Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Would have voted for the bill

10 (21.3%)

Would have voted against the bill

30 (63.8%)

Dont know

3 (6.4%)

Mind your own business,I was never confused

4 (8.5%)

Total Members Voted: 34

Voting closed: 08 February 2013, 20:38:34

[albitz]

Tolerance it seems is a bit of a one way street - again.Tory MP David Burrowes has called in police after receiving death threats because he voted against the proposal.Details of his travel arrangements have been posted online presumably to assist anyone who might want to harm him and his family, and his children are being bulled at school for having a "homophobic" father (I hate that word).
Camoron btw,who has publicly stated that this is a matter of great principle for him didnt actaully turn up for the debate on the issue in the commons.He wouldnt recognise a principle if it kicked him up the arse.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9845185/Tory-MP-gets-death-threats-over-gay-marriage-opposition.html

[cem_devecioglu]

I'd have a lot more "respect" for the "religious" viewpoint (ie those quoting the bible and saying marriage is a holy estate etc etc etc) if those saying it were not so damned hypocritical.

"marriage can only be between man and woman 'cos the bible says so".

The bible (and the promise before god made on marriage) also says "until death us do part" and "thou shalt not commit adultery"

So all those who have a) Got divorced and b) had an affair (and many have done both) have broken the "rules" of the bible and their religion and IMHO should have no voice in this debate 

But of course I forget the basic tenet of many people ... "I can do what I want providing you do as I tell you" ....   

Hypocrisy ....  simple as ..

""so all those who have got divorced, or had an affair ......should have no voice""

that sounds weird!

[Gaffers]

they can do what they like as long as they stay away from me  its not natural

That's right.  It's highly contagious that gay bug.  Be careful you dont catch it.

  Where's that sarcastic smiley?

Quite.

I must say how disappointing it is to read a good number of the posts on this thread.

[Lazydocker]

they can do what they like as long as they stay away from me  its not natural

That's right.  It's highly contagious that gay bug.  Be careful you dont catch it.

  Where's that sarcastic smiley?

Quite.

I must say how disappointing it is to read a good number of the posts on this thread.

Yep, and surprising too. There are some very bigoted posts coming out

(Excuse the pun )

[Lazydocker]

Tolerance it seems is a bit of a one way street - again.Tory MP David Burrowes has called in police after receiving death threats because he voted against the proposal.Details of his travel arrangements have been posted online presumably to assist anyone who might want to harm him and his family, and his children are being bulled at school for having a "homophobic" father (I hate that word).
Camoron btw,who has publicly stated that this is a matter of great principle for him didnt actaully turn up for the debate on the issue in the commons.He wouldnt recognise a principle if it kicked him up the arse.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9845185/Tory-MP-gets-death-threats-over-gay-marriage-opposition.html

Unfortunately there will always be people looking for a fight

[albitz]

There always have been and always will be people who object to homosexuality on grounds of religion,tradition,morality etc.
Until possibly 25 years ago that would  have included the vast majority of the U.K. population,but nowadays the figure would be less to a certain extent.
I cant understand why those who hold the opposite view cant accept that people are entitled to hold those views for those reasons and be tolerant of that. Whatever your views on the subject,there is no denying that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.Why not just let that proceed at its natural pace and leave it at that,rather than force the issue so much,and cause a lot of trouble with peoples faith/conscience/morals etc along the way ?

[cem_devecioglu]

There always have been and always will be people who object to homosexuality on grounds of religion,tradition,morality etc.
Until possibly 25 years ago that would  have included the vast majority of the U.K. population,but nowadays the figure would be less to a certain extent.
I cant understand why those who hold the opposite view cant accept that people are entitled to hold those views for those reasons and be tolerant of that. Whatever your views on the subject,there is no denying that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.Why not just let that proceed at its natural pace and leave it at that,rather than force the issue so much,and cause a lot of trouble with peoples faith/conscience/morals etc along the way ?

when our politicians are in trouble with a subject, they talk or do something different to change the subject.. and they are always successful!
 

[Gaffers]

So discrimination is ok as long as it has it's basis in religion, tradition or so-called moralities?

Would this extend to views on race, class or disability?

[Entwood]

There always have been and always will be people who object to homosexuality on grounds of religion,tradition,morality etc.
Until possibly 25 years ago that would  have included the vast majority of the U.K. population,but nowadays the figure would be less to a certain extent.
I cant understand why those who hold the opposite view cant accept that people are entitled to hold those views for those reasons and be tolerant of that. Whatever your views on the subject,there is no denying that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.Why not just let that proceed at its natural pace and leave it at that,rather than force the issue so much,and cause a lot of trouble with peoples faith/conscience/morals etc along the way ?

I accept what you say ..totally ..... If someone wishes to object to homosexuality they are certainly entitled to.

But to say "homosexuality is OK and in a civil partnership it is OK, but in a marriage is not" .. is not objecting to homosexuality .. it is treating a homosexual couple differently to a heterosexual couple.

And that is what the Bill is actually about.

[albitz]

So discrimination is ok as long as it has it's basis in religion, tradition or so-called moralities?

Would this extend to views on race, class or disability?

Whether discrimination is the correct term to use when speaking of poeples objections on moral/religious grounds etc. is debatable.
There are no genuine grounds within religions or morals to have any negative views regarding race/skin colour/disabilty.

[Gaffers]

History says otherwise.

[albitz]

There always have been and always will be people who object to homosexuality on grounds of religion,tradition,morality etc.
Until possibly 25 years ago that would  have included the vast majority of the U.K. population,but nowadays the figure would be less to a certain extent.
I cant understand why those who hold the opposite view cant accept that people are entitled to hold those views for those reasons and be tolerant of that. Whatever your views on the subject,there is no denying that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.Why not just let that proceed at its natural pace and leave it at that,rather than force the issue so much,and cause a lot of trouble with peoples faith/conscience/morals etc along the way ?

I accept what you say ..totally ..... If someone wishes to object to homosexuality they are certainly entitled to.

But to say "homosexuality is OK and in a civil partnership it is OK, but in a marriage is not" .. is not objecting to homosexuality .. it is treating a homosexual couple differently to a heterosexual couple.

And that is what the Bill is actually about.

A valid argument.Objectors to the bill imo range from those who object to homosexuality on one hand,to those who believe that the tradition of marriage* shouldnt be tinkered with by cynical vote hungery poloticians.

* Marriage - A centuries old institution adhered to in many parts of the world,where a man and woman are joined in a holy/legal union,normally resulting in procreation which keeps the human race going from one generation to another in an orderly/civilised/social fashion.
It has been the bedrock of civilised society for a long time,and we should carefully examine all the possible ramifications before fundamentally changing it.

[Webby the Bear]

I think gay folk are pretty cool.

As for if they should be allowed to marry... who cares, religions all 'dangle berries' anyway

[Nickbat]

I think gay folk are pretty cool.

As for if they should be allowed to marry... who cares, religions all 'dangle berries' anyway

Nowt so understanding as an atheist. 

[Entwood]

There always have been and always will be people who object to homosexuality on grounds of religion,tradition,morality etc.
Until possibly 25 years ago that would  have included the vast majority of the U.K. population,but nowadays the figure would be less to a certain extent.
I cant understand why those who hold the opposite view cant accept that people are entitled to hold those views for those reasons and be tolerant of that. Whatever your views on the subject,there is no denying that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.Why not just let that proceed at its natural pace and leave it at that,rather than force the issue so much,and cause a lot of trouble with peoples faith/conscience/morals etc along the way ?

I accept what you say ..totally ..... If someone wishes to object to homosexuality they are certainly entitled to.

But to say "homosexuality is OK and in a civil partnership it is OK, but in a marriage is not" .. is not objecting to homosexuality .. it is treating a homosexual couple differently to a heterosexual couple.

And that is what the Bill is actually about.

A valid argument.Objectors to the bill imo range from those who object to homosexuality on one hand,to those who believe that the tradition of marriage* shouldnt be tinkered with by cynical vote hungery poloticians.

* Marriage - A centuries old institution adhered to in many parts of the world,where a man and woman are joined in a holy/legal union,normally resulting in procreation which keeps the human race going from one generation to another in an orderly/civilised/social fashion.
It has been the bedrock of civilised society for a long time,and we should carefully examine all the possible ramifications before fundamentally changing it.

As I said above .. "'Til death us do part" and "forsakeing all others"

so if you stick to religious principles as grounds to object to gay marriage .. then adultery and divorce are equally debarred .... and some 40% of the population have done either or both ... 

but because people want that it is now acceptable ...

hypocrisy ? ? ?   ??