Gay Marriage - The Vote

Psychobilly freakout said:

question

If this bill is passed and Gay marriage is allowed, which I believe it ultimately will Churches will not be able to refuse a gay marriage based on discrimination one would asume yes ?

My main thought is I can see Christian churches even if begrudgingly obeying the law, However I would assume you would have a cat in hells chance of getting married in a mosque. How is that fair on Christians who oppose and believe their christian values (does not matter if we beieve in god or not they do) and this proposal are wrong and have to let gay marriage go ahead in their church, while the mosque over the road will be laughing their heads off thinking western culture has ultimatly killed the church.

just a question like.

Click to expand...

Nobody should be exempt in my opinion. If its the law of the land then that comes first.

Without wishing to trivialise the matter, this bill will become the equivalent of the fox hunting bill that Labour were obliged to push through. This will become a millstone.

Psychobilly freakout said:

question

Click to expand...

my quesiton is why deliberatly make a hypothetical question that has no basis in fact? how do you know churches would have to relent and how do you know mosques wont? your thoughts and assumptions are just reguritating prejudice, and really a good reason to get rid of all this pandering to religious types altogether.

Hamilton said:

Nobody should be exempt in my opinion. If its the law of the land then that comes first.

Click to expand...

Yeah right it will become a millstone , if any goverment want to uphold this law and apply it to a mosque we can expect more bombs and attacks

Psychobilly freakout said:

Yeah right it will become a millstone , if any goverment want to uphold this law and apply it to a mosque we can expect more bombs and attacks

Click to expand...

I can see the issue being abused by fundamentalists on all sides.

As for what goes on in churches and mosques, I have no idea. I don't go to churches and mosques. If there are gay Christians and gay Muslims that now want to get married at least they now know they are legally entitled to do so.

The odd thing is that I am unaware as to where the clamour for this bill was coming from. I believe in equality and inclusivity so it's inevitable that if forced to a vote I would support this, but where was the pressing need for it? Obviously people like Peter Tatchell are pushing for it, but gay rights in terms of marriage shouldn't have been pushed to the top of the in-tray.

skipper734 said:

Sorry I don't know how to identify anyone else in Government who is trying to get this bill through. So whether you like it or not, you are on Dave's side in this, and incidentally so am I.

Click to expand...

You said 'conned by Dave'. No, he didn't 'con' us at all; those in favour believe in equality and those opposed are prejudiced bigots. It really is that simple.

But yes, we are on his side in this respect and he deserves great credit for forcing it through against the large antediluvian element in his own party. As a Labour supporter it is a bit shaming that it took a Tory to do this, to extend rights and freedoms, whereas Blair and Brown were all about wars and banning things.

Mental Lental said:

Gay marriage - Yes.

Gay adoption - No.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that gays could be adopted , or is it a bit like adopting a goat in Africa?

Psychobilly freakout said:

question

If this bill is passed and Gay marriage is allowed, which I believe it ultimately will Churches will not be able to refuse a gay marriage based on discrimination one would asume yes ?

My main thought is I can see Christian churches even if begrudgingly obeying the law, However I would assume you would have a cat in hells chance of getting married in a mosque. How is that fair on Christians who oppose and believe their christian values (does not matter if we beieve in god or not they do) and this proposal are wrong and have to let gay marriage go ahead in their church, while the mosque over the road will be laughing their heads off thinking western culture has ultimatly killed the church.

just a question like.

Click to expand...

No religion will be forced to carry out same sex wedding. In fact, if they want to they will specifically have to opt in.

El Presidente said:

I didn't know that gays could be adopted , or is it a bit like adopting a goat in Africa?

Click to expand...

Bravo

Brovion said:

You said 'conned by Dave'. No, he didn't 'con' us at all; those in favour believe in equality and those opposed are prejudiced bigots. It really is that simple.

But yes, we are on his side in this respect and he deserves great credit for forcing it through against the large antediluvian element in his own party. As a Labour supporter it is a bit shaming that it took a Tory to do this, to extend rights and freedoms, whereas Blair and Brown were all about wars and banning things.

Click to expand...

You are giving the politicians who voted yes far too much credit, are you honestly saying everyone who voted yes did so because of deeply held convictions about equality? Are you sure there were not some who did so in order to (say) protect their own political careers?

Equally to just roll out the same old prejudiced bigot remark for those against the proposal is way too simplistic; regardless of the moral case for the legislation there are many millions of people in this country who have long understood marriage as a traditional construct with a man and woman.

They were taught this in schools when they were young, they lived it and continue to believe it, changing the law does not change how many of these people understand it. You may not like it but that's the fact of the matter. Now that the law has changed we will see just how tolerant those on the pro side of this legislation are when dealing with those who were opposed.

Labelling those who were prepared to stand up for their (or their constituents) beliefs are not automatically prejudiced bigots, saying they are is a hysterical over reaction.........that is democracy.

I thought gay marriage was already legal? Or is civil partnership not the same thing

Brovion said:

You said 'conned by Dave'. No, he didn't 'con' us at all; those in favour believe in equality and those opposed are prejudiced bigots. It really is that simple.

But yes, we are on his side in this respect and he deserves great credit for forcing it through against the large antediluvian element in his own party. As a Labour supporter it is a bit shaming that it took a Tory to do this, to extend rights and freedoms, whereas Blair and Brown were all about wars and banning things.

Click to expand...

There you go again using that word and ignoring the fact that you are a yes bigot. Saying no does not automatically mean that an individual thinks that being Gay is a bad thing or that equality is not something that most people growing up as a Teenager in the 50's and 60's didn't encourage, vote for or take a full part in.
As regards the equality that you think was voted on yesterday, the only move towards more equality is just the change of the word Marriage instead of Civil Contract.

Seagull27 said:

Anyone else noticed an interesting correlation between the homophobes on this thread and those that constantly moan excessively about the Albion?

Not sure what conclusion to draw from that though.

Click to expand...

I've noticed that before on many threads. The moaners tend to be the right-wing, conservative reactionaries. They also tend to be the ones with poor grammar and spelling.

Read into that what you will.

skipper734 said:

Sorry I don't know how to identify anyone else in Government who is trying to get this bill through. So whether you like it or not, you are on Dave's side in this, and incidentally so am I.

Click to expand...

You said we've been 'conned' by Dave.

I don't think anyone has conned anyone. Those who've voted have gone - for the most part - with their conscience. It didn't need Dave to tell them that.

beorhthelm said:

my quesiton is why deliberatly make a hypothetical question that has no basis in fact? how do you know churches would have to relent and how do you know mosques wont? your thoughts and assumptions are just reguritating prejudice, and really a good reason to get rid of all this pandering to religious types altogether.

Click to expand...

I understand your concerns about my question, however I thought that if you don't know ask the question which I felt was valid. I sorry if. Asked a question I will pm you in future for you to check before I reply to a thread in future.

Bakero said:

I've noticed that before on many threads. The moaners tend to be the right-wing, conservative reactionaries. They also tend to be the ones with poor grammar and spelling.

Read into that what you will.

Click to expand...

And how did you make that assessment as a matter of interest. That is a sweeping statement if I ever saw one.

skipper734 said:

There you go again using that word and ignoring the fact that you are a yes bigot. Saying no does not automatically mean that an individual thinks that being Gay is a bad thing or that equality is not something that most people growing up as a Teenager in the 50's and 60's didn't encourage, vote for or take a full part in.
As regards the equality that you think was voted on yesterday, the only move towards more equality is just the change of the word Marriage instead of Civil Contract.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I've come to this thread late, only read the last page and that was my first post. I guess it might have got quite heated yesterday! 'Bigot' is possibly, just possibly too blanket a term so I'll retract that in your case if in return you'll accept that we arrived at a 'yes' vote of our own free will and weren't 'conned by Dave'.

Bakero said:

I've noticed that before on many threads. The moaners tend to be the right-wing, conservative reactionaries. They also tend to be the ones with poor grammar and spelling.

Read into that what you will.

Click to expand...

Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study

Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
Analysis of more than 15,000 people

By Rob Waugh
UPDATED: 09:54 GMT, 8 February 2012

Comments (1001)
Share


Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.

Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.

The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron
Labour party leader Ed Miliband

The survey, which compared childhood intelligence with political views, is bad news for David Cameron, the Conservative Party Prime Minister but should give a lift to Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, pictured in Question Time

Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.

Social status also appears to play no part.

The study, published in Psychological Science, claims that right-wing ideology forms a 'pathway' for people with low reasoning ability to become prejudiced against groups such as other races and gay people.
President Barack Obama
Romney

Left-wingers tend to be more open-minded says the survey - Democrats voted in first black U.S. president Barack Obama. But right-wing ideology forms a pathway for prejudice - Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, pictured right, was glitter-bombed yesterday by gay-rights activists because of his views

'Cognitive abilities are critical in forming impressions of other people and in being open minded,' say the researchers.

'Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo.

'It provides a sense of order.'

The study, by academics at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, used information from two UK studies from 1958 and 1970 , where several thousand children were assessed for intelligence at age 10 and 11, and then asked political questions aged 33.

The 1958 National Child Development involved 4,267 men and 4,537 women born in 1958.


More...

RIGHTMINDS: Does a low IQ make you right-wing? That depends on how you define left and right
As scientists discover how to 'translate' brainwaves into words... Could a machine read your innermost thoughts?
How everyone from top civil servants to TV presenters are using a loophole to only pay 21% tax - and how you can do the same

'Individuals with lower abilities may gravitate towards right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo.
It provides a sense of order,' say the academics

The British Cohort Study involved 3,412 men and 3,658 women born in 1970.

It's the first time the data from these studies has been used in this way.

In adulthood, the children were asked whether they agreed with statements such as, 'I wouldn't mind working with people from other races,' and 'I wouldn't mind if a family of a different race moved next door.'

They were also asked whether they agreed with statements about typically right-wing and socially conservative politics such as, 'Give law breakers stiffer sentences,' and 'Schools should teach children to obey authority.'

The researchers also compared their results against a 1986 American study which included tests of cognitive ability and questions assessing prejudice against homosexuals.

The authors claim that there is a strong correlation between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.

The authors also claim that conservative politics is part of a complex relationship that leads people to become prejudices.

'Conservative ideology represents a critical pathway through which childhood intelligence predicts racism in adulthood,' says the paper.

'In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order.'

'Clearly, however, all socially conservative people are not prejudiced, and all prejudiced persons are not conservative.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html#ixzz2K6dT5AHf

So when are we going to vote on the lesbians?

topbanana36 said:

And how did you make that assessment as a matter of interest. That is a sweeping statement if I ever saw one.

Click to expand...

It's an observation and by no means 100% accurate. That's why I said 'tend to be.' By the way, your post is missing a question mark

Brovion said:

You said 'conned by Dave'. No, he didn't 'con' us at all; those in favour believe in equality and those opposed are prejudiced bigots. It really is that simple.

But yes, we are on his side in this respect and he deserves great credit for forcing it through against the large antediluvian element in his own party. As a Labour supporter it is a bit shaming that it took a Tory to do this, to extend rights and freedoms, whereas Blair and Brown were all about wars and banning things.

Click to expand...

you are smarter than that brovion