institution built on change. When it originally came about, it was about the man claiming ownership of the woman. Now it is about love, women have to consent to marry, marriages can be also be terminated by either or both parties and interacial and interfaith marriages are legal. All these are fairly new things as far as the instituion of marriage is concerned, yet most people are happy with those changes. On top of that marital rape is now illegal.

Now all those changes have happened and they have made marriage better. This change is just the latest in the long line and the opposition is largely down to name calling.

Reigions opinions on marriage simply don't matter. As I've said beore, catholics won't marry divorcees, but that doesn't stop divorcees marrying.

As mariage is a civil insistitution not a religious one (marriage is only legal with a lisence from the government) it's up to the government not any reigion to decide on marriage.

Quote

If gay marriage was legal, once a church refused to marry them on the grounds of their sexual orientation they could be prosecuted for breaching human rights. They could argue freedom of religion, but either way someones human rights will be breached. Why not leave things the way they are, where we are all equal and none of these issues would arise.

That's a p*** poor arguement. In all the countries gay marriage is legal not once has such a case been fought for and won. Yet reigious grops happen like the opposite has happened.

Here in the Uk religious groups will have an opt in and, I'll bold for emphasise here, those that don't can't be prosecuted and they can't be forced to. Such clauses are common in gay marriage laws to cover that specific point.

Originally the law was going to be a blanket ban that no church coud perform marriages, until some groups pointed out that they actually want to be able to marry people.

Edited by shadowhive, 07 February 2013 - 12:57 AM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
We'll just keep on trying till we run out of cake
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#53    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:07 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 07 February 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

First of, marriage is not a term owned by any religion and it predates all current ones. The ceremony is only religious if you choose it to be.

Marriage has, of course, changed a great deal. It is an institution built on change. When it originally came about, it was about the man claiming ownership of the woman. Now it is about love, women have to consent to marry, marriages can be also be terminated by either or both parties and interacial and interfaith marriages are legal. All these are fairly new things as far as the instituion of marriage is concerned, yet most people are happy with those changes. On top of that marital rape is now illegal.

Now all those changes have happened and they have made marriage better. This change is just the latest in the long line and the opposition is largely down to name calling.

Reigions opinions on marriage simply don't matter. As I've said beore, catholics won't marry divorcees, but that doesn't stop divorcees marrying.



That's a p*** poor arguement. In all the countries gay marriage is legal not once has such a case been fought for and won. Yet reigious grops happen like the opposite has happened.

Here in the Uk religious groups will have an opt in and, I'll bold for emphasise here, those that don't can't be prosecuted and they can't be forced to. Such clauses are common in gay marriage laws to cover that specific point.

Originally the law was going to be a blanket ban that no church coud perform marriages, until some groups pointed out that they actually want to be able to marry people.

I want to start this post disputing some of your points. In red. My partner was (and still is) married in the Philippines. There is no devorce. Her husband, although he has another partner and children, does not consent to a mutual separation. Her assets are therefore still with him. She can get a deforce here (at much cost), but it will not count for anything in filipino law. This is because of the RELIGIOUS beliefs in that country. Funny isn't it, when you so elegantly point out that religion has nothing to do with marriage......

Are you really saying that marriage has no connection to religion? Its connection to religion is why i would rather have a civil union than a marriage. The changes in law you have referred to are all about updating the law and applying it to a marriage contract. None of which i disagree with. But none of the changes have revolutionised marriage enough to change its definition.

So i will ask you directly. Why is there a need to call a same sex couples ceremony a "Marriage"? What right are we denying homosexuals?

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 07 February 2013 - 01:16 AM.


#54    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:25 AM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 07 February 2013 - 01:07 AM, said:

I want to start this thread disputing some of your points. In red. My partner was (and still is) married in the Philippines. There is no devorce. Her husband, although he has another partner and children, does not consent to a mutual separation. Her assets are therefore still with him. She can get a deforce here (at much cost), but it will not count for anything in filipino law. This is because of the RELIGIOUS beliefs in that country. Funny isn't it, when you so elegantly point out that religion has nothing to do with marriage......

In countries where religious belief has a stranglehold over the country then yes, you'll see it has laws along the lines of that religion (not just about marriage). That's unfortunate as religion should always be serperate ffrom government.

Quote

Are you really saying that marriage has no connection to religion? Its connection to religion is why i would rather have a civil union than a marriage. The changes in law you have referred to are all about updating the law and applying it to a marriage contract. None of which i disagree with. But none of the changes have revolutionised marriage enough to change its definition.

Ok, perhaps I wasn't clear.

Marriage does have a connection with religion, but it is not OWNED by religion. In much the same way that funerals are connected to religion, but funerals aren't owned by religion.

All those updates to marriage have actually changed the definition of marriage. For example originally marriage could be defined as being between a man and a woman of the same race and same religion. The update to interracial and interfaith marriage removed the later two clauses making it between a man and a woman. This is just another change to the deinition that one day people will look back on and wonder why it wasn't there already (like we do about interacial marriages being illegal).

Quote

So i will ask you directly. Why is there a need to call a same sex couples ceremony a "Marriage"? What right are we denying homosexuals?

It basically comes under the whole concept of 'serperate but equal' thing. A lot of gay people see civil partnerships/unions as a second rate version marriage. It's not seen as being the same as marriage, it's seen as something that's created simply to appease religious people.

We're lucky here in the Uk. Civil partnerships are pretty much identical to marriages in legal terms. But theres a lot of places where the differences between civil unions and marriage is quite staggering and glaring.

Now you say you'd be happy in a civil union. That's your choice and the important thing there is choice. You can choose to have a marriage or a civil union. Yet do gay people have that choice? For the most part, no.

Let me ask you something directly: would you be comfortable telling non-religious hetrosexals that they can't marry, that they could only have a civil union and that all such marriages were now civil unions? Do you think those people would react positively to that?  And if so, why not? After all it is just 'semantics' isn't it?

Edited by shadowhive, 07 February 2013 - 01:27 AM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
We'll just keep on trying till we run out of cake
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#55    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:27 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 07 February 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

Let me ask you something directly: would you be comfortable telling non-religious hetrosexals that they can't marry, that they could only have a civil union and that all such marriages were now civil unions? Do you think those people would react positively to that?  And if so, why not? After all it is just 'semantics' isn't it?



It up to a person to decide what they do within the law. I would talk to any person who wants to get married about their reasons and ask if they feel comfortable proping up a religious sacrament when there is a perfect alternative without the religious overtones.

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 07 February 2013 - 02:29 AM.


#56    Odin11

Odin11

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 887 posts
  • Joined:15 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • I like your Christ.
    I do not like your Christians.
    They are so unlike your Christ.
    -Gandhi-

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:01 AM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 06 February 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

Easy answer is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now the real question is, why change the definition of marriage when there is already ceremonies availiable that grant you the exact same rights.

So this thread is not about equal rights, its about the name of the ceremony. Hence me saying "a rose by any other name..." except that in this case it obviously doesn't smell as sweet to some.

When studying rocks you use Geology, when studying marriage you use Anthropology. So:

The anthropological definition of marriage is –

A culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. Such marriage rights and obligations most often include, but are not limited to sex, labor, property, child rearing, exchange, and status. Thus defined, marriage is universal.

I don't see anything about men and women or anything abut religion in that, do you?

This thread is about rights. You are the one arguing semantics, and out dated wrong ones at that.

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 06 February 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

It is widely accepted throughout the world that marriage is between a man and a woman. People who have same sex ceremonies have the same rights. What difference does the name make?

Actually the most wanted form of marriage throughout the world is polygamy.


View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 07 February 2013 - 01:07 AM, said:

So i will ask you directly. Why is there a need to call a same sex couples ceremony a "Marriage"? What right are we denying homosexuals?

You're trying to deny them their right to marry the one they love.

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 07 February 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

It up to a person to decide what they do within the law. I would talk to any person who wants to get married about their reasons and ask if they feel comfortable proping up a religious sacrament when there is a perfect alternative without the religious overtones.

That’s not really an answer. You just side stepped the question.

"Would you be fine telling non-religious hetrosexals that they can't marry?"

Edited by Odin11, 07 February 2013 - 04:03 AM.

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!" ~Author Unknown

#57    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,510 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton, Blighty!

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:29 AM

Separation of Church and State SHOULD be adhered to. A State should not have any authority over a Church (when operating within Common Law) and vice versa.

Gay Marriage - no issues at all, it is the affirmation of love and consent between 2 people.


#58    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:40 PM

As a Christian I am completely against gay marriage and also homosexuality.

The government is wrong to try and get gay marriage legalised in Britain and there are far more important things that the government should be concentrating on rather than this, such as the economy, immigration and the EUSSR.

Also, polls show that the majority of the British people are against gay marriage.  A poll on Sky News the other day showed that 58% of people are against it.  Not only that, but even the majority of gay people are against it.

Britain's ruling Left Wing Establishment has bizarre thought processes.  On the one hand it is against traditional, heterosexual marriage and does eveything it can to undermine it, despite the fact that children brought up with a married mother and father get on better in life and are less likely to be involved in crime, whereas on the other hand it is doing everything it can to legalise gay marriage.  One good example of this is how the Left, such as the LibDems and Labour, are against the Tories' plans for tax breaks for married couples to try and get more heterosexual couples to marry (almost every other European country has some form of tax break for married heterosexual couples), whilst at the same time they are trying to put forward legislation to legalise gay marriage.

Thankfully, though, it is highly unlikely that the gay marriage bill will progress through the Lords.  Remember, there are Church of England clergy in the Lords and they will do all they can to kill off the bill.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 07 February 2013 - 02:56 PM.


#59    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:26 PM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 07 February 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

As a Christian I am completely against gay marriage and also homosexuality.

Thankfully christians don't control the country and not every christian believes as you do.

During the consultation prcess several christian groups actually wanted same sex amrriags to happen and wanted to perform them (hence religious marriages beig allowed)

Quote

The government is wrong to try and get gay marriage legalised in Britain and there are far more important things that the government should be concentrating on rather than this, such as the economy, immigration and the EUSSR.

This is a misnomer The government deals with many issues at the same time. Dealing with gay marriage doesn't mean the goverment's not dealing with the economy, immigration and europe and other issues anymore than when the goverment tackles any other issue. Of course the other issues are important, but the government doesn't grind to a halt to deal with one issue at a time. If that was the case the government would be pretty ineffective.

Quote

Also, polls show that the majority of the British people are against gay marriage.  A poll on Sky News the other day showed that 58% of people are against it.  Not only that, but even the majority of gay people are against it.

Polls seem to be all over the place. I've seen at least half a dozen that have said anywhere from 58-78+% of people have been in favor. The majority of gay people (when asked) are in favor, I dunno where you've got that from.

Quote

Britain's ruling Left Wing Establishment has bizarre thought processes.  On the one hand it is against traditional, heterosexual marriage and does eveything it can to undermine it, despite the fact that children brought up with a married mother and father get on better in life and are less likely to be involved in crime, whereas on the other hand it is doing everything it can to legalise gay marriage.  One good example of this is how the Left, such as the LibDems and Labour, are against the Tories' plans for tax breaks for married couples to try and get more heterosexual couples to marry (almost every other European country has some form of tax break for married heterosexual couples), whilst at the same time they are trying to put forward legislation to legalise gay marriage.

Thankfully, though, it is highly unlikely that the gay marriage bill will progress through the Lords.  Remember, there are Church of England clergy in the Lords and they will do all they can to kill off the bill.

What world are you living in? No one is trying to underimine traditional marriage. That's like saying your marriage is under threat because a pair of people you've never met, but are divorced, married too. Get a grip.

Also you would do well to recall that traditional marriage (as we know it) is actually a fairly new concept. For the most part marriages have had nothing to do with love and the woman had no say in who they married. Do you honestly want marriage to take a time warp and become static? And do you honestly think that married hetrosexuals would support you?

Personally we need more seperation of church and state so the church can't threaten that. However there is an act of parliament that can get around the house of lords decision and the equalities minister has said they were willing to use it if necessary so it really is a childish, empty threat.

Edited by shadowhive, 07 February 2013 - 03:29 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
We'll just keep on trying till we run out of cake
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#60    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:37 PM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 07 February 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

As a Christian I am completely against gay marriage and also homosexuality.

The government is wrong to try and get gay marriage legalised in Britain and there are far more important things that the government should be concentrating on rather than this, such as the economy, immigration and the EUSSR.

Also, polls show that the majority of the British people are against gay marriage.  A poll on Sky News the other day showed that 58% of people are against it.  Not only that, but even the majority of gay people are against it.

Britain's ruling Left Wing Establishment has bizarre thought processes.  On the one hand it is against traditional, heterosexual marriage and does eveything it can to undermine it, despite the fact that children brought up with a married mother and father get on better in life and are less likely to be involved in crime, whereas on the other hand it is doing everything it can to legalise gay marriage.  One good example of this is how the Left, such as the LibDems and Labour, are against the Tories' plans for tax breaks for married couples to try and get more heterosexual couples to marry (almost every other European country has some form of tax break for married heterosexual couples), whilst at the same time they are trying to put forward legislation to legalise gay marriage.

Thankfully, though, it is highly unlikely that the gay marriage bill will progress through the Lords.  Remember, there are Church of England clergy in the Lords and they will do all they can to kill off the bill.

The Tories are attempting to play for the votes of minority groups instead of actually representing the regular British people. All they need to do is stop immigration, exit the EU and start our rise back to prominance and they'd take 80% of the votes at the next election. But sadly they dont for some bizarre reason.

Homosexuality is a sin plain and simple. Therefore gay marriage is also a sin. The Church of England will block it in the House of Lords just like they block assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. I too dont think it will even get that far as the House of Commons will throw it out due to low support. You are very much right that the majority of people in this country dont want gay marriage and neither do most of the gays.

I suspect its a small number of 'in your face' homosexuals trying to rub the Churches nose in it by undermining marriage. I dont know why Cameron is alienating large numbers of voters to please a smaller number. But then again his strategical thinking clearly isnt any good as he didnt manage a majority at the last election!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users