Gay marriage in UK set for vote

[Sheilbh]

Nope, they were voting in accordance with their constiuency party's wishes for fear of deselection. There's a big difference.

Maybe, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Lots of them said how many letters (which is a bit Enoch-y) they'd received opposed to it and I can imagine that most letters to MPs were from people opposed to it. As I say it's perceived wishes of the constituents.

I think the polls, even of Tories, are pretty strongly in favour of gay marriage.

[Sheilbh]

Just seen that David Winnick voted for legalising homosexuality and then 46 years later got to vote for gay marriage too

[Martinus]

i dunno. i mean, yes, religious scripture as it stands in most circles is against it. however, i think to most people that's more of an excuse. a lot of people i interact with seem revolted by it because it's different. it is so completely against what they view as the norm. whenever i relate the story of how i befriended a gay guy, who would hit on me in a completely ridiculous and extremely unsubtle manner.. they say, "why did you hang out with him!" and other comments. and these people aren't deeply religious. i think it stems from the fact homosexuals are different from the norm, and everything followed after that

(edit) after re-reading the post, i realize hanging out with someone who's hitting on me probably isn't the best example. other examples i've seen are when i comment that i saw some guy making out with another dude - everyone pretty much exclaims, "gross," "sick," and other remarks that show their disgust. these aren't extremist christians by any means; some are even obvious liberals... i just think religion is too obvious an answer

I think you are talking about two different things that often get conflated.

One is the moral/ideological opposition to homosexuality - i.e. the point of view that claims homosexuality is immoral, it is a threat to the society and families etc. This one imo is now almost always associated with religious positions (since it is no longer supported by proper science) and this is the one that is most vocal about opposing things like gay marriage.

The other is simply the verbalised feeling of discomfort/disgust/revulsion at two guys fucking or making out. I don't think this one is wrong per se, as emotions are never wrong, and I do think this is a "natural" response that sometimes becomes overcome through exposure but it is not always the case. There is a plenty of people who belong to this group, I reckon, and do not oppose gay marriage especially when confronted with rational arguments in favor of it.

I think there is a one-direction only correlation between these two group - i.e. people who belong to the first camp almost always belong to the second camp (and/or are closet homos), but people who belong to the second camp do not have to belong to the first camp.

I think there is some disservice done to the GLBT cause by conflating those two groups, or calling the second group homophobes and/or closet homos.

[Martinus]

i don't see how others could possibly vote to reject a person's sexual preference ( ) and dismiss it as not being of marriageable quality. it's silly, really

I think all of this comes from the impression many today's religious people have, i.e. that they are being beaten on every front. Essentially the religious experience of the last two hundred years or so (if not longer) is that of constant retreat from various aspects of life - first science, then politics, law, etc.

This, even in countries where religion is still strong, creates a "besieged fortress" mentality, where religious conservatives are not reacting logically any more, but have this sort of knee-jerk attitude of refusing to budge even an inch on any issue, because they are afraid this will be just another of their many losses and defeats.

Incidentally, it is also interesting to see how the religious discourse seems to deteriorate intellectually over the recent decades - hardly anyone asks big theological questions any more, at least in public - the conservative religious outlook these days is so materialistic and biological, it would make Karl Marx proud - it concentrates on human reproduction and biological gender, and rejects everything else.

There's a lot of truth in this, yes. I would mention though that the religious community is very split when it comes to this stuff. I don't know the breakdown, but it's probably close to 50/50 between the ones described above and the ones who more or less don't want to fight the culture wars. The latter are fairly accepting of the changes.

True, although it's different in countries like Poland which have one dominant religion that is pretty fundamentalist. So when people get more liberal, they do not switch churches but becomes lapsed catholics or atheist.

[Josquius]

So its fair to say the tories are still homophobic (and by extension racist poor people haters).

I think he just called you a poor.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It was a free vote and it ended up 2 to 1 in favour, that sounds fairly reflective of the public to me 

Except, of course, if it had been the public, about half of them would have gone to the pub and not bothered voting 

[LaCroix]

I think you are talking about two different things that often get conflated.

One is the moral/ideological opposition to homosexuality - i.e. the point of view that claims homosexuality is immoral, it is a threat to the society and families etc. This one imo is now almost always associated with religious positions (since it is no longer supported by proper science) and this is the one that is most vocal about opposing things like gay marriage.

The other is simply the verbalised feeling of discomfort/disgust/revulsion at two guys fucking or making out. I don't think this one is wrong per se, as emotions are never wrong, and I do think this is a "natural" response that sometimes becomes overcome through exposure but it is not always the case. There is a plenty of people who belong to this group, I reckon, and do not oppose gay marriage especially when confronted with rational arguments in favor of it.

I think there is a one-direction only correlation between these two group - i.e. people who belong to the first camp almost always belong to the second camp (and/or are closet homos), but people who belong to the second camp do not have to belong to the first camp.

I think there is some disservice done to the GLBT cause by conflating those two groups, or calling the second group homophobes and/or closet homos.

i think opposition to homosexuality resulted from the "it's not what i do, thus it is wrong," mentality. humans are very narcissistic. why homosexuality is considered a sin theologically is because of this - after all, we did invent (or, to appease those with religious beliefs, we altered) religious doctrine to fit our own narcissistic attitudes. we want to help the poor, because pitying the unfortunate who are seen as helpless is instinctual for our survival. it's behavior other species have exhibited toward their own. so, because homosexuality is so completely different, we came up for reasons why it is wrong. that initial attitude has influenced the populace, even if a person not indoctrinated would otherwise not find anything wrong with gays. so, i think the two are connected

[Syt]

[LaCroix]

your sisters are very odd

[MadImmortalMan]

Honestly I don't understand why gays want in on this marriage thing.

Hey Marty---You want the right to have half your property taken from you along with 40% of all your future earnings?

[garbon]

Honestly I don't understand why gays want in on this marriage thing.

Hey Marty---You want the right to have half your property taken from you along with 40% of all your future earnings?

I'm open to more routes to get me to the UK.

[garbon]

Other than that, I primarily care in general for all the people who lived during times when they couldn't come out and/or lived with shame for a good portion of their lives. So happy for them.

[Valmy]

This arguement is a very weird combination of conservative handwringing that we are all moral degenerate and the world is going to hell in a handbasket and claiming the institution they want for same-sex people is already ruined so nothing to fear from it being ruined further.  I find both its premises and conclusions ridiculous and reject them both and really have nothing at all to do with why same-sex marriage is a good idea.  What does this have to do with 'supporting equal rights'?  Further do all the celebrities that this poster calls out even oppose same-sex marriage?  So why trash them?

[garbon]

Valmy, it is pretty clear that such is a rebuttal of the argument that gay marriage will ruin traditional marriage and thus shouldn't be allowed. Point in fact, marriage is already held in such contempt that if such groups are really concerned about marriage they should target their efforts at the wider populace of heterosexuals not the small amount of gay couples that want to get married.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, that poster's not about preaching to the choir.