Gay Marriage Set to Unhinge Tories?

[TheHeretic]

aizvara said:

Er, seems that way!?

Ignore me. I was looking at the UKIP thread.

[aizvara]

TheHeretic said:

Ignore me. I was looking at the UKIP thread.

I did precisely the same thing!

[Derek Smith]

blindswelledrat said:

Is anyone over the age of 10 and not in 1980 a fan of double entendre?

Some Irish vicar was going on about gays and said that they would be 'cast into the bottomless pit of hell'. You can't ignore such unintended humour.

[Bill]

Presumably the antis are expecting less of a kicking in the kipper thread.

[longblackcoat]

Am I the only person who might consider voting Conservative precisely because of Cameron's gay marriage stance?

It's not that the issue itself is relevant to me, more that he's clearly trying to get the party to face the future rather than continuing to look in the rear-view mirror. Like female emancipation, this is something which could have been left for much longer - it's never going to be an urgent issue - but Cameron's clearly decided that the old farts are the ones out of touch with Britain.

Morally, he's making the right decision; politically, it all depends on whether he can attract sufficient people like me to cover the loss to UKIP of the morally outraged old Tories. Not sure that's going to happen, but I salute his stance.

[blindswelledrat]

Derek Smith said:

blindswelledrat said:

Is anyone over the age of 10 and not in 1980 a fan of double entendre?

Some Irish vicar was going on about gays and said that they would be 'cast into the bottomless pit of hell'. You can't ignore such unintended humour.

Oh I agree with unintended ones, its the Kenny Everett/Julian Clary people who build a career on deliberate ones that I cannot fathom for the life of me.

[anonymous-user]

longblackcoat said:

Am I the only person who might consider voting Conservative precisely because of Cameron's gay marriage stance?

Quite possibly.

[JonRB]

blindswelledrat said:

its the Kenny Everett/Julian Clary people who build a career on deliberate ones that I cannot fathom for the life of me.

In fairness though, BSR, you have demonstrated many times here that you can't fathom a majority of humour.

[blindswelledrat]

This is what it must feel like to get bullied by Gareth from the office.

[longblackcoat]

garyhun said:

longblackcoat said:

Am I the only person who might consider voting Conservative precisely because of Cameron's gay marriage stance?

Quite possibly.

Thought so. Actually, my wife expressed much the same thoughts last night, so maybe that's two votes he can have.

Doesn't get him very far though!

[anonymous-user]

longblackcoat said:

garyhun said:

longblackcoat said:

Am I the only person who might consider voting Conservative precisely because of Cameron's gay marriage stance?

Quite possibly.

Thought so. Actually, my wife expressed much the same thoughts last night, so maybe that's two votes he can have.

Doesn't get him very far though!

You 2 plus all "The Gays" - it all adds up

[IainT]

longblackcoat said:

Am I the only person who might consider voting Conservative precisely because of Cameron's gay marriage stance?

It's not that the issue itself is relevant to me, more that he's clearly trying to get the party to face the future rather than continuing to look in the rear-view mirror. Like female emancipation, this is something which could have been left for much longer - it's never going to be an urgent issue - but Cameron's clearly decided that the old farts are the ones out of touch with Britain.

Morally, he's making the right decision; politically, it all depends on whether he can attract sufficient people like me to cover the loss to UKIP of the morally outraged old Tories. Not sure that's going to happen, but I salute his stance.

I view it as something excellent this government is achieving despite all else. Along with trying to get legislation for an EU Referendum through.

Equally, this issue is one that guarantees me not voting UKIP.

[Mark Benson]

IainT said:

longblackcoat said:

Am I the only person who might consider voting Conservative precisely because of Cameron's gay marriage stance?

It's not that the issue itself is relevant to me, more that he's clearly trying to get the party to face the future rather than continuing to look in the rear-view mirror. Like female emancipation, this is something which could have been left for much longer - it's never going to be an urgent issue - but Cameron's clearly decided that the old farts are the ones out of touch with Britain.

Morally, he's making the right decision; politically, it all depends on whether he can attract sufficient people like me to cover the loss to UKIP of the morally outraged old Tories. Not sure that's going to happen, but I salute his stance.

I view it as something excellent this government is achieving despite all else. Along with trying to get legislation for an EU Referendum through.

Equally, this issue is one that guarantees me not voting UKIP.

It's one of the UKIP strands I like least, while I am a great believer in the small state, I also believe that where we do have laws, they should be applied equally and that the church should not hold sway over lawmaking in the 21st Century (especially when so few people actively attend church these days). I still think UKIP are an attractive prospect in that they force the major parties to look to the voting public and assess what they really want from politicians, but I don't like their 'bogeyman' tactics on Bulgaria and Romania or their opposition to gay marriage.

But I do think equality under law for everyone is important, and I applaud Cameron for sticking with it in the face of such pressure, though I think it's probably gone a long way to damaging his chances of re-election.

Ultimately I think it's probably the worst time for the legislation to be going through parliament - but, it could be argued, when would be a good time? Probably when the whole issue was first raised and some bright spark thought civil partnerships to be the answer, why not just legalise gay marriage in law and leave the churches to define 'marriage' in their own terms?

[JonRB]

Mark Benson said:

But I do think equality under law for everyone is important, and I applaud Cameron for sticking with it in the face of such pressure, though I think it's probably gone a long way to damaging his chances of re-election.

Absolutely. (on both points)

Mark Benson said:

Ultimately I think it's probably the worst time for the legislation to be going through parliament - but, it could be argued, when would be a good time? Probably when the whole issue was first raised and some bright spark thought civil partnerships to be the answer, why not just legalise gay marriage in law and leave the churches to define 'marriage' in their own terms?

Indeed. 'Civil Partnerships' were a stupid idea and, as you say, it would have been better to grasp the nettle and introduce marriage equality at that point. Or, at the very least, 'civil marriages' for all rather than 'civil partnerships for some'.

[chrisw666]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about with this issue.

If we have an equal and fair country why should we dictate that you can only be legally married to someone of the opposite sex?

It doesn't change the value of heterosexual marriage to allow single sex marriage and it doesn't make the country any better or worse. Nobody is going to be forced to marry a gay person if this legislation is passed.

This is the kind of thing the government should just make happen then they can focus on giving us all a say on things that matter like Europe.

[JonRB]

chrisw666 said:

I don't understand what all the fuss is about with this issue.

If we have an equal and fair country why should we dictate that you can only be legally married to someone of the opposite sex?

It doesn't change the value of heterosexual marriage to allow single sex marriage

That's all the "pro" camp have been saying all along on this and numerous threads before it. However, judging by the sometimes extreme disagreement in them you'd think the sky was going to fall on our heads over it and that it was the most abhorrent and unreasonable thing to want.

[Zod]

but none of the antis actually dares come out and say that the truth is that they just don't like gays because they unsettle them.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Zod said:

but none of the antis actually dares come out and say that the truth is that they just don't like gays because they unsettle them.

Well, either that or all supporters of the idea are homosexuals.

Personally I doubt either proposition is correct.

[98elise]

Whats the difference between marriage and a civil ceremony? I honestly don't know what difference is, and what is being denied to Gay people.

Is there some sort of legal distinction? Is it the church thing?

[ATG]

98elise said:

Whats the difference between marriage and a civil ceremony? I honestly don't know what difference is, and what is being denied to Gay people.

Is there some sort of legal distinction? Is it the church thing?

Think you might be confusing a civil wedding ceremony and a civil partnership. Civil wedding and a church wedding both lead to a marriage. A civil partnership is not a marriage.