Gay Marriage …. Again

[naomi24]

With the gay marriage debate taking place tonight in parliament, despite the numerous threads on the subject, I’ve yet to see one valid reason for opposition. Does anyone have one? Please, if you see no problem in it, don’t answer. I just want a valid reason for opposing it – and simply not liking the idea does not qualify as a valid reason.

[baza]

Naomi, it would appear that no one has a valid reason, makes me wonder what all the fuss is about in parliament.

[naomi24]

You never know, Baz. It's late ... and as Scarlet O'Hara would have said, "Tomorrow is another day". I live in hope. ;o)

[FredPuli43]

Opposition would make sense if the provision was to be imposed on all faiths, and all adherents, in all their places of worship, when their faith is against it. It isn't. Statements like " I am against it because it threatens the status of marriage" make no sense at all.

[baza]

the debate does carry on in parliament later today so we live in hopes.

[1ndex]

stop press....MPs vote in favour of bill to allow gay marriage to become law by 361 to 47

That means only bill can marry.....lol

[jake-the-peg]

Like I said yesterday I think it's a bad bill.

I think pension/financial benefits should be applied to civil partnerships to put them on the same footing as marriage

I don't think parliament should be dictating to independant churches - I do think it should dictate to the CofE and make them support it (Unless they want to disestablish [please])


I guess that's not what your asking as I'm not actually opposing the concept of gay marriage itself but this does seem to me to be a very bad way of going about it

[woofgang]

aren't pension and financial arrangements the same in civil partnership as in marriage now? I think that civil partnership should be available to other non gay partnerships, eg friends or parent /child or sibling in order to protect their pension and financial arrangements.

[woofgang]

parliament isn't dictating to churches. As I understand it, no religion will be forced to conduct gay marriage services, only that they can if they want to. I absolutely agree about the disestablishment of the church of England.

[carolegif]

The worry is that a religious institution - church, mosque, synagogue, chapel, will be taken to court if they refuse to marry a couple. Then it will be sent to the Court of Human Rights etc., etc.,

[daisya]

For some people any opposition will never be valid. It will IMO only be valid to the person opposing it afaics.

[woofgang]

not sure why, part two specifically says this
"5 Marriage according to religious rites: no compulsion to solemnize etc
(1)A person may not be compelled to—
(a)undertake an opt-in activity, or
(b)refrain from undertaking an opt-out activity.
(2)A person may not be compelled—
(a)10 to conduct a relevant marriage,
(b)to be present at, carry out, or otherwise participate in, a relevant
marriage, or
(c)to consent to a relevant marriage being conducted,where the reason for the person not doing that thing is that the relevant
15marriage concerns a same sex couple.
(3)In this section—
“opt-in activity” means an activity of the kind specified in an entry in the
first column of the following table which falls to be undertaken for the
purposes of any enactment specified in the corresponding entry in the
20second column;
“opt-out activity” means an activity which reverses, or otherwise
modifies, the effect of an opt-in activity."

the link
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0003/cbill_2013-20140003_en_2.htm#pt1-pb2-l1g2

and the Court of Human Rights seems to have agreed that the bill as it stands is acceptable under human rights law including the opt out clause
"EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Secretary Maria Miller has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the
Human Rights Act 1998:

In my view the provisions of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill are compatible
with the Convention rights."

[jake-the-peg]

Not exactly sure woofgang - someone was explaining a difference on here yesterday and there was something about this attempted ammendment to the bill allowing heterosexual civil partnerships potentially costing a fortune in pensions.

In any case the difference is a source of great confusion.

My thoughts are that we should differentiate between a civil partnership and a marriage.

The first should be secular and the second religious - both should enjoy the same legal status

Homosexual marriage should be a matter for the concience of individual churches apart from the CofE which, being part of the British state, should be compelled to offer it.

That's just the way I'd handle it personally

[woofgang]

I agree jake, with the addition that cicil partnership should be open to non gay couples who want to legally protect a relationship for other reasons.

With the exception of the C of E being made to comply or disestablish, I think that that is what the Bill seems to say.

[Ann]

//I just want a valid reason for opposing it – and simply not liking the idea does not qualify as a valid reason//
I don't quite understand what you mean Naomi, surely the reason why people oppose things IS because they don't like it. e.g I oppose fox hunting because I simply don't like the cruelty involved.

[ummmm]

No comparison, Ann. Fox hunting IS cruel. Getting married ISN'T.

[naomi24]

Ann, you have a reason to oppose fox hunting - you think it's cruel. What's your reason for opposing gay marriage?

[Ann]

Sorry ummmm I just don't like either. End of discussion on my part.

[woofgang]

Ann there is a difference between "I don't like it" and i don't like it because...."
I think that the problem with this thread is who will judge the valididity of the reason?
Some people will say that they don't like it because marriage was ordained by their version of god to be between a man and a woman only.
Other people will disagree with that belief and therefore say that that argument isn't a valid one.....

[woofgang]

and (while I oppose and despise fox hunting) there are people who say that it isn't cruel.......

[naomi24]

Ann, so no reason.

Anyone else?