Gay Marriage - The Vote

[Muhammad - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

I can't see why people would want to get married anyway, gay or straight.
I tried it once, never again.

I'm just going to find a woman I don't like and buy them a house

 

[piersa]

"Pity originally means feeling for others, particularly feelings of sadness or sorrow, and was once used in a comparable sense to the more modern words "sympathy" and "empathy". Through insincere usage, it now has more unsympathetic connotations of feelings of superiority or condescension."

you still have it but not from the original meaning.

 

[Ernest]

Try this one.

If you believe in God, you will believe that he made man and woman. You will further believe that the reason for marriage is to create a holy union to be blessed with children.

Whilst I can understand the need for some pairs of blokes or women to show their devotion for one another in a civil partnership, surely what they do has nothing to do with the intentions of a Christian marriage?

Exactly, they have civil partnerships

 

[Nibble]

What part of the question that nibble asked


" so you'd rather see a kid grow up in a children's home with a completely unnatural scenario, no two people specifically to raise them, no family unit, no hugs, no parental bond than see the child adopted by a loving, caring committed couple of the same sex?


are YOU struggling with ??

Your rant was totally irrelevant to what I asked.

 

[sydney]

Surely our nation has more pressing matters to resolve than this irrelevance.

225,000 times this.

 

[Randsta]

Who Gays.....? you decide

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

So its 2/10 people that for whatever reason think it shouldnt be allowed with about 7/10 people in favour of it, so NSC is showing then general consensus of the country.

If the Tories vote against it, then they know they will be almost certain to be out at the next election, not to mention it shows they are incredibly out of touch with the rest of the country, being stuck in the past.

And as for gay couples adopting, as long as they are in a safe, protected, loving and caring home with 2 parents, whatever their sex and sexuality - why should people be against it ? You cant just say "Its not right" and that "Its against nature". They would be brought up the same as any other kid these days and it will be more acceptable to be gay when the kids are adults, saying it isnt allowed is hardly setting a good example for them.

For those who have voted no for religious reasons - fair enough, you believe what you want to believe and if something goes against that, then you have to say no. But those who are just voting no "because its wrong" - let everyone know when your ready to step out of the 1950's and into 2013.

 

[The Large One]

What part of the question that nibble asked


" so you'd rather see a kid grow up in a children's home with a completely unnatural scenario, no two people specifically to raise them, no family unit, no hugs, no parental bond than see the child adopted by a loving, caring committed couple of the same sex?


are YOU struggling with ??

I have no problem with the question.

He's asking about the preference of bringing up a child in a Children's Home with much attendant love and care sadly lacking, to bringing them up in a same-sex parent loving household.

You answered that the care system is a farce (which may or may not be the case) based on the UKIP parents story. He never mentioned UKIP or the care system.

In other words, it's not about whether UKIP parents (who he wasn't talking about) would be better parents, or should be preferable; Nibble's point was about a straight choice between Children's Homes and Same-Sex household. The considerations surrounding the UKIP parents are a separate issue.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

I hope they get Ant and Dec to announce the results live in the House of Commons.

 

[The Spanish]

Oh I see, so nobody criminilised homesexuality, people didn't go to prison for their "crime", people aren't going to vote against homosexual marrriage. Righto!

only one of three of those is still applicable nowadays and for a long time. of course people are going to vote against it this is a massive historical turnaround in this culture and no acceptance from the pro camp is forthcoming on this fact. like I say good luck to them if it makes peoples lives more pleasant and makes our society a better place, to be but railing against bigots and chastising people for being in the 'stone age' while the pro camp is very much in the ascendancy, is a very adolescent attitude, and lacking in the very compassion that is being asked of them.

 

[Seagull27]

What part of the question that nibble asked


" so you'd rather see a kid grow up in a children's home with a completely unnatural scenario, no two people specifically to raise them, no family unit, no hugs, no parental bond than see the child adopted by a loving, caring committed couple of the same sex?


are YOU struggling with ??

I'm fairly sure [MENTION=5707]Nibble[/MENTION] wasn't making any comments on how well the child care system works. I think it was more along the lines of:

"If you think that a child should be raised by a man and a woman, and that same sex parents are wrong because they need both male/female role models, then what are your opinions of a single parent raising a child? Or a child being raised with no parents?"

Leaving political agenda and adoption home issues out of it completely. What is the difference between a child having two male parents, or one male parent, with regards to the missing female role model?

 

[Nibble]

I hope they get Ant and Dec to announce the results live in the House of Commons.

Just before they get married to one another.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Thank you someone who doesn't resort to abuse.

Well not with you today, anyway!

You're welcome, btw.

 

[User removed 4]

I have no problem with the question.

He's asking about the preference of bringing up a child in a Children's Home with much attendant love and care sadly lacking, to bringing them up in a same-sex parent loving household.

You answered that the care system is a farce (which may or may not be the case) based on the UKIP parents story. He never mentioned UKIP or the care system.

In other words, it's not about whether UKIP parents (who he wasn't talking about) would be better parents, or should be preferable; Nibble's point was about a straight choice between Children's Homes and Same-Sex household. The considerations surrounding the UKIP parents are a separate issue.

You are nowhere near as clever as you think you are if you cant fathom that my point , highlighted by my example of the UKIP couple is that it isnt or neednt be a straight choice between the care sytem and gay households , there are plenty of people willing , and able to adopt that cant, due to the system we have in place now, do you think that the bias against the UKIP couple , whether over distinct political affiliations or other factors , was an isolated case , well I dont.

 

[Nibble]

only one of three of those is still applicable nowadays and for a long time. of course people are going to vote against it this is a massive historical turnaround in this culture and no acceptance from the pro camp is forthcoming on this fact. like I say good luck to them if it makes peoples lives more pleasant and makes our society a better place, to be but railing against bigots and chastising people for being in the 'stone age' while the pro camp is very much in the ascendancy, is a very adolescent attitude, and lacking in the very compassion that is being asked of them.

I think if you are in a position of power in this country then it is perfectly acceptable to expect them to be up to date and have a sense of what is right. Nobody is lacking compassion whatsoever, I admire some of the political figures that have acknowledged ths and will vote for gay marriage when in th epast tehy would not. I applaud them. I still expect a parliament to be forward thinking and to know what the country wants. If you think that is adolescent I fear the fault lies with you old bean.

 

[Common as Mook]

27 Tories voted to legalise homosexuality in 1966. Thatcher was one of them.

Important to remember that today.

 

[Nibble]

You are nowhere near as clever as you think you are if you cant fathom that my point , highlighted by my example of the UKIP couple is that it isnt or neednt be a straight choice between the care sytem and gay households , there are plenty of people willing , and able to adopt that cant, due to the system we have in place now, do you think that the bias against the UKIP couple , whether over distinct political affiliations or other factors , was an isolated case , well I dont.

Bizarre. You continue to answer a totally different question to the one originally asked. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here Bush

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Just you wait and see what happens. A same sex couple will want to get married in church. The church will say No. The European courts of human rights will say Yes.
Don't bother me either way, what I am seeing is that the government has opened up a new can of worms, when was there a need for it from the start. Are Gay people really bothered about this? has anybody asked them?

 

[User removed 4]

I'm fairly sure [MENTION=5707]Nibble[/MENTION] wasn't making any comments on how well the child care system works. I think it was more along the lines of:

"If you think that a child should be raised by a man and a woman, and that same sex parents are wrong because they need both male/female role models, then what are your opinions of a single parent raising a child? Or a child being raised with no parents?"

Leaving political agenda and adoption home issues out of it completely. What is the difference between a child having two male parents, or one male parent, with regards to the missing female role model?

If Nibble meant to say
" If you think that a child should be raised by a man and a woman, and that same sex parents are wrong because they need both male/female role models, then what are your opinions of a single parent raising a child? Or a child being raised with no parents?"



I think he probably would have said it , he didnt, he tried to imply that there is basically no choice between the care system , and same sex couples , i argued against that , as for your question what is the difference between one male paren and two male parents with a missing female role model, I would think that two males, acting as joint parents dilutes the male influence that one male parent would have, neither scenario is ideal , while one is unavoidable in most cases, the other isnt .

 

[Nibble]

Just you wait and see what happens. A same sex couple will want to get married in church. The church will say No. The European courts of human rights will say Yes.
Don't bother me either way, what I am seeing is that the government has opened up a new can of worms, when was there a need for it from the start. Are Gay people really bothered about this? has anybody asked them?

Yep. Quite a few do care deeply. I agree with them. They deserve the same rights as we enjoy. It's 2013, come on in.