Donate SIGN UP

The Marriage Equality Bill

Avatar Image
AB Editor | 09:20 Mon 20th May 2013 | News
113 Answers
 

This poll is closed.

  • No. - 140 votes
  • 69%
  • Yes. - 63 votes
  • 31%

See final stats

Stats until: 06:56 Wed 17th Apr 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 113rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, I don’t think they are. They might not give a hoot about whether or not people are gay, but simply feel that what they see as the ‘sanctity’ of marriage should remain between people of opposite genders.
My analogy regarding mixed race marriage was meant to frame the argument in ways that we can all understand (taking the 'sex' element out).

Because those opposed to same sex civil weddings have failed to come up with robust reasons supporting their case, those in favour can (but this isn't wise) resort to calling them bigots.

The 'gene pool' argument is as weak as the 'fathers marrying their sons' argument put forward by Jeremy Irons (and supported by some rspondents when reported in the papers recently).
naomi24

I think that those who wish to preserve the sanctity of the institution might find their efforts best served in campaigning for divorce laws to be strengthened to make it harder for people to jump from one marriage to another.
Also, it could be argued that 'sanctity' carries overtones of 'purity', and that purity could be ruined by allowing gay couples to marry.

I'm not sure if you realise, but that's actually quite a hurtful thing to say.
//.....failed to come up with robust reasons supporting their case...//

....even the "biblical definition" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, since what's claimed isn't what the bible says.

The one argument that might actually hold water won't be tested until after the legislation is enacted - and that's whether the legal exclusion of the established church will be able to resist the onslaught of european equality laws.
'No' has the majority vote.
Soon if someone says that they recently got married they will probably say 'Oh are you gay then?'
I voted 'No', because I don't believe that a great many of the naysayers have actually given the matter much proper thought......rather than are actively bigoted against the issue.

SP, it wasn't intended to be hurtful, I assure you. Personally, I see no reason whatsoever why gay couples shouldn't marry, but the question asks 'Are those opposing the marriage equality bill bigots' - and that's what I answered by simply giving the reason that some people feel justification in opposing it.

Why should the democratic rights enjoyed by most not be extended to all?

I can see no good reason, for that not to happen. I have never seen a decent argument for it not to happen.

Those that say its an offense to the bible and god etc, are quite happy to turn a blind eye to other rules, that are god's word in the bible. How about if your son disobeys you must kill him? Ridiculous? Yes it is.

There appears to be an undercurrent, that should one allow gay marriage it will bring an epidemic of gayness or something.

Just give everyone their democratic rights and leave it at that.
naomi24

Arrgghhh!

I apologise. I completely misread your post. I can now see that you're responding to the question posted by the AB Editor.

I should've known you wouldn't have that point of view, because I'm familiar with your points of view from other threads.

Once again, sorry for saddling up my high horse. I've now dismounted, and it's back in the paddock.
Dave, //I have never seen a decent argument for it not to happen. //

Neither have I. In fact I've just asked someone on another thread who opposes it to tell me why.
SP, //I should've known you wouldn't have that point of view//

Indeed you should! Smacked knees!! :o)
There is more to this same sex marriage than I first thought.

/// Earlier this week it was claimed that parents could be legally referred to as 'Progenitor A' and 'Progenitor B' under the same sex marriage plans. ///

/// Leading lawyer and Labour peer Lord Brennan QC, an opponent of same sex marriage, said, if the institution of marriage is redefined, the erosion of traditional words such as 'mother' and 'father' from British law could have 'Orwellian' consequences. ///

/// He also claimed the removal of such words from the statute books could result in legislative chaos. ///

/// More than 200,000 campaigners have signed a petition on the No 10 website in support of keeping marriage between husbands and wives, making it the biggest active campaign in Britain. ///

/// The petition was launched by the Coalition for Marriage (C4M), with 7,500 people signing it every day. ///

Yes no wonder so many are against the bill, it is not simply a matter of giving gays the right to be married, but a slow high jacking and erosion of everything attached to a heterosexual way of life.


Absolute nonsense, AOG.

Far too many 'coulds' to be a proper piece of reporting.
In Spain, for example, a most Catholic of countries, their forms have been revised to show 'Parent A' and 'Parent B', and as far as I am aware the sky hasn't fallen in!

There is NO requirement for Mothers and Fathers to give up such titles.....and once more you are bringing children into the Gay Marriage issue.
sp1814

/// Also, it could be argued that 'sanctity' carries overtones of 'purity', and that purity could be ruined by allowing gay couples to marry. ///

/// I'm not sure if you realise, but that's actually quite a hurtful thing to say. ///

Then why have you 'invented' something that you yourself find 'quite hurtful'?
AOG

You've lost me.

You know what ? The more I think about this bill the more I think actually I oppose it.

I think it is encumbant on the state not to descriminate against homosexual couples and so actually the bill should provide for gay weddings in registry offices and in the Church of England which is the established church.

and *not* enforce it on the other churches.

In essence this bill does just the reverse - it legislated descrimination into the CofE.

I think it's a bad bill and should be rethought
Yes
AOG

Perhaps we should look to Canada where same sex marriages have been legalised for the past seven years?

I seriously do not fear for the existence of the traditional family, except to the extent that the traditional family has been in retreat for decades.

When I was a child, divorce was a big deal. Now, there are hundreds of thousands of second and third marriages, step-children, half brothers and sisters and those who see marriage as an optional extra to having children.

I'm not judging people on they live their lives, but to focus on marriage equality as being the greatest threat to the traditional family is fairly specious. It's like worrying about a small bruise on your forehead, when you left arm has been torn off by a combine harvester.

21 to 40 of 113rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

The Marriage Equality Bill

Answer Question >>