Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
- In Photos: Bearded Theory Festival 2013 @ Kedleston Hall, Derbyshire
- In Photos: The Great Escape 2013, Brighton
- Coming soon: DiS meets John Lydon
- Close Knits #3: Beyond the noise-pop pale
- DiS meets John Lydon - Part 1: The Man
- In Photos: Enter Shikari @ The Engine Shed, Lincoln
- In Photos: Focus Wales 2013 @ Wrexham
- In Photos: Everything Everything @ Alexandra Palace, London
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
Well, it's very different to the standard response on the issue
but then the standard is largely supportive so if he disagrees he will have written his own. It's not terribly well written and it would be good if it was a hoax, but I should think it's real. Matthew Offord is known for being a bit odd.
They asked for an opinion
They got what they probably wanted. He was decent enough to write a thorough letter explainging himself and wasnt exactly condemning them to hell? Bit of a non-issue
His
as it's based on the inability of same sex couples to make babies. But there are plenty of heterosexual couples who are unable or uninterested in making babies who are nonetheless allowed to be married. He'd be better off just saying gay marriage is immoral or sinful, at least that would actually be coherent.
*His argument doesn't make sense though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo&nomobile=1
I would hope a member of Parliament could write 'amok' correctly,
but at least they got affect and effect right.
what a complete shit of a human being.
(the MP, that is). This stuff going round about 'British values' at the moment is very worrying.
I'm 99% sure it's real, though.
cue post from a heterosexual user I won't name claiming that they 'used to be gay' (as if it were something that people snapped out of overnight) in order to enhance their own backward views.
you make it far too easy for him
tory mp in being hateful cunt shocker.
what he said isn't REALLY that outrageous is it?
The institution of marriage is to provide the foundation of a stable relationship in which those two people of the opposite sex procreate and raise a child. That is physically not possible for same-sex couples so I don't see the point of introducing a law to allow this. I strongly believe in same-sex couples having the right to a civil registration, in order that they receive the same benefits as opposite-sex couples but not marriage.
if, i presume, he means marriage=as in under the christian church.
http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif
i dunno
i come into contact with so much inflammatory bullshit i think i've become desensitized.
the point is, the job of the MP isn't to put forward their own irrational personal opinions on everything. they're meant to mediate between their constituents and the government. if someone in their ward says to them "i think you should vote for gay marriage" they should - at the least - say i'll consider that view, or try to discuss it with the person properly. not trot out some tedious pre-victorian nonsense about what they personally think the role of marriage is.
i think they should offer their own opinions to be honest
whether i agree with them or not.
that isn't their job
It kind of is
we live in a representative, not direct democracy.
There's a middle ground. I don't think he's out of order by letting someone know his views at all. I also find it extremely hard to give a shit that there's some vague homophobic undertones underlying it, but I won't argue that.
the argument shouldn't be based around what we have but what we should have IMO. and what Old Man Offord has posted is a prime example of why the current system of doing things [1 vote every few years, then in the hands of the MP] is fucking awful
why is it?
the only reason i can see for you saying this is because his personal opinion doesn't comply with yours.
how do you know what my personal opinion is? fwiw i think people should stop giving a shit about what the church has to say and do their own thing.
what i also think is that MPs should try and deliver what their constituents are asking them. and telling some people that have come to their local MP with a perfectly reasonable request that basically what they think is not compatible with what he thinks and that is the end of it is a particularly good example of how to disenfranchise people which is at its best when everyone is actively involved in it.
last sentence is weird.
should be [disenfranchise people] when politics is at its best....
i agree: re the church
but what is the MP to do? say he had a letter with a polar opposite opinion, for example. if more people are against it than for it, should they try to deliver that?
- discuss the matter without referring to the Bible, which should not dictate law
- local referendum
- have a meeting in the town hall where people can put forward points etc themselves and discuss it
If we had multi-member MP wards, ^this problem would be (not totally fixed, but) minimised somewhat.
I live in a ward with 3 Labour councillors and one SNP councillor. I have had contact with them all, but if there's something that
Similarly, I have some regional 'list' MSPs in addition to my ward MSP. So in addition to my Labour MSP, I have access to 3 Labour, 2 SNP, 1 Con, and 1 Green MSP - all equivalent in parliament to the ward MSP.
[missing bit:]
*if there's something that one party will be no use with, I can go to the other. Doesn't even have to be a party-related issue. It's just nice to have a variety of councillors with a variety of skills.
Opponents of multi member wards go on about severing 'local links', but it's nonsense. The benefits massively outweigh the (practically non-existent) negatives.
I doubt our representative democracy has much bearing on the extent of homophobia in britain
i doubt LGBT types would fare much better in a direct democracy.
Switzerland best resembles a direct democracy out of anyone, and they're bigoted as fuck.
I understand the difference
but aside from a reference to some kind of petition (never heard of it, probably nationwide so irrelevant when he's dealing with a constituency matter, don't trust the source, it's a tiny number of people so barely relevant etc) he offers no evidence or supporting claims that his voting intentions are in any way based on representing the views of his constituents, even something approaching a general compromise.
sounds like a great way for a democracy to run. one vote every few years, no chance for people to get involved in those few years. looks like it has really enamoured the political system to the British public
»procreate and raise a child«
So much nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggghhhh at ^this.
As ottermagic says upthread, I have less of a problem with people being outright blunt and saying that they think gay couples are just wrong so nerrrrr. At least that fucked up non-logic works within the confines of it's own limits.
What do the people who get all wound up about the need to raise a child say about heterosexual married couples who chose not to raise a child? Are they besmirching the concept of marriage?
If people are trying to seek refuge in the pretence that marriage inherently has anything to do with children, they've lost the debate before it even started.
And let's take a moment to repeat the fact that no-one is proposing that anyone or any religion should be forced to 'promote'* or perform gay marriages.
Some religious people love to play the victim, even when they are engaged in denying the rights of others.
The point of changing the law to allow marriage equality is merely that - to provide gay couples an equal right to marriage. It WOULD NOT COMPEL any church or religious institution to perform gay marriages
*another piece of linguistic bullshit, as far as I can tell. The phrase they're looking for is 'recognise equally'. No-one's asking them to get involved in a recruitment campaign.
is this the case?
i thought it would compel them to. do they have the right to refuse to perform a gay marriage?
I've never seen anyone propose a scenario of compulsion.
Compulsion is as much of a red herring, and should be treated with the same level of mockery, as the claims about slippery slopes and eventually being allowed to marry animals or dead people.
I suppose he has at least given his honest response.
I really don't know where I stand on this whole issue. On the one hand, I always thought one of the advantages of being gay was not having to go through the whole rigmarole of getting married; however, I can entirely understand why other people might want to, and it seems wrong on a basic level that they shouldn't have that option (although I can also see that if I was religious I might not take that view).
Then again, civil partnership is marriage in all but name (and colloquially most people when talking about civil partnerships refer to X and Y 'getting married') so is it really worth all the fuss about what it's called legally when it is to all intents and purposes 'marriage' anyway?
the final paragraph is my point of view, i guess
not that my own point of view is important in relation to the matter at hand, of course.
but i'm not sure if a country should have the power to change the rules/belief of a church/religion. he said 'I strongly believe in same-sex couples having the right to a civil registration', so i took his argument as being such.
if the final paragraph /is/ your point of view, you have no point of view.
And no-one is proposing that a country should have the power to change the rules/belief of a church/religion.
The proposal is that a country should ALLOW churches/religions to have the power to change their rules/beliefs. E.g. The Quakers seem up for gay marriage, but gay marriage is not legal at present, so they can't do it. If a religion isn't up for it, that's their own choice, and, to repeat it AGAIN.... IT WOULD NOT COMPEL any church or religious institution to perform gay marriages.
Allow? Yes.
Compel? No.
well, i do have a point of view..
i'm not sure the condescending tone of your posts is really needed.
Fair point. Apologies.
I'll rephrase:
If the final paragraph is the /extent/ of your point of view, you don't really have a point of view.
No intention to be condescending. Just want to be blunt about some of the classic tactics used to cloud the debate (intentionally or otherwise - certainly not accusing you of deliberately trying to obscure any facts).
Your last line is as much an argument 'for' as it is 'against'.
So the 'oh, civil partnerships are /almost/ marriages anyway' line is moot - it is a worthless addition to the debate.
(NB: Not having a go at you - just the people who use it as the basis for their stance.)
In terms of the marriage/civil partnership thing
Why would you want to get involved in an institution and framework that inherently hates you? I mean, they shouldn't...but they do.
again, this is the point of view i take
but then i haven't been discriminated against in such a way, or possess any strong feeling towards any religious institutions.
We're just two white middle class straight guys
I guess we're lucky lucky bastards
Yeah, this.
I do find it a bit odd how some people can reconcile their homosexuality with also believing in a religion whose teachings are generally against the whole concept.
marriage is somewhere between a civil and religious institution
it isn't clearly one or the other. it exists for both social (love) and religious reasons. you don't /have/ to buy into all of them to want it. you don't have to get married in a church or by a religious figure.
I'd daresay that all gay people want is the chance to do what everyone else does. and civil partnerships offer them the same legal rights, but it isn't the same thing. it's like wanting an apple but being told you can only have a pear. they're both fruit, they're both green, but they're not the same, and being told you can only have one based on which gender you're baseline attracted to is a little insulting.
They can have the fucking pear
OR THEY CAN BE THROWN IN JAIL AND TORTURED LIKE THEY WERE 150 YEARS AGO THE UNGRATEFUL HEATHEN BASTARDS
thing with civil partnerships is that straighties can't get them
it's just another way of dividing people, and as Wza says, this is as much of an argument for as against.
and if marriage is a religious institution based around two thousand years of mostly awful and horrible history, then the state should entirely fuck off out of it and it should just become a personal choice like a baptism or whatever.
marriage is a personal choice isn't it?
it's possible to take civil registration rather than a marriage?
not for a straight couple
uh, unless they've changed it in the last year or so and I didn't notice
No, you're right.
You can have a civil ceremony as a hetrosexual couple (i.e. in a registry office or whatever), but it's still legally 'marriage' even thought there's no religious element.
though, even.
yeah, my uncle had one recently
bless 'im
I AM OUTRAGED
I DEMAND MY BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO A CIVIL REGISTRATION
lets get one together
I'll give it one last shot with okcupid
cheers for the offer though, mate. Very kind
Well you'll not want to delay in signing up to the campaign that's already well underway, then.
http://equallove.org.uk/
»In our estimation, there is a sizeable minority of heterosexual couples who would prefer a civil partnership. They dislike the patriarchal history and language of marriage; viewing civil partnerships as a more modern, egalitarian alternative. In the Netherlands, where civil partnerships are open to both gay and heterosexual couples, two-thirds of civil partners are straight men and women. We could expect a similar take-up by heterosexual couples in Britain, if civil partnerships were open to everyone.
Cameron also miscalculated by ruling out any legalisation of religious same-sex marriages, even by faith organisations, such as the Quakers and Unitarians, who want to conduct them. This is an attack on religious freedom, as well as perpetrating homophobic discrimination. Moreover, given that the government has recently authorised religious same-sex civil partnerships, a continued blanket ban on religious same-sex marriages looks inconsistent and petty.
For all these reasons, the Equal Love campaign is building momentum. The right of gay couples to marry is backed by Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson and a growing number of Tory MPs, including Chloe Smith, Mike Weatherley and Margot James.
In 2010, the Green party national conference was the first to vote to end the twin bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. It was followed by the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru conferences. Oddly, the Labour conference has declined to vote on the issue; although the GMB, Unison and all 13 Labour MEPs want the twin bans overturned.
The SNP government in Scotland is leading the way, with its public consultation period already concluded; while David Cameron inexplicably postponed the start of his consultation from last summer to next month.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/gay-staight-couples-deserve-equality-now
Fuck the petition
I've got a couple of bricks to lob at holyrood on my way to work tomorrow
Agreed. Petition schmetition.
It's the Equal Love legal bid side of things that is the much more important bit.
threadfix
or, let's straighten up this thread
why not just take marriage out of the law altogether
I'm not really sure about the legal consequences for people who are married, but this has been suggested before, it will mean that everyone under the law will have the same rights and people at their private ceremonies can call it whatever they want. It also is the option that separates church and state, which people always complain about
or take religion out of the lawmaking
thread cut off in it's prime.
it had so much more to give.