Gay Marriage - The Vote

[Acker79]

I understand that for the majority of gay men and women, it is not a lifestyle choice. However, I do ask that they understand that as a result of their sexuality certain things which are accessible to heterosexual couples, may not be open to them. That includes having children (as anatomically we have evolved on the basis that a union between men and women is the norm, like it or not) and that the church, has decreed that single sex relationships go against the teachings of the church and therefore cannot be sanctified in church. All of us have to make choices in life and sometimes have to put up with things not being accessible to us.

If I was born Jewish, a bacon sandwich would be a no no. I would have to leave the faith or put up with it. Same if I had been born a muslim. All of us have had to deal with the hand we were born with, but do not expect society to give in to us every time we feel unequal.

Wow. Where to start.

1) No one is born a religion. They are brought up in line within the religion of their parents (or lack thereof), they are allowed to make a choice when they are old enough. If you want bacon,you can make the choice to follow the majority of Judaism and just ignore that one bit, or go without bacon, change to a religion that allows bacon, or just give up on religion. Either way that is a choice. Sexuality, you freely admit, is not.
2) IVF, Surrogacy and adoption are avenues through which gay people can have kids.
3) Anatomically we have evolved for sex to be about a male and a female. That doesn't mean relationship are, or that relationships are about procreation, and marriage is a social construct, not an anatomical one, and has been about property, politics, money, green cards, social acceptance, spiritual etc.
4) There are so many different churches. Some have continued their modernisation (along with agreeing that women are equal, and slavery is bad even if it is) and their decree is that gay marriage is acceptable (Some churches are happy to bless civil partnerships, I would assme this means they'd be happy to conduct gay marriages).
5) I'm sure that many do understand that some churches won't want to conduct their marriage, I'm also fairly certain that the churches that refuse to conduct them are not likely to be the same churches that religious gay couples attend anyway
6) This whole "they're gay,they can't have what straight people have" attitude is exactly what I mean when describing the difference between "civil partnership" and "marriage". There is no reason that people can't enjoy the same choices that others can simply on the basis of sexuality.
7) The church doesn't have absolute power over defining marriage for the entire country, and shouldn't have that power over government.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

In my free-thinking world, people are free to pick and choose what they wish, specifically regarding ancient dogma; the religious beliefs of our forefathers.

Regarding your dogma of biological issues, this is demonstrably untrue.

As I said in an earlier post, there have been children of same-sex couples (where one of the women is the biological mother) at my partner's school, and everyone is perfectly happy. The fact that there is a biological father in all this is beside the point - we're talking about same-sex partnerships / marriages here.

You are plainly wrong , I said that no matter how much you may wish it , same sex couples cannot procreate, this remains the case , no matter how you try to dress it up , be it surrogacy or adoption by one half of the same sex couple.
As for the children of your same sex couple at your "partners" school, I absolutely refuse to believe you have intimate, indepth knowledge of the childs feelings on the matter, or the dynamics of the family and interaction behind closed doors, they may appear happy, they may be genuinely happy, but you dont know they are happy.

 

[Acker79]

Well perhaps in your free thinking world you can accept that not everyone holds the same view as you , and the biological obstacles really , really cant be overcome ,no matter how much you may wish, same sex couples cannot procreate, sure you can make a mockery of what nature intended, but you cannot overcome the obstacles, I want to play football for England, nature has decreed I cant, guess what, I accept it.

That wasn't nature, that was you not putting the effort in to developing and improving your footballing ability enough to reach the levels of skill needed to get the call up.

 

[cunning fergus]

For your first point it was a free vote with no whips, and whilst I don't claim to know the minds of all the MPs I'm prepared to accept that they voted by conscience, although it is of course possible that a couple of them said "Look at me Dave! I'm voting the same as you!"

The second point is slightly more complex. Yes of course people grew up with different values. My father for example was a terrible racist; a 'casual' one but a racist none the less. He wasn't a 'bad' man, it was just the way he was brought up and he was a product of his era. Doubtless there are fundamentally decent people who nevertheless believe that same-sex marriage is an abomination and those unions should not be granted the same status as the more traditional ones. Given time though that view will go the way of believing that black people are intellectually inferior, and yesterday was a step on that path.

I know it was a free vote, however generally speaking I think that political ambition will always trump a politician’s conscience (if was any other way then they wouldn’t be politicians).............that’s not to say many on BOTH sides of the argument did not have deeply held convictions, I fully accept these were also at play. That said, this aspect should be considered though the paradigm that the motive behind this vote in the first place was just crude political advancement by an ambitious politician. No more no less.

It is complex, hence my point that you were over simplifying the opponents as prejudiced bigots.................maybe you just take after your old man? It is also something of an irony that “superiority” comes in different forms and whilst racial superiority maybe a dead pigeon, there are plenty on this board (and in society at large) who consider that they represent a neo ethical equivalent of “Das Reich” which must without any mercy lay waste to the degenerate untermenschen who have the temerity to speak out against the direction of today’s brave new world..................your comments about opponents being prejudiced bigots indicate you are well equipped for this new era of total war.

Seig heil..............

 

[Mackenzie]

A musical Interlude

[yt]FJHzbnwgOX4[/yt]

 

[The Large One]

You are plainly wrong , I said that no matter how much you may wish it , same sex couples cannot procreate, this remains the case , no matter how you try to dress it up , be it surrogacy or adoption by one half of the same sex couple.
As for the children of your same sex couple at your "partners" school, I absolutely refuse to believe you have intimate, indepth knowledge of the childs feelings on the matter, or the dynamics of the family and interaction behind closed doors, they may appear happy, they may be genuinely happy, but you dont know they are happy.

Tragic. Just tragic.

As an earlier poster said 'it's hard to know where to start...' But seeing as you don't know what you're on about, especially with the bit I've emboldened, I'd do you the favour of leaving it there.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

Tragic. Just tragic.

As an earlier poster said 'it's hard to know where to start...' But seeing as you don't know what you're on about, probably best to leave it there.

No, go on, start , don't just respond with a nothing soundbite, tell me exactly what was incorrect about my statement that same sex couples cannot procreate.

EDIT I'm waiting for the inevitable crap about this same sex couple being close friends of yours who you spend an inordinate amount of time with, giving you a unique insight into their daily lives.

 

[Biscuit]

I explained my reasons...However, you have clearly contradicted yourself and it's surely YOU who is the one being intolerant of other peoples views and beliefs by saying we should all conform to what YOU believe in?

No idea where you got that from, read my posts..

 

[The Large One]

No, go on, start , don't just respond with a nothing soundbite, tell me exactly what was incorrect about my statement that same sex couples cannot procreate.

Read my edited post. I was talking about the emboldened bit where you're challenging something you have no idea about; you only seek to presume that you do.

Of course, same-sex couples cannot procreate between themselves. However, that's irrelevant; we're talking about same-sex marriages. Same-sex parent families can work perfectly well.

And despite the dogma of some, marriages aren't specifically there for the purpose of procreation. When my Dad re-married at 60, I don't actually believe him and his wife were considering having children.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No, go on, start , don't just respond with a nothing soundbite, tell me exactly what was incorrect about my statement that same sex couples cannot procreate.

I think the point is same sex couples can procreate in exactly the same way many many opposite sex couples do.

If you deny same sex couples that same avenue because their procreation is 'not natural', then there are a huge number of opposite sex couples you would also need to deny this opportunity to under your logic.

 

[The Large One]

No, go on, start , don't just respond with a nothing soundbite, tell me exactly what was incorrect about my statement that same sex couples cannot procreate.

EDIT I'm waiting for the inevitable crap about this same sex couple being close friends of yours who you spend an inordinate amount of time with, giving you a unique insight into their daily lives.

What, you mean the concept of 'friends'...?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I imagine the Registrar who does civil partnerships is going to be a bit quiet for the next few months.

 

[Brovion]

I know it was a free vote, however generally speaking I think that political ambition will always trump a politician’s conscience (if was any other way then they wouldn’t be politicians).............that’s not to say many on BOTH sides of the argument did not have deeply held convictions, I fully accept these were also at play. That said, this aspect should be considered though the paradigm that the motive behind this vote in the first place was just crude political advancement by an ambitious politician. No more no less.

It is complex, hence my point that you were over simplifying the opponents as prejudiced bigots.................maybe you just take after your old man? It is also something of an irony that “superiority” comes in different forms and whilst racial superiority maybe a dead pigeon, there are plenty on this board (and in society at large) who consider that they represent a neo ethical equivalent of “Das Reich” which must without any mercy lay waste to the degenerate untermenschen who have the temerity to speak out against the direction of today’s brave new world..................your comments about opponents being prejudiced bigots indicate you are well equipped for this new era of total war.

Seig heil..............

I disagree with your first paragraph, I don't think it was all down to 'crude political advancement'. For the second paragraph - keep up.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

You are plainly wrong , I said that no matter how much you may wish it , same sex couples cannot procreate, this remains the case , no matter how you try to dress it up , be it surrogacy or adoption by one half of the same sex couple.
As for the children of your same sex couple at your "partners" school, I absolutely refuse to believe you have intimate, indepth knowledge of the childs feelings on the matter, or the dynamics of the family and interaction behind closed doors, they may appear happy, they may be genuinely happy, but you dont know they are happy.

Why have you chosen to add the " " around the word 'partner's'? I really need to know.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

Why have you chosen to add the " " around the word 'partner's'? I really need to know.

No stunning reason, I just think its a bit of a pretentious word, what's wrong with husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend , it just smacks of colourless PC newspeak to me, designed to be so deliberately neutral, lest someone be offended by some of the more traditional terms.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

What, you mean the concept of 'friends'...?

No, not at all, you know full well what I meant, that to back up your post you would tell me that these people were close friends of yours , and that you spent a great deal of time with them, giving you a close up view of how happy they were .

 

[hans kraay fan club]

No stunning reason, I just think its a bit of a pretentious word, what's wrong with husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend , it just smacks of colourless PC newspeak to me, designed to be so deliberately neutral, lest someone be offended by some of the more traditional terms.

I don't know TLO's domestic situation in any detail, but if he has a very long term partner, with whom he shares a life, and a mortgage and all the other stuff, but to whom he is not married, he might feel that the term 'girlfriend' seems a bit inadequate. I would.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No stunning reason, I just think its a bit of a pretentious word, what's wrong with husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend , it just smacks of colourless PC newspeak to me, designed to be so deliberately neutral, lest someone be offended by some of the more traditional terms.

What the hell are you going on about now!?

Spouse has always been a neutral term for married people, and 'partner' has been used forever and a day. 'Bring partners along...', 'are partners invited....' etc. You're trying to tell me these terms aren't traditional?

You're trying to find controversy where there is none!

 

[FREDBINNEY]

I think the point is same sex couples can procreate in exactly the same way many many opposite sex couples do.

If you deny same sex couples that same avenue because their procreation is 'not natural', then there are a huge number of opposite sex couples you would also need to deny this opportunity to under your logic.

Not at all, I assume you're talking about IVF ?

Which is natural insofar that a sperm fertilises an egg etc, not remotely similar to surrogacy or same sex adoption.

 

[Acker79]

Not at all, I assume you're talking about IVF ?

Which is natural insofar that a sperm fertilises an egg etc, not remotely similar to surrogacy or same sex adoption.

And IVF is available to gay couples. In what way is IVF not remotely similar to surrogacy? How is surrogacy not natural if you accept IVF is?