The Gay Marriage Bill is up for debate in the Lords today.

Arch anti-gay lord Carey spluttered:



And the eyes in the Tory grassroots swivelled:


As it is polling suggest that gay marriage may marginally alienate voters, but it's marginal. It is an exaggeration to say that "much of our core support" will be alienated, though polling suggests that a substantial minority of Tories, maybe 10%, would vote elsewhere, but that a similar number would vote Tory because of the gay marriage reforms, so I can't find the justification for Robert Woolard's comments. But in any case, shouldn't the government try and do what's right, not just what the party die-hards want?

But again on the polling, ask someone whether they'd be more or less likely to vote Tory if they introduce the gay marriage bill and you get one answer, but ask people what it is that will decide their voting preference at the next election and you get quite a different answer. Asked directly it's true that Tories lose a marginal 2-3% of their vote (they lose around 12%, but gain around 10%) - but asked about issues few actually mention gay marriage, and the majority of those who do will vote for the party that introduces it. It's the problem of false prominence.

So while the agitation of powerful activists such as Lord Carey makes gay marriage look like a terribly divisive issue, the reality is that it's not something that most people are fussed about either way, and of those who are, they support it.

Anywho, there's a wrecking motion in today's debate so the Lords may possibly try and derail the Bill, and that would be pretty poor democracy.

Oh dear, Simon, you're in for it now. It's one thing annoying Newbury Town Council but now you've gone and hacked-off the Creator of heaven and Earth, the Lord God Almighty.

God made it absolutely clear via what He presumably felt was the best possible methods at His disposal - including alleged letters from someone or other to some other people and sundry Hebrew texts* - that He hates gays and that only happy heterosexual people can be allowed to marry and/or fornicate in His name. No less an authority that the former Archbishop of Canterbury has confirmed that this is the case, so who are you to argue?

May the Lord have mercy on you.

Amen.

* Nb. Given Leviticus 20:13 'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them', we should perhaps be grateful that his Eminence only wants to ban gay marriage!

Leviticus is rather left field as regards opinions.....

You sound rather prejudiced on this matter!

To lie in the nude may be terribly rude but to lie in the house is a sin..

To lie in the nude may be terribly rude but to lie in the house is a sin..

To lie in the nude may be terribly rude but to lie in the house is a sin..

Very good, but I liked it best the first time.

Well, at least the old boy said what he was thinking. I found the quote here and most of the other experts quoted are a bit mealy mouthed.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-...t-Gay-Marriage/

Leviticus sets out Law on a huge range of topics. Some clerics say no-one can live and not disobey a Law of Leviticus. Context is all important.

Interesting that selective interpretation of the Qu'ran is a basis for saying someone is 'radical'......

Part of that context is that Levitical law doesn't apply to gentiles, so it really has very little to do with how we construct the civil laws in England.

Really sorry. thick fingers, small key pad and bumpy train..... that's my excuse anyway!

But Islam follows the teachings of the Old Testament....

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to argue against your point about radicalisation in Islam, I know next to nothing about Islam. I was simply arguing that Levitical law shouldn't be used as a basis for English civil law.

Don't you mean selective interpretation of the cran is a basis for committing atrocities?

Selective war warmongering probably plays a part too.

Both of the above are equally correct. I was just flagging that the Old Testament has some fairly bloodthirsty verses, and that Islam follows the Old Testament as well as the Qu'ran. Ergo, maybe there is not such a gulf apart from that created by the (very) few.

I good round-up of the gay lords debate here.

I think this idea is allowing them to marry is outrageous. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed; should we then expect any less?

Where's the popcorn-eating emoticon when you need it.

And they're coming for you next! Brouhahahaha!

I think you'll find that whilst homosexuality is legal, it's not compulsory.

....... yet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icIwKaci3MI

What got me about the gay marriage bill was the bile levelled at those who opposed it – from supposed tolerant people.

As I listened to some of its proponents, I learnt that the allegation “bigot” now appears to be levelled at anyone who dares to express a contrary view.

For me, the journalist Ross Clarke, put it well:

“Gay men no longer live in fear of losing their liberty. They are no longer forced to conduct their relationships in the shadows, pretending to be something they are not. Since civil partnerships came into being in 2004 men and women with long-term partners of the same sex have acquired the legal rights of next of kin.

Hate and bullying of gay people has been pushed to the outer margins of society where it still needs to be tackled but nowhere near as much as it once did. All these are developments which all but a few people welcome.

Yes even those who were sceptical about the value of civil partnerships have largely come round to accepting them as part of everyday life. But we have eliminated one form of prejudice only to replace it with another. There is now another love that dare not speak its name: that for conservatism and traditional values.

How much more I would respect the campaigners for gay marriage if they didn’t feel the need to insert the word “bigot” into the debate at every opportunity...”

I don't agree. People don't need to be called a bigot for people to be recognised as one. Expressing a contrary point of view is fine, it is the rationalé behind the point of view that is in question.


See above and just because the state has remove sexual prejudice, like with race, don't think for a second that sexual prejudice has left society.

Have a read of Pink News, Equal Marriage, The Peter Tatchell Foundation, Coalition for Equal Marriage - and now tell me that your accusation is fair.

And now take a look at the contribution to the equal marriage discussion from, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church's "God Hates Fags" blog, or even the relatively moderate Coalition for Marriage and tell me that bigotry is not alive and well.

Indeed they are free to express their views, but if those views are prejudiced then don't whine about "political correctness", at least not if you don't want to be mocked.

Sadly Andy Capp is correct in this. Homophobia is unfortunately alive an well in society, as I know as an equalities advocate, for I am currently working with a number of people who have been hounded from their jobs as a result of their sexuality, and aware of many more.

An impressive piece of eye-swivelling here - "Gay Marriage No Thanks - Because Children Matter". All rather Helen Lovejoy.

Picking on just one of many pieces of nonsense:

A bit florrid, but yes, I agree that children are more likely to find love, stability, and security in a married family with two parents, but it's nothing more than hateful bigotry to suggest that the institution of marriage has only endured because homosexuals have not been allowed to wed. Marriage equality doesn't demolish anything except institutionalised discrimination.


Yes, it is a legitimate dissenting opinion, and it's ill-founded, so don't have a boo if it's called out for what it is.

I can categorically say having two mummies or two daddies or a mummy and a daddy does not matter at all.
What about all of the single parents - They often raise kids who are alright...
what a load of nonsense.

SK refers to the comment:

"gay rights have trumped children’s rights"

A few years ago, Peter Tatchell and his supporters campaigned for the age of consent for gay sex to be lowered to 16. They were successful and the law was changed.

I now see that The Peter Tatchell Foundation website is now arguing for the age of consent to be lowered to 14.

Where does this end?

As a parent of teenage children, I can understand the concern that something sinister is at work here.

Tatchell argues for decriminalising under 16s (14-16). He doesn't endorse over 16s having sex with 14 and 15 year olds.

Did you actually read what Peter Tatchell said? Here's the page I presume you're referring to. Some excellent points, sensible and well made, though heaven knows what you think that has to do with the present debate. Why not start a new thread if you want to air your views on the age of consent.

Where does it end? In a just and tolerant society.

OK. I assume you have children yourself. At what age would you put the age of consent?

Thanks, but my family is no concern of yours and I don't choose to discuss the age of consent with you.

?

That is a good question. I'd keep them as they are at the moment, unless a compelling reason is posed that would change my mind. I concede that perhaps pubescent children need not be criminalised for indulging in sex with their peers the same way adults would. Regardless of the law, on average, people start to experiment with sex before the age of consent so perhaps removing the fear of prosecution would help children seek advice and help. On the flip side, I would imagine some children would see it as a opportunity to do something they would otherwise not.

The reason the age of consent is 16 is that is the age at which people are permitted to marry

Just to explain.

It was you who asked people to read Peter Tatchell’s website (which goes on at length about the age of consent) and it was you who first mentioned children (post #29).

Therefore to discuss the age of consent is quite on topic to your posts.

The relevant sexual offences legislation is not about criminalising experimenting/curious children – it is about protecting them from predatory adults. I agree with Andy Capp that 16 is the correct age.

I also agree with Tatchell’s efforts to stop the terrible persecution of gay people in (for example) some African countries, but I do not agree with him on further lowering the age of consent in the UK.

You don't agree with the Tatchell Foundation's position on the age of consent - fair enough. Yours is a perfectly reasonable and well-grounded position, and all I am saying is that the Tatchell Foundation's position is also legitimate and reasonable. I'm not saying I agree with it, and I'm not interested in debating its merits, I'm just saying that your attempt to use the Tatchell Foundation's position on the age of consent to justify Newbelly's assertion about the name-calling foundation of the gay-marriage debate is spurious.

Newbelly said "How much more I would respect the campaigners for gay marriage if they didn’t feel the need to insert the word “bigot” into the debate at every opportunity..." and I used the example of the Tatchell Foundation to show that this isn't at all how the gay-marriage lobby have conducted their campaign, but I also used the example of the Christian Gay Marriage No Thanks campaign group which goes with the tag-line "because children matter" to show that elements of the anti-gay lobby are indeed fundamentally bigoted with their Helen Lovejoy histrionics.

I appreciate your comments about the positive contribution the Peter Tatchell Foundation are making to end discrimination.