Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 2 2013, 12:59 PM

MPs vote next week on Gay Marriage - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0126/cbill_2012-20130126_en_1.htm. It's a free vote so MPs will be voting with their conscience and not along party lines.

The act will give same-sex couples some of the same rights to marry as those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, but intolerant religious groups will still be free to discriminate against gay couples who want to marry in their buildings, and the Church of England specifically will not be free to host a gay wedding even if the parish priest wanted to.

Dear Mr. Benyon

I'm married, and have been for the last 26 years. My marriage, and the public celebration of the committment that it signifies, has and will always be the single most significant act of my life. I can't imagine how intolerable it must be for other couples to be denied that same recognition of their love and committment for no better reason than their common gender.

I'm not happy that the discriminatory views of the religious have been protected in the Bill. No one has supernatural authority for their point of view, and this debate has made it clear to me that the disestablishment of the Church of England is well overdue.

Please support the Bill.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 2 2013, 01:06 PM

I am ambivalent, but mystified as to the haste with which this legislation is being pushed through - not just here but in other countries too.
Certainly in the UK I wonder why it has such priority. I am suspicious it is nothing to do with 'rights', much more to do with enabling other political objectives. I have no doubt it will be passed, I have doubt it will be what people anticipate

Posted by: Strafin Feb 2 2013, 03:20 PM

It's ridiculous, it is an affront to a free society, and I believe is purely being pushed through to get the liberals on side with those voting yes.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 2 2013, 03:52 PM

Not sure I understand your comments. You're saying ending discrimination is the affront to our free society?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 2 2013, 04:18 PM

Yes, by forcing private groups and individuals to do things that they don't believe in, you create a bigger divide in society. For example, should I be allowed to use a mosque as a Christian to pray to someone other than Allah? Should I be able to attend female only events such as breast feeding groups? In an ideal, tolerant society, we would encourage groups to accept each other and come of ether on their own terms. To force the issue compounds the problem.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 2 2013, 04:19 PM

I don't believe it is discrimination.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 2 2013, 04:19 PM

I don't believe it is discrimination.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 2 2013, 04:31 PM

Religious groups d aren't obliged to allow anyone to marry in their buildings, but if they provide the service why should they be allowed to discriiminate against same-sex couples? As it is Bill isn't forcing religious organisation to marry same-sex couples, they are free to continue their discrimination if they wish, and the Church of England is not allowed to choose to marry same-sex couples even if it wanted to. What the Bill is doing is allowing same-sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies, and in religious ceremonies if the particular church wants to allow it.

And it is discrimination - it's when you treat one group of people differently because of some characteristic that you don't like or approve of.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 2 2013, 04:36 PM

Neither do I.

There are very few, if any, benefits from formal marriage. I do not think this issue is really a desire by Govt to promote equality.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 2 2013, 04:39 PM

But "marriage" and the term "marriage" is a religious thing. Civil partnerships, which are already recognised in law are the same thing aren't they? Just called something different? So this is, it seems to me wholly unnecessary. Therefore he only reason for it seems to be to get one over on anyone who is against gay marriage, nothing more.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 2 2013, 05:11 PM

No, marriage is a cultural thing, it most certainly isn't owned by religion. I was married in a civil ceremony, and I defy you to tell me that my marriage is worth any less for that! Marriage was only fairly recently co-opted by religion, it has always been a civil estate. "Civil Partnership" is a legal state that we invented to give gay couples the same legal rights as married couples while preserving the discrimination of denying their relationship the style marriage. It was a fudge, and it was wrong. This Bill puts right that injustice, though it does still allow religious groups to discriminate.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 2 2013, 05:50 PM

The lawyers will get rich on all the extra divorces.

Posted by: motormad Feb 2 2013, 09:47 PM

Interesting topic.

I think it boils down to, you should have the same rights as a gay person that you do as a straight one when it comes to marriage or civil ceremony, if you want a marriage that's your choice.
Gay marriage/partnerships also has a much lower "divorce" rate per 1000 as well.

That being said, an interesting point is made RE marriage not having any benefits or meaning as such... What does it, really, does "I do" change the relationship?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 2 2013, 10:07 PM

I think you're missing the point slightly Simon, I am not suggesting that any one relationship is worth any more or less than another. What I am saying is that a civil partnership has the same status in law as a marriage, but it's different. Therefore it has a different name, because the church has the "franchise" (for want of a better word) on marriage. That's it, it's simple and not worth getting all that excited about, however because the gay community is trying to push this so hard, it has become a bigger issue than that.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 2 2013, 10:17 PM

Lets just follow the French example, all marriage is in effect civil, at the town hall. If you want anything else, that's up to you/

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 2 2013, 11:24 PM

Indeed, and a jolly good system it is too!

What is of more concern is that we were promised tax breaks for married couples in the Consrvative manifesto, that has now gone the way of all such promises in favour of an incredible amount of parliamentry time in pushing through the gay marriage bill, all so the goverment can woo the 'pink voter' and show the electorate just how jolly well in touch they are with modern Britain in the hope of seeming to be 'right on'.

Very few conservatives welcolm this diversionary tactic in the middle of one of the worst financial crisis suffered in living memory. Froth and Bubbles as dear Pater use to say.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 3 2013, 12:36 PM

No, that's not right. The church doesn't have the franchise on marriage. Marriages can be conducted on any number of premesis. I was married in a Register Office.

The Bill now allows same-sex couples the same right to marry. Same-sex couples have had the right for some years now to a virtually identical ceremony that created all the same legal rights and obligations, but to appease the intolerance of the church they weren't allowed to call it a "marriage". The Bill puts that right.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 3 2013, 12:40 PM

If a hetro couple want to get married in a religious environment then they can shop around. I would bet that 90% of the couples that are married don't go near a church during their day to day life and that like divorced persons, particularly Roman Catholics, then there are establishments where they cannot marry. As for gay marriages or gay civil partnerships, if that's what they want then that's fine. If the CofE or the Catholic church want out of the loop, then that's fine as well as far as I'm concerned. If it's infringing the rights of the gay couple by refusing them, it's also infringing the rights of the priest who is duty bound but not morally bound to conduct the ceremony.
If there are religious grounds, that are within their interpretation of their Bible, or whatever else they use, then that should be a strong enough reason for the community to stand back. Other religious groups interpret things differently and we uphold their personal difference. For example the Jehova's Witnesses who do not believe that they should accept blood. The only time the law might intervene is if a child is involved.
As you say, the government blowing smoke. I think gay partnerships are fine as it doesn't bother or affect me but I am a bit uncomfortable with gay adoption, but another subject no doubt and for which we may expect some discriminatory legislation.

Posted by: lordtup Feb 3 2013, 01:16 PM

It is like the old adage of which came first the chicken or the egg ?

Did a religious service of marriage supersede the civil ? Research on the matter is a little thin . We know there were ceremonies for those in high places but when did the hoi polloi get involved ? At what junction did the two become intertwined in order for a common outcome ?

The point is , has the church more or less right to dictate who should and who shouldn't marry and by whom ,and does the state have a mandate to interfere anyway ?

Like a lot of things is it more a case of both sides making up the rules as they go along and when it suits to do so.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 3 2013, 01:39 PM

That's quite interesting! I suspect the primitive relationship was simply a matter of nesting and survival. The ecclesiastical authorities came later and put the formality round it. Our tradition is probably enshrined in the original prayer book words where marriage was designed for the procreation of children and not to satisfy man's carnal lusts. During the nineteenth century, family law became much more the province of the state. Arguably, today its the State definition of marriage that counts.

In real terms its simply a personal partnership contract, which is formally recorded and can only be terminated via the State's laws. This latest bill probably double underlines that. In effect, it nsays to the Church, you can keep what ritual you like, we, the people, own and define marriage. So that's really an end to it.

If people are upset about the Church stance on this, then join the church and campaign to get heir rules changed. So its a wholly different issue and I can't see why anyone who is not a member would even be interested. After all, if you are a Church member and want to marry according to their conventions, you still can. Indeed, there are some branches of the Church that wholly embrace the change anyway. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.

So then, all this new law is doing is confirming that the State owns marriage and that it can only exist between just two people. No religion in there at all.

I must say, I'm rather surprised because this bill does not deal with all the issues that presently exist with marriage. For instance, no mention is made of what is often termed common law marriage, and it still keeps the numbers involved at two. This latter point is a serious issue for some, but I suspect its tied up with the tax problem.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 3 2013, 01:57 PM

Is the any such thing as a common law marriage?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 3 2013, 02:37 PM

Good points all OtE.

On this point though: I'm not greatly bothered about what any particular religion preaches as long as they keep it to themselves. I'd like to thing that I support equality and oppose discrimination, but for example if the Church of England doesn't want women bishops I couldn't give a stuff - if the church wants to make its own rules about who is and who isn't qualified to wear the biggest pointy hat then that's entirely their own affair.

I'm also not particularly bothered what the Methodists, Christian Scientists, Plymouth Brethren, Wee Free, Shakers, Quakers, Baptists, Coptics, Third-Day Adventists, Mormons, or any number of other sects and denominations think. If your Local doesn't serve London Pride then either poke up with Guiness Extra Cold, or go and find a pub that suits you better, and likewise with your church, if it doesn't suit your requirements then go and find one with a more accomodating god.

But the Church of England is different, because it's not about marrying in the church, it's about marrying in the building. It's the price the CofE has to pay for being the established church and having been at the centre of the cultural and social community for 1500 years. You might not ever go to church, and you might not have any religious faith, but for many the idea of a "proper" church wedding is deeply rooted, and the CofE owes them that right - at least the right to use the building.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 3 2013, 03:26 PM

That's the whole point really and it wasn't so long ago that you got married in a licensed church or a registry office so it was pretty much sown up. I'm not sure why same sex couples would want to be married in a church anyway unless they are trying to make their union acceptable to their God. A just in case scenario, a bit like when we die, we still feel the need to get the local clergyman along to officiate and say a few prayers. That along nowadays with music from Robbie Williams or Queen.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 3 2013, 03:27 PM

I don't think it does owe you the right to use their building.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 3 2013, 03:53 PM

OK fair enough. Certainly an associated issue and establishment or otherwise in probably a big issue which is likely to come much more into focus as time goes by; the Queen isn't getting any younger! Cutting across all of that, if its simply that any venue licensed for marriage should be open to all, then I'd agree. The French, as mentioned earlier have got over it by making only the civic office 'licensed'. We, on the other hand, are willing to permit any number of venues. So then, so long as the rules about dignity and decorum can hold good, there should be no restriction on Church premises being used. After all, the building is not, by its own teaching, the church. Indeed, most churches are used for secular purposes, classical concerts in particular, so there seems no reason why a secular marriage could not take place. In fact, most are historic monuments rather than effective places of worship anyway, so it would make far more sense for the buildings to be managed by a secular historic premises trust. Certainly, for the CofE, that would solve a financial crisis at a stroke. There is good precedent for that, after all after the Civil War churches were used for other things, St.Pauls became a horse repository amongst other things. No reason why that should not work immediately; arguably the only organisation that could be upset would be the Roman Catholics, who owned them in the first place!

Posted by: Penelope Feb 3 2013, 05:13 PM

If gays want to get married then so what? Why should heterosexuals be the only miserable ones.

Posted by: GMR Feb 3 2013, 05:41 PM

Does it matter who marries who? We are all free people who have a free choice. If somebody want to marry somebody of the same sex then that should be fine, it has nothing to do with anybody else. The problem is organisations (like religious ones) who try to manipulate and control others to their way of thinking. We need to break away from such control and be individual thinking people.

Posted by: lordtup Feb 3 2013, 06:12 PM

Penelope , you don't by any chance attend the same bridge club as lady Tup ?

Posted by: Penelope Feb 3 2013, 06:16 PM

Non, je suis desole.

Posted by: lordtup Feb 3 2013, 07:06 PM

Maybe you should .

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 3 2013, 07:58 PM

You're right of course, the law as it stands, and the Bill as drafted, do not give everyone the right to a church wedding, churches are indeed allowed to discriminate on the grounds of gender, and the CofE is not allowed to offer same-sex marriages even if the priest wanted to.

Incidentally, all same-sex couples have a legal right to be married in their CofE parish church, so while the CofE is prevented by law from marrying committed same-sex christians, it is obliged to marry opposite sex practising satanists.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 3 2013, 08:41 PM

It's not discrimination though, I assume you're not a member of the church, you don't pay into it directly or indirectly, and you don't follow it's rules. They don't want you there either, so why do you want to push it so much?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 3 2013, 09:13 PM

I believe that people should be treated equally irrespective of (amoungst other things) their sexual orientation, meaning that they should have equal opportunity and equal access to goods and services. I'm not a member of the Church of England, but I am a citizen, and that qualifies me for an opinion on church matters that affect the world at large.

Now let me ask you: What mandate does the church have to comment on marriage in a civil ceremony? Granted churches have an interest in who marries in their own buildings, but what is their mandate for commenting on marriage in a Register Office, where any form of religious ceremony is prohibited by law?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 3 2013, 09:15 PM

*D'oh!*

Posted by: Penelope Feb 3 2013, 09:20 PM

Peut-etre

Posted by: On the edge Feb 3 2013, 09:37 PM

Do the CofE actually own the building? They have stewardship, which is a subtly different thing.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 3 2013, 09:48 PM

Incidentally, as you mention it:

The Church of England generate £750,000,000 in revenue each year from their paying customers, but pay no corporation tax whatsoever. That really rather knocks the tax-avoidance of Starbucks into a cocked hat doesn't it?

And they also claim back £60,000,000 annual from HMRC on Gift-Aided donations.

And they also claim back another £6,000,000 annually on VAT under the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme.

And of the £4,400,000,000 assets managed by the Church Commissioners, it's a resonable guess that some of that has been appropriated by the state on behalf of the church over its 1500 years of history, not least the land it acquired in the enclosures - no wonder then that the Church did little to speak out against the dispossession of the labouring poor.

So we all pay into the Church of England indirectly.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 3 2013, 09:52 PM

So, in a nut shell, wholly agree that these ancient monuments should be used by all, it that's where they want to marry, but not the local chapel, unless they agree, because their premises would be owned and operated by them without subsidy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 3 2013, 09:55 PM

According to http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/property.aspx CofE churches are generally owned by the rector or vicar, and I'd assume they were owned in trust.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 3 2013, 10:20 PM

Just on that: I do love the buildings. I'll invariably visit the CofE church in any town or village I visit, usually just for a quiet walk around the church yard, but sometimes for a walk around inside too. For me they do have a magical timeless quality and some of them are indeed very old. Just off the top of my head I've visited the Cathedrals of St. Magnus on Orkney, Winchester, Salisbury, York, Beverley Minster, and parish churches at Southwold, Avebury, Orford, Aldeburgh (and spent some time at the graves of the lifeboat men), Goring, Corfe Castle, Bedwyn, Little Bedwyn, Marlborough, Amesbury (and looked for the grave of a queen), Hungerford, Kintbury, Wantage - to be honest it's unusual for me not to visit the church when we go for a day out. The buildings are significant and have a significant place in our culture.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 3 2013, 10:39 PM

Well I won't tick the gift aid box on any donations I make in the future then.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 3 2013, 10:40 PM

In the strictest terms, no. However, common law is built up over many years and gradually incorporates custom and practice. Its what gave English law its strength. Not so much these days, where legions of lawyers only want to consider black or white rules. Perhaps another reason why we find Europe so very hard.

So, a common law wife came into parlance simply to describe situations where a man and woman had taken to each other as husband and wife. Important for many reasons in probate and other family law.

Ironically, came into much relevance in the late 1960s where people had started to live together saying marriage was nothing more than a bit of paper. In fact back then. a good few thought that marriage was wholly outdated and would eventually disappear!

Posted by: On the edge Feb 3 2013, 10:45 PM

The parsons freehold! Think your assumption has to be right, otherwise the Rector could quietly unload the premises / land which in town centres at least must be worth a few bob.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2013, 12:19 PM

No, really, you've given the church's opposition to gay marriage a good airing, now I'd like to know: What mandate does the church have to comment on marriage in a civil ceremony? Granted churches have an interest in who marries in their own buildings, but what is their mandate for commenting on marriage in a Register Office, where any form of religious ceremony is prohibited by law?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 4 2013, 06:42 PM

As much right as anybody else I guess, you seem to keep shifting from one thing to another though. I am not opposed to gay marriage, I am opposed to the gay community insisting that they should have the same rights and everyone else and more just because they are gay. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and is religious. A civil partnership is exactly the same in law, but has a civil title, perhaps you can tell me what's wrong with that?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2013, 07:18 PM

This is my main problem: marriage is not religious. It is a legal state, and like many people I was married in a civil ceremony without any religious ceremony. Churches can also be licensed to perform marriages and swing the bells and smells, and for them that ceremony may well constitute one of ther rites of their church, but the marriage they are performing still creates the self-same legal state of marriage as does the civil ceremony.

Now why do you object to same-sex couples getting married in a register office?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 4 2013, 07:36 PM

Gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 4 2013, 07:38 PM

The venue is unimportant. I object to same sex marriage anywhere. I think marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman. I also think it should be for life and only done once. I'm old fashioned that way. Civil partnerships are a good compromise in my opinion, but I am mildly religious so I do think the church is important. However whilst I hold here views, I treat them as being about as important as my views on Marmite, in the grand scheme of things it's not that important. But rather than everything be on me, why don't you tell us why the current set up isn't good enough?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2013, 07:49 PM

Because the current situation is unjust. A same-sex couple can get the same legal status as a married couple as long as they are not allowed to call their union a "marriage"? For all practical purposes they are married, but you want to deny them the social status and only allow them the second-class civil-partnershipage? That's unjust.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 4 2013, 07:51 PM

I think the jist of Simon's argument is that because the church is integrated in to our legal frame work, they may have undue influence on laws which might contradict current established rights. Gays, for example, are not meant to be discriminated against, but the church is being forbidden to marry gays, thus avoiding any potential accusations of discrimination.

Posted by: JaneGibbs Feb 4 2013, 07:52 PM

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Why can't we all be treated normal and equally? In other words share everything equally and fairly. What is important is that people are in a loving marriage and are happy. Most heterosexuals haven't managed to show us what marriage should be all about. We might just learn something from gay marriages.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 4 2013, 08:00 PM

I for one can't see any secular why anyone not creating children would want the legal encumbrance of marriage, It brings no advantage other than what can easily be created by a will, or by contract. Of course, people will hold religious views and if appropriate would want to satisfy the sacraments of their faith, nothing wrong with that. Arguably all marriage does is record formal lineage for future generations. I must admit, I feel the latest hiatus is simply politics, by both Conservatives and Gay lobby. It would seem to me that the most sensible option would be to wholly abolish marriage as a state function and let people simply choose how they live together and rear children. Subsequent separations would be far less painful and potentially more easily resolved. That would leave marriage in its traditional state as a religious sacrament which could be chosen by whoever subscribed to that religion. If you aren't religious and wanted to make a declaration then a simple contract could be arranged and details published in a paper of record.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2013, 08:15 PM

I've been arguing two different points really.

First point is that same-sex couples should have the same rights as anyone else to marry in a civil ceremony. This is what the Bill will introduce if it passes.

Strafin objects to that because his position is that marriage is a religious rite, even when the marriage is performed in a civil ceremony, and despite their being no a consensus amoungst christian denominations that gay marriage is wrong.

My further point is that the Bill is wrong for allowing the Church of England to continue its discrimination against gay marriage. The CofE is no longer the centre of communities, but the idea of a "propper church wedding" is still very much part of our cultural identity, and while all straight couples have a legal right to marry in their parish CofE building it is wrong to deny gay couples that same right. The church is not the building, the church is the community of believers, and there is no good reason why everyone shouldn't have equal access to the building within the obvious limits of decorum and decency even if the parish priest should choose as a matter of personal faith not to conduct the ceremony - I still that that would be a cop-out for the established church, but it would have been a better arrangement than the statutory discrimination against gay couples that the Bill has created, and it's this tension between religion (or prejudice hiding behind religion) and the position of the CofE as the established church that raises the issue of the disestabishment of the church.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 4 2013, 08:15 PM

That is an interesting argument.

I would imagine some might see church marriage as a sort of filtering process. That is, if you are prepared to pay all that money and go through all that hassle, you must be serious (at the time). I suspect many people also look forward to their 'special day'.

Posted by: newres Feb 4 2013, 08:16 PM

I'm afraid that I am old fashioned too. Marriage to me is a state for a man and a woman. I don't have a huge objection to same sex marriage although no church should be forced to perform ceremonies.

To be honest I object more to the "right on" campaigning of some people.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 4 2013, 08:18 PM

Which is what I think I said!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2013, 08:21 PM

I don't have children, and have never wanted to have children. I wholly reject the notion that marriage is centrally about procreation. For me it is a public declaration and celebration of my love and committment to my wife, and that's a state that I think is recognised and understood across all peoples of the world.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 4 2013, 08:26 PM

I think if we are to have laws that state that no person shall be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality, then perhaps that has to be enforced some times. The church don't come out of this with any kudos and are are just making it even harder to take them seriously. It is a pity that they don't apply the same amount of effort to route out the more sinister goings behind their doors, as they do with equality issues.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 4 2013, 08:30 PM

All that being said, I see it as a big load of old codswollop. A waste of flipping time and money. Just call civil partnerships marriage and have done with it. The happy clappies can just carry on with their apparent anachronistic bigotry and perhaps some wealthy gay can sue them.

With the way the world is going and the population explosion that is occurring, we should perhaps encourage homosexuality!

Posted by: Strafin Feb 4 2013, 09:23 PM

They'll be letting girls into the scout movement next.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 4 2013, 09:52 PM

That's fine, but why do the state need to be involved? There is no reason why that can't be done contractually and 'weddings' simply recorded as a list of personal contracts. You can then have whatever ceremony you want.

Posted by: motormad Feb 5 2013, 01:28 AM

Because people are old fashioned.
You know, woman does the cooking, washing and cleaning.
Man earns the money.

Because we all know that's how reality works, and nothing to do with most gay "partnerships/marriages" being more successful than those of hetereosexuals.

Some people are just too stuck in the olden times (at least they don't seem biggoted).

Posted by: newres Feb 5 2013, 05:07 PM

Is there any evidence that that is true?

I heard this joke the other day. I can't say I am sorry if anyone is offended.



When Elton John's baby was born, Elton and David were ushered into a ward where a dozen babies were lying in their cots, eleven of them crying and screaming.

In the corner, one baby was lying serenely. A nurse came over to both of them and indicated that the happy child was theirs.

"Isn't it wonderful?" Elton asked David. "All these crying babies...and yet our baby is so content. This just proves the superiority of gay love!

"The nurse said, "Oh sure, he's happy now, but just watch what happens when I pull the dummy out of his ar$e...."

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Feb 5 2013, 05:34 PM

Seems to me our M.P's are going about this all wrong. If they are that concerned about gays, the easiest way to stop them having sex is actually to allow them to get married.

Posted by: desres123 Feb 5 2013, 06:13 PM

seems to me that the mps have to much time on their hands to find a day debate this when there is far more important things to do like the economy.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 5 2013, 07:46 PM

Oh, you've met the wife then.

Posted by: Squelchy Feb 7 2013, 01:20 PM

You're obviously not a Paleobiologist. They get driven to exasperation answering that one. To them, it's an evolution thing which is self evident.
It's creationists who have a problem with the answer.

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 05:26 PM

Gay marriage, more women and black people in important positions is important for a mature society. We have a habit of clinging to past foibles and superstitious mumbo jumbo. When will society learn that we are all equal and only can go forward equal.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 25 2013, 05:49 PM

But we're not all equal, and to assert as much is to miss the central point that actually we're all rather different. It doesn't much matter to me whether the people doing "important" jobs are black or female, or for that matter sagittarian, left-handed, bearded, bespectacled, Polish, born-again hasidic, or albino. What I do believe to be important is equality of opportunity - because it's the inequality of opportunity that is the corrosive injustice.

Posted by: Spider Feb 25 2013, 06:29 PM

We are all equal or should be equal, but that doesn't mean we are not different. Of course we are. That is what makes us as people great. We've got a long way to go before we are a cultured, fair and equal society. But Rome wasn't built in a day. We will get their though.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 25 2013, 07:26 PM

I fundamentally disagree. I'm not talking about cultural differences where you can argue that all cultures are equally valid, I'm saying that, in the world of work that you referenced, we are not all equally competent or qualified and that it would be an injustice to positively discriminate in favour of a less capable candidate. If black people and women (or any other clade you care) are under-represented in the jobs that you mentioned then that might well be evidence of inequitable discrimination, but how does it right that injustice to replace one discrimination with another?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 25 2013, 07:40 PM

It's also worth saying that Rome was a remarkably egalitarian society. There were seriously big class divides, but if a slave was freed then they became full Roman citizens, and that was unusual. And despite the empire that Rome conquered, they were also remarkably tolerant of indigenous culture, much more so that the British were with their empire. With religion for example, before Christianity became the state religion Rome tended to adopt and include the indigenous religions it found, and British society at the time of the Roman conquest was at least in part matriarchal - remember Boudicca? There's a good argument to be made that society has become progressively less tolerant since the decline of the Roman empire - and our brief flirtation with multiculturalism might well end with the decline of the Treaty of Rome and a new UKIP dark-ages.

Posted by: motormad Feb 25 2013, 07:48 PM

Well, I agree aside from the "equal" part. There is a habit of clinging to the past unfortunately this is mostly in the form of racism or religion. We are not all equal and you should stop kidding yourself if you think we are; but the point is that opportunity should be there for all for those who both WANT to achieve it and have the DRIVE to get to their goals.

I hear a lot of things like "oh how come that black man didn't get the job" - oh it's racism I know!!

No, maybe it's just that the black person wasn't the best candidate (just saying, for example).



That is exactly right and I agree with a lot of the other stuff you've said above.

We are not the same, some are smarter, some are poorer, some are richer, more or less educated, and so it goes on. A mix between inherited "ability" and things which you LEARN. Everyone can learn, some faster or better than others; this is just life.

You can't expect to heal the remote towns of Africa for example because unfortunately that's just "how" life is. There HAS to be a scale, first world, third world (where is the second has anyone noticed?) and economically speaking the world would just turn to mass-war in all likely hood if everywhere became as "developed" as us Westerners..

Everything in the world is about evolving, changing over billions and billions of years. And with too much interference on our behalf helping those who, a lot of the time, don't want to help themselves, will ultimately cause the downfall of the human race (not just foreign countries but that can apply to our own uneducated, unemployed population here at time)


*insert dramatic trumpet music*