Jump to content

Love & Marriage?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

It amazes me that Dave is so scared off offending the gay voter who now has more equality &  rights than at any time in history. Are these people so influential in his corridors of power that his & his party's future is dependant on placating these people. Surely,a bigger threat to the Tories are the Europhobes & the increasing army of pensioners who can cast the grey vote & not the gay vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth my vote would be 'no' to gay marriages, I have no objections to homosexual people living together, why should I, they have every right to do what they wish to do as long as it does not contravene any of the laws of the country but as for getting married in a religeous ceremony, again only my opinion, it should not happen!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry folks but no answers to the question - "what's the difference between a civil partnership and marriage"? I presume a civil partnership contains, in law, all the spousal protections that marriage does? I presume it has to registered at a register office in the same way as a marriage? So all that's missing is a "religious ceremony" for those that want it? There will be no compulsion for Churches to provide such ceremonies under the new law; so unless they find a sufficiently "progressive" religious sect to provide such a ceremony, they're back where they started - so what's the point? I think the point is, that they want to make a point - and ultimately this is all a load of trivial fuss over nothing; alas all that's left to our MPs, given real power resides in Brussels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tend to agree with alg :unsure:  :unsure:

 

" Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose further redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team? Are all private contractual relations for cohabitation to be rendered equal, or are some to be privileged over others, as has been customary in all times and places? If the latter, what is wrong with heterosexual pairing as the privileged status, sanctified as it is by custom and popular feeling?"

 

As for no compulsion for Churches to provide such ceremonies, tell that to the European Court of human rights. It will only be a matter of time.

 

The key point is that the word “marriage” has been used to define the union of a woman and man with at least a key end of having and raising children

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of folk having a legally recognised "civil partnership" to ensure spousal status and protection in law - I have no probs with. Not being religious, neither am I bothered too much about the "marriage" dimension, other than the fact that it offers nothing of legal substance in addition to a CP; so is in effect a total waste of politician's time and energy, given the fundamental issues that need to be addressed. And for engaging in such superficial and needless trivia, I believe our MPs are now chasing a 25% pay increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, it may mean curbs on their gold plated pensions and expenses. ha ha

 

 

"Although the pay rise is expected to be recommended soon, it will not come into effect until after the 2015 general election. In other words, every MP will have to be elected or re-elected to get the cash.

 

So if you only vote for those candidates who reject the pay rise and who pledge to keep their salary in line with inflation, then there will be no bumper pay deal for MPs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you only vote for those candidates who reject the pay rise and who pledge to keep their salary in line with inflation, then there will be no bumper pay deal for MPs.

So I will have to keep the pigs grounded then tonight. they really wanted to stretch their wings as well. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that this is just more evidence that our overpaid politicians have nothing serious to debate since all major decisions are made by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

 

Cue Lt Kije 8)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have lots to talk about, the economy, government borrowing which is going up ect, They choose to debate and vote on it, nobody except the gay community was pushing them to. Perhaps their are alot of gay Tory and Lib Dems that are going to come out of the closet and get married.  :)

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's be honest, in the wider community, how many people could give a tuppenny damn what other people get up to so long as they don't scare the horses. Why this has to be debated by Parliament at all is nothing short of sad,

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all a waste of time and money. As I said before, apart from a tiny minority who gives a flying fig?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...