Yay! The US isn't the only behind-the-times country! :w00t:
And I love that adultry isn't a valid reason for divorce for gay couples unless the adultry is committed with someone of the opposite sex, though. :lol:
QuoteMPs are set to get their first chance to vote on plans to allow same-sex marriages in England and Wales.
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will be debated in Parliament on Tuesday 5 February, the leader of the Commons Andrew Lansley has announced.
The bill will allow same-sex marriage and let religious organisations which want to, to offer them, the culture department says.
The plans have divided the Conservative Party - its MPs will get a free vote.
Labour and the Lib Dems back the proposals to legalise same-sex marriage, but Labour said the exemption for the established Church was "disappointing".
The Church of England and Roman Catholics, among other denominations, have voiced opposition to the plans and are expected to oppose the bill, even with its caveats.
But some religious groups, including Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism, are in favour.
Culture Secretary Maria Miller told the Commons in December that no religious organisation "will ever be forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples".
She said the legislation - which will published on Friday ahead of the bill's second reading - would include a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom.
The bill is set to specifically exclude the Church of England and Church in Wales to avoid a clash between Canon Law - which defines marriage as that between a man and a woman - and UK civil law.
But a spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said that if the Church of England did want to opt-in to offering same-sex marriages it could, saying a process for doing so was to be set out in the bill.
A public consultation on plans for same-sex marriage received 228,000 submissions.
In its response to the consultation the government says it has no plans to change the definition of adultery or non-consummation of a marriage - which means neither could be cited as grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage, unless the adultery was with someone of the opposite sex.
They also dismiss the fear that the terms "husband" and "wife" could be removed as a result of same sex marriages.
They also say that teachers "particularly in faith schools will be able to continue to describe their belief that marriage is between a man and woman whilst acknowledging and acting within the new legislative position which enables same sex-couples to get married".
The Scottish Government has published proposed legislation of its own to introduce gay marriage.
Under the plans, religious and faith groups would need to "opt in" to perform same-sex marriages.
Do both of your sentences have to do with the bolded part? US isn't even close to a vote so seems like UK is clearly more ahead on the gay marriage/civil unions front.
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2013, 12:16:30 PM
Do both of your sentences have to do with the bolded part?
No.
QuoteUS isn't even close to a vote so seems like UK is clearly more ahead on the gay marriage/civil unions front.
As a nation, we're not, but individual states are there. Given that the UK is smaller than most of our states, I think it's a fair comparison. ;)
But like I said - UK already has unions which puts it ahead of most of our states. Now they are moving for gay marriage which Sheilbh says will pass. Looks like they are leaving most of the US behind in the dust.
Quote from: merithyn on January 25, 2013, 12:18:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2013, 12:16:30 PM
Do both of your sentences have to do with the bolded part?
No.
QuoteUS isn't even close to a vote so seems like UK is clearly more ahead on the gay marriage/civil unions front.
As a nation, we're not, but individual states are there. Given that the UK is smaller than most of our states, I think it's a fair comparison. ;)
We already have civil unions.
Which state are we smaller than (assuming you are referring to population)?
Quote from: Gups on January 25, 2013, 12:33:42 PM
Which state are we smaller than (assuming you are referring to population)?
Clearly she can't be thinking that.
Quote from: Gups on January 25, 2013, 12:33:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on January 25, 2013, 12:18:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2013, 12:16:30 PM
Do both of your sentences have to do with the bolded part?
No.
QuoteUS isn't even close to a vote so seems like UK is clearly more ahead on the gay marriage/civil unions front.
As a nation, we're not, but individual states are there. Given that the UK is smaller than most of our states, I think it's a fair comparison. ;)
We already have civil unions.
Which state are we smaller than (assuming you are referring to population)?
:yes:
Even without ConneryLand, N.I. and Wales there has to be only a couple of states larger.
It is such a non issue now in this country that it seems odd that others are still struggling with the issue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2013, 12:46:50 PM
It is such a non issue now in this country that it seems odd that others are still struggling with the issue.
I don't England and Wales are struggling with it, it's only a small minority who still have a issue with it, mainly Daily Mail readers/UKIP folk and some immigrant communities.
Quote from: Gups on January 25, 2013, 12:33:42 PM
We already have civil unions.
Which state are we smaller than (assuming you are referring to population)?
It was a joke (hence the ;), but I was talking about landmass, not population.
And I was also joking about the UK being as backwards as the US, because clearly, that is not the case.
You guys really do think that I'm an idiot, don't you? *sighs*
Well after I was confused you continued with the "joke" so...
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2013, 01:17:15 PM
Well after I was confused you continued with the "joke" so...
WITH A WINKY FACE!! :contract:
:rolleyes:
Clearly I wasn't the only one to misunderstand your joke.
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
Clearly I wasn't the only one to misunderstand your joke.
Which is why I openly stated that I was joking. Obviously, I didn't count on you guys thinking I was a total moron.
Just give up. You failed Meri. Clearly, you didn't cast the right spell. Consult Mart's magic book.
In Britain gay marriage really isn't the big deal it seems to be in the US. Most people, including gays, seem not to care much one way or the other.
Gay people can already get civil unions which are marriages in all but the name on the document and everyone calls marriages anyway so there's not really much fuss at all about the official naming except from the extremes of both sides (primarily the anti side).
Maybe its because Brits in general don't care about the religious side of marriage wheras Americans do.
I pretty much agree with the general view. Gay marriage is an unimportant issue. It should exist of course, but that some people do think its such a major thing is just hilariously weird.
Gay marriage isn't that big a deal in the US either.
Is this the one where they get to choose between allowing gay marriage or leaving the EU?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 11:57:43 PM
Gay marriage isn't that big a deal in the US either.
That's rather rich, considering DOMA is still law of the land.
Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2013, 03:43:29 AM
That's rather rich, considering DOMA is still law of the land.
Non sequitur. Something doesn't have to be legal to be unimportant.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2013, 03:50:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2013, 03:43:29 AM
That's rather rich, considering DOMA is still law of the land.
Non sequitur. Something doesn't have to be legal to be unimportant.
I am wondering what you mean by unimportant. Is it unimportant because most people dont think gay marriage should be allowed and so the status quo in the US is fine?
Well don't forget the original qualifier "that". I don't believe gay marriage is as important to Americans as it is in tyr's head. It certainly doesn't affect the way most people vote.
I certainly see an awful lot of reporting on it from the US. If its not actually a big deal over there you're certainly presenting a weird picture of yourselves.
Or you're interpreting a weird picture of us. :hmm:
It gets press because the public is still fairly evenly split over the issue(though that's been steadily changing as old people die off and young people get the vote) and because every time a new state legalizes it(or fails to) it's a chance for the media to run the same stories over again. The people watching the stories have much the same reactions as Brits do- either a blase "Cool" or a bit of muttering about how the world is going to hell and then forgetting about it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2013, 11:34:38 PM
It gets press because the public is still fairly evenly split over the issue(though that's been steadily changing as old people die off and young people get the vote) and because every time a new state legalizes it(or fails to) it's a chance for the media to run the same stories over again. The people watching the stories have much the same reactions as Brits do- either a blase "Cool" or a bit of muttering about how the world is going to hell and then forgetting about it.
There certainly seems to be a fair amount of Americans, both pro- and con- gay marriage, who think it's a big deal and go on at great lengths about it. It features fairly heavily in political rhetoric, it's used to motivate specific blocks of voters, there's been legislative and judicial battles about it in all sorts of places, and the supreme court is about to weigh in on the issue.
In view of that, I don't think it's unfair to say that gay marriage is a big deal.
On the other hand it does seem that the majority view is shifting towards the "sure, let gays marriage - it doesn't affect me, so why not" and that even the conservative and religious right are beginning the rhetorical manoeuvres to shift their stance as they recognize they're losing the fight. So in that sense, it's not unfair to say it's not a big deal - the majority sentiment seems to be solidifying into casual acceptance and the political reality is moving in fits and spurts towards reflecting that.
But it's still a major battle in a long running culture clash that's apparently coming to an end, and it still generates rhetorical heat, news headlines, and political funding. So personally, I'd still classify it as a pretty big deal in recent US political discourse.
Big deal compared to what? Exit polling has consistently shown it is a major factor in voting decisions. Where it is unpopular, people will vote it down, but it's nothing at all like the abortion battle which energies massive organization of die hard extremists and mobilizes hundreds of millions of dollars in political spending.
I mean, it's not as unimportant to voters as arcane issues like foreign policy, but I'd say it appears less important than immigration, gun control, and abortion among the "fluff" issues (fluff being my term for things that don't really matter.)
Quote from: Jacob on January 27, 2013, 03:02:22 PM
On the other hand it does seem that the majority view is shifting towards the "sure, let gays marriage - it doesn't affect me, so why not"
See, this is the error in you and Marty's position, that considering the issue relatively unimportant defaults to acceptance. There are plenty of folks who will vote against it given the chance, but don't really think about the issue at all. I don't see any reason to think Americans in general care about the issue more than Brits, Canadians or Poles.
I think the people who don't give any thought to gay marriage are the type that likely do not vote.
Can we refocus this discussion away from absolute values of concern to relative ones? I'm considerably less interested in parsing exactly how much Americans care than with the notion that we care so much more than Brits.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 27, 2013, 04:05:43 PM
Can we refocus this discussion away from absolute values of concern to relative ones? I'm considerably less interested in parsing exactly how much Americans care than with the notion that we care so much more than Brits.
Given how much religion is intertwined with your political process it is hard for me to understand your position.
This coming from a guy in country who's head of state is also the head of a religion.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2013, 05:02:49 PM
This coming from a guy in country who's head of state is also the head of a religion.
Rim shot of all rim shots Raz
If Brits/Canadians/Scandinavians/etc didn't care at all about the issue, they wouldn't have changed their laws. They cared enough to do so and they have clear majorities in favor of gay marriage so it has ceased being an issue for their press to talk about(though apparently whether Americans follow suit is an issue of considerable interest). Our population has a similar level of interest, though many are opposed, so there are efforts to change the laws and they don't always work. Brits aren't talking about it because they already have it and they've accepted it. This vote on whether to call a marriage a marriage isn't that interesting.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2013, 05:02:49 PM
This coming from a guy in country who's head of state is also the head of a religion.
Tony Blair is no longer our head of state. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 27, 2013, 05:05:23 PM
If Brits/Canadians/Scandinavians/etc didn't care at all about the issue, they wouldn't have changed their laws. They cared enough to do so and they have clear majorities in favor of gay marriage so it has ceased being an issue for their press to talk about(though apparently whether Americans follow suit is an issue of considerable interest).
Its just that many of us looking from outside in are continually amazed at how such an advanced society can be so backward in so many ways.
Quote from: mongers on January 27, 2013, 05:10:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2013, 05:02:49 PM
This coming from a guy in country who's head of state is also the head of a religion.
Tony Blair is no longer our head of state. :rolleyes:
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 27, 2013, 05:11:51 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 27, 2013, 05:05:23 PM
If Brits/Canadians/Scandinavians/etc didn't care at all about the issue, they wouldn't have changed their laws. They cared enough to do so and they have clear majorities in favor of gay marriage so it has ceased being an issue for their press to talk about(though apparently whether Americans follow suit is an issue of considerable interest).
Its just that many of us looking from outside in are continually amazed at how such an advanced society can be so backward in so many ways.
I always laugh at those sort of comments coming from people who live under monarchies.
It really required some bizarre reasoning contortions to argue that gay marriage is not important in US politics. If every candidate in the recent US presidential race was asked about it, and if it is mentioned in the US president's inauguration speech, then I'd say it is important.
They also will have said something about corn subsidies in Iowa.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2013, 01:49:42 AM
They also will have said something about corn subsidies in Iowa.
In the inauguration speech? No wonder I never watch them.
Quote from: Martinus on January 28, 2013, 01:47:28 AM
It really required some bizarre reasoning contortions to argue that gay marriage is not important in US politics. If every candidate in the recent US presidential race was asked about it, and if it is mentioned in the US president's inauguration speech, then I'd say it is important.
Nobody said anything about politics. My contention is that it bears the same importance in American society as it does in British. The reason both the press and politicians talk about it more is that it is not settled yet. The issue is settled in all but name in Britain and British people all realize the inevitability of its course.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 28, 2013, 02:16:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 28, 2013, 01:47:28 AM
It really required some bizarre reasoning contortions to argue that gay marriage is not important in US politics. If every candidate in the recent US presidential race was asked about it, and if it is mentioned in the US president's inauguration speech, then I'd say it is important.
Nobody said anything about politics. My contention is that it bears the same importance in American society as it does in British. The reason both the press and politicians talk about it more is that it is not settled yet. The issue is settled in all but name in Britain and British people all realize the inevitability of its course.
Ok but from that perspective, gun control, abortion or war on drugs are also unimportant, and the main reason why they generate heat is that they are divisive.
From that perspective, very few things people vote for are "important". The country being a democratic republic is probably one, but that is not really voted on. And the state of the economy is probably another, but then this is something politicians have really little influence on. (In a country like Poland, Russia not invading us is also important, but you do not have aggressive neighbours with a greater military power than yours). Nothing else is "important".
But if you redefine "important" to mean things like "who wins the superbowl is important" or "Jesus being/not being mentioned in the President's speech is important" then gay marriage is important. It's one of the staked out playing fields where people can determine if their "team" is winning or losing, and feel better or worse about themselves.
Well, yeah, it's not so much that it's unimportant, it's just not a national obsession like Josq was trying to make out. People care about gay marriage in Britain too, they've just mostly come to an agreement on how to handle it.
What I'll note about gay marriage, is I see very little undercurrent, outside of the small gay community, of people who are massively invested in getting it passed.
The story of State-level gay marriage in the United States is basically the story of the hardcore religious right who oppose it losing prominence and a large bloc of people whose opinion is "meh, I don't care, why not?" coming to prominence. I think that's why to an American, the idea that it's super important to us is a little strange. Outside of the serious antis, most people aren't that concerned about the issue (which is also why its long term prospects are what they are.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 28, 2013, 09:00:18 AM
The story of State-level gay marriage in the United States is basically the story of the hardcore religious right who oppose it losing prominence and a large bloc of people whose opinion is "meh, I don't care, why not?" coming to prominence. I think that's why to an American, the idea that it's super important to us is a little strange. Outside of the serious antis, most people aren't that concerned about the issue (which is also why its long term prospects are what they are.)
Yeah but that is true for basically any political issue that does impact any given individual in a direct way. Most people in the US are not political anyway or the extent of their political interest and participation is showing up to vote....so saying most people do not care about any given political issue is obviously and self-evidently true. I do not think that says anything about gay marriage, those who actually are interested in politics seem to be fairly obsessed with it.
QuoteWhat I'll note about gay marriage, is I see very little undercurrent, outside of the small gay community, of people who are massively invested in getting it passed.
I see many people pretty invested in getting those passed and there were plenty of people scrambling to get the Constitutional amendments banning them passed. Certainly more than most other political issues. If there is so little undercurrent than why is such a big hairy deal made about all these amendments and laws every damn election? The Texas amendment drew a pretty big turnout and much passion among the political types. People do not care to the extent it is a political issue and people generally do not care about those. So I think everybody is right here, it is both a national obsession AND nobody cares much...which is true for a whole slew of political footballs such as this.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 27, 2013, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 27, 2013, 05:11:51 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 27, 2013, 05:05:23 PM
If Brits/Canadians/Scandinavians/etc didn't care at all about the issue, they wouldn't have changed their laws. They cared enough to do so and they have clear majorities in favor of gay marriage so it has ceased being an issue for their press to talk about(though apparently whether Americans follow suit is an issue of considerable interest).
Its just that many of us looking from outside in are continually amazed at how such an advanced society can be so backward in so many ways.
I always laugh at those sort of comments coming from people who live under monarchies.
I always laugh at those who thought they could do without one.
When does this happen? Tomorrow?
The 7 hour or so debate's just wrapped up, and about 70 MPs spoke including the occasional lunatic :lol:
MPs are voting now.
What does parliamentary debate look like?
Members readinig prepared speeches, like the US House?
Members interrupting each other and flapping papers, like question time?
Yep.
Ayes - 400
Nays - 175
Even though it was a free vote for the Tories the PM supported it, so it'll be interesting to see how many Tory MPs opposed it. I've been really surprised at the Tory opposition. I hadn't expected it to be quite so strong and deep as it has been.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2013, 02:13:36 PM
Members interrupting each other and flapping papers, like question time?
This, though their speeches are still prepared, but they try and keep it just to notes. If they're just reading a speech then they often get heckled. The Speaker tries to keep the interruptions to a minimum and also regulates the length of time MPs get to talk. MPs can choose to take interventions too - so during their speech another MP can stand up and they'll take their question, answer it and carry on.
QuoteMembers readinig prepared speeches, like the US House?
No. Bagehot described the US Congress as all prologue and no play.
Apparently about 140 Tory MPs voted against, and 130 for. So, even though it's a free vote, Cameron kind of lost his party.
Edit: Labour think about 20 of their MPs voted against.
Same thing happened in Poland last week - the prime minister called for his MPs to vote in favour of a gay civil partnerships bill and enough of them defied him that the bill failed. Still kudos for conservative prime ministers for not being as scumbaggy as their back benchers.
In fairness this did pass and it was a free vote. It's a failure of his leadership though.
One interesting note is what the role of an MP is, especially on these sorts of issues. There were a number of MPs (some of whom are secretly gay) who personally support gay marriage but believed their constituents were opposed, and vice-versa. They viewed themselves as delegates and voted for their constituents' perceived wishes.
And the opposite happened. There were MPs who said they thought they were going against their constituents (on either side) but were representatives, so they voted on principle.
It's the old Burke debate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 02:21:33 PM
Apparently about 140 Tory MPs voted against, and 130 for. So, even though it's a free vote, Cameron kind of lost his party.
Edit: Labour think about 20 of their MPs voted against.
So its fair to say the tories are still homophobic (and by extension racist poor people haters).
Really didn't expect that many tories to vote against. The party was overall against it.... Just have to hope a lot of them were playing politics- since they knew it would pass anyway it gave them a chance to harmlessly show off their conservative credentials.
Quote from: Tyr on February 06, 2013, 08:17:32 PM
So its fair to say the tories are still homophobic (and by extension racist poor people haters).
:lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2013, 07:46:13 PM
In fairness this did pass and it was a free vote. It's a failure of his leadership though.
One interesting note is what the role of an MP is, especially on these sorts of issues. There were a number of MPs (some of whom are secretly gay) who personally support gay marriage but believed their constituents were opposed, and vice-versa. They viewed themselves as delegates and voted for their constituents' perceived wishes.
And the opposite happened. There were MPs who said they thought they were going against their constituents (on either side) but were representatives, so they voted on principle.
It's the old Burke debate.
Is the British (unwritten) constitution silent on this issue?
The Polish constitution states that at least from a formal perspective all MPs are supposed to vote in the interest of the whole nation and are not representatives of their districts.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2013, 08:24:25 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 06, 2013, 08:17:32 PM
So its fair to say the tories are still homophobic (and by extension racist poor people haters).
:lol:
I think he just called you a poor.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2013, 07:46:13 PM
In fairness this did pass and it was a free vote. It's a failure of his leadership though.
One interesting note is what the role of an MP is, especially on these sorts of issues. There were a number of MPs (some of whom are secretly gay) who personally support gay marriage but believed their constituents were opposed, and vice-versa. They viewed themselves as delegates and voted for their constituents' perceived wishes.
Nope, they were voting in accordance with their constiuency party's wishes for fear of deselection. There's a big difference.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 07, 2013, 07:41:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2013, 08:24:25 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 06, 2013, 08:17:32 PM
So its fair to say the tories are still homophobic (and by extension racist poor people haters).
:lol:
I think he just called you a poor.
No sweat off my back. It's Jos. :D
Valms that was a fair comment. ;)
i don't see how others could possibly vote to reject a person's sexual preference ( :P ) and dismiss it as not being of marriageable quality. it's silly, really
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 08:38:00 AM
i don't see how others could possibly vote to reject a person's sexual preference ( :P ) and dismiss it as not being of marriageable quality. it's silly, really
You don't believe in sexual preferences? You don't want the gov't to have to spend extra time with licenses? You don't want the validation given to same-sex relationships that such a move incurs. All of those strike me as non-silly (though wrongheaded) reasons for voting against this.
Of course, if I was grumbly, I'd say that it is a good thinking they were voting to accept or reject a sexual preference. ;)
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 08:38:00 AM
i don't see how others could possibly vote to reject a person's sexual preference ( :P ) and dismiss it as not being of marriageable quality. it's silly, really
It's easy. We don't let Grallon, Martinus or Ide marry 10-year olds, nor do we let the Brain marry a goat, or Tim marry a pillow with an anime character printed on it.
Quote from: Neil on February 07, 2013, 08:43:29 AMMartinus
what, exactly, do you have against tarantino?
what have you against cdm? everyone needs a true love
Quote from: Neil on February 07, 2013, 08:43:29 AM
It's easy. We don't let Grallon, Martinus or Ide marry 10-year olds, nor do we let the Brain marry a goat, or Tim marry a pillow with an anime character printed on it.
I could see lettow having an extended chaste courtship of a pillow.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 08:38:00 AM
i don't see how others could possibly vote to reject a person's sexual preference ( :P ) 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.
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
Well, there's a lot of people who hate PDAs no matter what sexes are involved. Look at the reaction to the GoDaddy Super Bowl ad.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 07, 2013, 09:03:27 AM
Well, there's a lot of people who hate PDAs no matter what sexes are involved. Look at the reaction to the GoDaddy Super Bowl ad.
that ad went above and beyond. the slurping and suckling noises were absolutely disgusting, and i'm no puritan :x
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2013, 08:50:12 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 08:38:00 AM
i don't see how others could possibly vote to reject a person's sexual preference ( :P ) 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.
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2013, 07:50:59 AM
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.
Just seen that David Winnick voted for legalising homosexuality and then 46 years later got to vote for gay marriage too :)
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 08:55:14 AM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 07, 2013, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2013, 08:50:12 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 08:38:00 AM
i don't see how others could possibly vote to reject a person's sexual preference ( :P ) 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.
It was a free vote and it ended up 2 to 1 in favour, that sounds fairly reflective of the public to me :hmm:
Except, of course, if it had been the public, about half of them would have gone to the pub and not bothered voting :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2013, 02:10:48 AMI 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
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/429859_282333215161617_2093148810_n.jpg)
your sisters are very odd
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?
:P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 08, 2013, 04:55:45 AM
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?
:P
I'm open to more routes to get me to the UK. :)
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. :)
Quote from: Syt on February 08, 2013, 04:49:45 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/429859_282333215161617_2093148810_n.jpg)
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?
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.
Yeah, that poster's not about preaching to the choir.