mjmooney Posted February 5, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 5, 2013 Good, good. Tory votes go to UKIP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 5, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) I was thinking of taking this over to "Piss You Off", because it does. Why all this obsession with the word "marriage"? It's just a word. If they mean a religious ceremony, then it's in the domain of the religious organisations. If they don't, then there's nothing to discuss - a civil partnership IS marriage! That battle has been won (and rightly so). I don't know which side exasperates me more on this one. Edited February 5, 2013 by mjmooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 118 Tory MP's against Gay Marriage Bill Labour Shame on the 118 Shame on the 14. More like shame on the VT atheists who suddenly seem to care about a Union in a church before God :winkold: Is it just me that is bored of the whole thing though , if Adam wants to marry Steve then let him get on with it the church have never been against Gay funerals so why should they be against gay marriage It's the **** that's the problem. They don't want to be seen to encouraging people of the same sex to be at it. It's reasonable to suppose that marriage will involve sex, while death doesn't. Well, unless Jimmy Savile was on duty that night, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 5, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 5, 2013 118 Tory MP's against Gay Marriage Bill Labour Shame on the 118 Shame on the 14. More like shame on the VT atheists who suddenly seem to care about a Union in a church before God :winkold: Is it just me that is bored of the whole thing though , if Adam wants to marry Steve then let him get on with it the church have never been against Gay funerals so why should they be against gay marriage It's the **** that's the problem. They don't want to be seen to encouraging people of the same sex to be at it. It's reasonable to suppose that marriage will involve sex, while death doesn't. Well, unless Jimmy Savile was on duty that night, of course. Exactly. WHY do people get so animated about other peoples' sex lives? Haven't they got anything more important to consider? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Exactly. WHY do people get so animated about other peoples' sex lives? Haven't they got anything more important to consider? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 118 Tory MP's against Gay Marriage Bill Labour Shame on the 118 Shame on the 14. More like shame on the VT atheists who suddenly seem to care about a Union in a church before God :winkold: Is it just me that is bored of the whole thing though , if Adam wants to marry Steve then let him get on with it the church have never been against Gay funerals so why should they be against gay marriage It's the **** that's the problem. They don't want to be seen to encouraging people of the same sex to be at it. It's reasonable to suppose that marriage will involve sex, while death doesn't. Well, unless Jimmy Savile was on duty that night, of course. Exactly. WHY do people get so animated about other peoples' sex lives? Haven't they got anything more important to consider? yeah like why do lesbians use dildo's on each other in the films if their lifestyle choice is that they feel they don't need a man in their life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 5, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 5, 2013 They're not opposed to Gay people marrying at all. They're opposed to gay women marrying other gay women. and ditto men. They're OK with gay men marrying gay or straight women.It's the same sex thing they're all, er, arsey about.And the religionists are inventing that gay people are not equal to straight people in the eyes or their imaginary God.Religionists, I guess, can be excused their beliefs to an extent. but I'm not sure that religion should be excused adherence to the law (in this case equality).But it seems to boil down, as Mike says, to them being too interested in other people's relationships and sex lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) 400 for, 175 against. Cue a sudden rush to Homebase and Tesco for all those CoE Tories to stock up on wood-panels and non-persihables as the end is clearly coming. Edit: Turns out 139 Tories voted against, 132 for. Edited February 5, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 does this mean an end of the rags telling me its the most important thing to happen in this country for the last 627 odd years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 does this mean an end of the rags telling me its the most important thing to happen in this country for the last 627 odd years? I bet the gays will be wanting birthdays and Christmas next !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I'm not surprised that so many Torys would be against equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 5, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Some (well, all really, but still) of the arguments against were ludicrous. One MP, Stephen Timms, stating that marriage is for the purpose of children alone, only to have a Labour colleague, whose wedding he attended, point out she married long after there would be any chance of kids, thus suggesting her marriage was invalid, was absolutely farcical. As was his response - 'I'm talking about hundreds of years ago'. Er...? **** idiots. Not that this matters of course - the Lords won't let this fly and Cameron's not daft enough to invoke the Parliament Act. Edited February 5, 2013 by Chindie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Some (well, all really, but still) of the arguments against were ludicrous. One MP, Stephen Timms, stating that marriage is for the purpose of children alone, only to have a Labour colleague, whose wedding he attended, point out she married long after there would be any chance of kids, thus suggesting her marriage was invalid, was absolutely farcical. As was his response - 'I'm talking about hundreds of years ago'. Er...? **** idiots. Not that this matters of course - the Lords won't let this fly and Cameron's not daft enough to invoke the Parliament Act. yes I heard the same mini exchange, he really did make quite a cock of himself I wonder if the problem for many of the tory MP's is that if this is passed, then all their rent boy friends will think the monthly **** in the rented second home could be turned legitimate with a proposal of marriage if and when the MP were to be accidently outed. One other piece I heard when I was supposed to be concentrating on something else, apparently adultery wont be a legitimate ground for divorce in gay marriage. I find that bizarre if I heard it right. Kevin marries Dave, and Steve marries Julie. If Kevin finds Dave shagging Steve, tough luck and carry on. But if Julie finds Steve shagging Kevin, legitimate divorce. I wonder if its been completely thought through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) One other piece I heard when I was supposed to be concentrating on something else, apparently adultery wont be a legitimate ground for divorce in gay marriage. I find that bizarre if I heard it right. Kevin marries Dave, and Steve marries Julie. If Kevin finds Dave shagging Steve, tough luck and carry on. But if Julie finds Steve shagging Kevin, legitimate divorce. I wonder if its been completely thought through.I don't think that's correct from what I've heard/read in the last day or so. In both cases it may be grounds for divorce but on the basis of unreasonable behaviour.Adultery specifically relates to sexual intercourse between a man and a woman - therefore if Julie finds her husband bending Kevin over the kitchen table and rogering him rotten then she can't sue for a divorce on the grounds of adultery.Edit: I'd guess if Kevin then discovered Julie taking revenge by shagging Dave, he could sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery? Edited February 5, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 yeah, that makes more sense. That'll teach me to drive, talk on the handsfree and keep the radio on low. One question that was raised a couple of days ago, if the concept of marriage can now be between any two people, why is it limited to two? What reason is there for two being the magic number? It's not to make a perfect nuclear family, it's not to keep it traditional or comply with the Old Testament. So why don't we allow a three way marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Unsurprisingly the largest party here (DUP), who have 8 MP's in the Commons, all voted against it. But then NI is about 200 years behind the rest of the UK. It is still illegal for gay people to give blood here, for **** sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 400 for, 175 against. Cue a sudden rush to Homebase and Tesco for all those CoE Tories to stock up on wood-panels and non-persihables as the end is clearly coming. Edit: Turns out 139 Tories voted against, 132 for. From the BBC, 136 opposed the bill, 127 were in favour, 35 did not vote and 5 registered an abstention by voting both in favour and against. What is interesting to me is that less than half (45%) of the 303 Conservative MPs voted against homosexual marriage. I'll have that fact ready for future discussions with the older members of my family who, despite their compartive wealth and comfortable lifestyle, seem to be increasingly exasperated about life in the UK and keep saying things like "thin end of the wegde". It makes me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 On the Huhne thing, reading the transcripts (summary here) of conversations between Vicky Pryce and the journo who was putting her up to it, offering to ghost write her story, and reassuring her she would be safe from prosecution, why is the journo not being prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 On the Huhne thing, reading the transcripts (summary here) of conversations between Vicky Pryce and the journo who was putting her up to it, offering to ghost write her story, and reassuring her she would be safe from prosecution, why is the journo not being prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? Because journalists are above the law. That's one of the perks of paying off the Police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts