Gay Marriage

[rick green]

So can gay people get married in the UK? Whether or not they should be allowed to is turning out to be a significant issue in the US elections this year. I think it's a scandalous diversion from issues like Iraq, the federal budget, tax breaks, etc. To make this an issue works in Bush's favor, it seems to me. Of course, I think gay folks should have equal rights across the board, including the right to marry. What do ya'll think?

[Jerkass]

I see the Bush camp has embraced the brilliant Clintonesque strategy of standing for everything on this issue...Bush is against gay marriage, while Cheney (who??? where was that guy for about three years?) is for it. So there you go.

[Colyngbourne]

It's so obviously a natural right, it should be validated by law as such. I have been digusted how Bush has tried to drag new amendments to the Constitution that are purely a fundamentalist Xian viewpoint of what a 'marriage' is. The rights issues for gays/lesbian/transgender people in the States need addressing. I think in the UK we are slowly but surely making progress.

[Deb Zell]

Greetings to all, I was quite pleased to become a member of this forum. Myself being an American, I am distressed by how this issue could shape my country in terms of this year's Presidential Election, and any amendments made to the U.S. Constitution in the future. There are many people here on both sides of the issue. There are those who hold, as I do, that securing gay marriage is a cause that should be embraced and championed by lovers of civil liberties. On the other side is a powerful group that discriminates on the basis of sex, and seeks to establish rules for whom can marry whom. They do not want gays to have certain rights because it is not aesthetically or religiously pleasing, and the justifications for such discrimination have once again been derived from religious sources and cultural norms (much like the justifications for slavery and segregation in the U.S. or the denial of the voting franchise to women and anyone else not rich, white, and male).
The United States is home to people like Rev. Jerry Falwell, a very conservative right wing preacher(whom, it should be noted, would have a much better chance of making it into the Oval Office than myself; scary) that has made quite a career out of teaching people to hate gays. Falwell is not unique though, nor has he been unsuccessful; the message is delivered by many religious leaders, and most notably by a preacher in Kansas who travelled with members of his congregation to the funeral of Matthew Shepard to tell all grieving that Mr. Shepard was rightly murdered, and in Hell. For those that don't know, Mr. Shepard was brutally murdered by people that hate gays. I was shocked by the reaction to it: there were people that felt the murderers hadn't done anything wrong! It held a close paralell, at least in my way of thinking, with lynchings of African Americans carried out by the Ku Klux Klan.
Forgive me, we're discussing gay marriage. It seems the last institution that the religious right in my country feels assured that it can keep from the grasp of gays, and they are not about to relinquish it. There is an outcry against gay marriage for several reasons, a few of which follow: the couple cannot produce children, the children they may have or adopt will be harassed and ostracized at school, and gays cannot fulfill the 'natural purpose requirements' that heterosexual couples can.
To the first, it should be remembered that not even all heterosexual couples can have children or seek to have them, nor do they provide loving and proper homes to the children that they do have. The traditional notion of the family is proving to be archaic, especially as more women like myself seek to be career professionals.
To the second, a fitting reply would be that children will exercise what they learn at home, and if people are so worried about ostracism then they should teach their children to be tolerant, that there is nothing to make fun of.
Lastly, there is the argument regarding the natural purposes of body parts(appendix, anyone?), so it would only be right to condemn anyone that has ever enjoyed oral sex, winked at somebody, ...or pointed a finger. :o It should be remembered that homosexuality is neither particular to culture, nor (I have heard, and please do correct me if I am wrong) species.
My apologies for the length and any glaring technical mistakes.
I am also interested in hearing what anyone else has to say.

[Jerkass]

Jerry Falwell...most famous for also teaching people to hate Tinky-Winky.

And fair enough in Tinky-Winky's case...

[Deb Zell]

Come on now, a serious reply...:)

[NottyImp]

Religion sucks. There, is that serious enough for you?

Or to put it another way, you don't find secular humanists dragging people to their deaths on ropes behind trucks, do you?

[Colyngbourne]

No, indeed. No-one can justify murder, just as I don't believe you can justify Fred Phelps's attempts to set up tablets in public parks advocating hatred for gays, or website with names like 'God hates fags dot com'.

This does not mean that religion sucks, however. :wink:

[John Self]

Welcome aboard, Deb.

To clarify for rick, in response to his original question: no, gay people cannot get married in the UK. (Or should I say, same sex couples, since presumably some gay people are already married... ) At the minute, if they live in London, they can however have a legally meaningless 'commitment ceremony' endorsed by the local authority.

However, the government is currently processing the Civil Partnerships Bill through Parliament, which will ultimately lead to an effective form of gay marriage. The term marriage has been studiously avoided but as the law will confer the right to a legal ceremony, pension rights, housing rights, inheritance rights, next-of-kin rights for hospital visits and treatment and so on, there is really no difference. Not surprisingly, as with any socially progressive legislation, the House of Lords (our second legislative chamber in the UK, filled with unelected 'representatives' who are there by appointment or heredity) has blocked it, but it will come around again and ultimately be passed into law. The interesting thing is that the Lords did not oppose it outright, but wanted to pass an amendment which would also confer such rights on carers, which is probably not a bad idea - though the circumstances where a carer is neither a family member nor a partner, and so the amendment would be needed, must be fairly rare.

All of this is fairly remarkable when you think that just 10 years ago in the UK, the gay age of consent was five years higher than the heterosexual one. Not bad going.

As for the US perspective, I read in a poll on BBC News Online recently (which I now cannot find) that only 40% of American voters oppose any legal recognition for same sex relationships. The majority of 60% are split between those who want gay marriage and those who would only accept civil unions. Also interestingly, I believe Bush does not oppose state-by-state civil unions. Since, under the British model, civil union is not different from marriage except in the absence of the magic word - and what is a word? - what's the big deal?

[rick green]

First off, if by humanist you mean atheist, Notty, well they've done more than their fair share of cruel deeds in the name of their cause. The Soviets in particular. If you ask me, religion doesn't suck, cruelty & intolerance suck. And human beings can be just as cruel & intolerant in the name of godlessness as they can in God's name.

Thanks John for the details on the UK situation. It sounds like the politicos haven't tried to make a divisive issue of this question over there. Is there a broad base of popular support for the reforms? Oh, and what's a "carer"?

Thanks Deb for laying out some of the faulty logic behind the opposition to gay marriage in the US. Welcome to Palimpsest, and make yourself at home.

[NottyImp]

First off, if by humanist you mean atheist, Notty, well they've done more than their fair share of cruel deeds in the name of their cause. The Soviets in particular.

The Soviets did those acts in the name of State Communism, not atheism.

This does not mean that religion sucks, however.

You're right - I forgot to mention all the other reasons. :wink:

[Colyngbourne]

:wink: Organised religion of any form is as capable as being corrupted and 'evil' as any other human construction or edifice, but this does not mean that there is no discernable spiritual aspect to our nature as humans, nor does it disprove the existence of God, whatever we take God to mean.

[NottyImp]

Organised religion of any form...

And that would be my major beef, of course. Personal faith, whilst I might disagree with it philosophically, is none of my business. When it crosses the threshold of the home into the social and political, well then I start to have a problem.

[m.]

Well, I'm a firm adherent of the total division of Church and State. On the subject of gay marriage this means that while as a catholic I have to acknowledge the Church teaching, as a citizen I'm rather for it. It sounds a bit hypocritical, but I don't think it is. After all, Catholic Church doesn't accept divorces but doesn't try to change divorce legislation, and I think it's quite analogous. And, I think I should add, that even though I'm not homosexual myself I find Christian doctrine on this point particularly hard to accept. :?

Still, I don't think same sex couples should adopt children.

[rick green]

The Soviets did those acts in the name of State Communism, not atheism.

Fair enough. I ought not to have said "in the name of". But wasn't atheism a central tenet of Communism? And even if I am mistaken on that point, surely the great majority of those who commited the atrocities professed atheism. (Perhaps this should be another thread? Or perhaps we two crusties should put aside the bastinado?)

[rick green]

...while as a catholic I have to acknowledge the Church teaching, as a citizen I'm rather for it. It sounds a bit hypocritical, but I don't think it is.... I find Christian doctrine on this point particularly hard to accept. :?

Still, I don't think same sex couples should adopt children.

I don't think your position is hypocritical m., but it is complicated. I guess that's inevitable when one is tugged at by contrary allegiances.

The question of adoption is an interesting corollary to the question of marriage. I'd even say it's the more vital of the two for taking another being into consideration. I think it's fine for gays to adopt. To use another analogy, granting the political right to marry w/o the right to adopt sounds a lot like the freedom granted to American blacks at the end of the Civil War. They were nominally free, but a double standard (under the rubric "separate but equal") existed for decades afterwards. I think society can only benefit from a fuller integration of its diverse elements, including families of gay parentage. Of course there will resistance, but hasn't there always been, to any reform?

[NottyImp]

Fair enough. I ought not to have said "in the name of". But wasn't atheism a central tenet of Communism? And even if I am mistaken on that point, surely the great majority of those who commited the atrocities professed atheism. (Perhaps this should be another thread? Or perhaps we two crusties should put aside the bastinado?)

Believe it or not, I've actually met a Catholic Communist, and there is a strain of "liberation theology" that has been practised by some very brave priests in South America that has elements very close to Marxism.

The Soviet State was officially atheist, and there can be little doubt that it suppressed the orthodox church there in brutal ways. But if you ally any system of belief (or unbelief) to a totalitarian state apparatus, then the potential for violence exists.

My point might be that I don't know of any mass-murder perpetrated (or even advocated) purely in the name of unbelief (to use a broader term). For example, I don't know of atheists (of whatever political persuasion) suggestion the violent suppression of the Christian faith in the name of just atheism. Sure, Communists, Nazis and their ilk may do it, but they are pre-disposed to butchery by their broader ideologies.

The day I see a violent demonstration with banners proclaiming: "Atheists unite - Destroy the Theists!", then I might change my view on this.

[Deb Zell]

The Catholic Church HAS influenced policy regarding divorce. Divorce was illegal in Chile last year, and I think it may now be legal, will have to check-- but up until the point that a decision was made, the church spent millions on television ads and campaign donations as well as preaching the fire and brimstone message and threatening to excommunicate anyone that favored the measure...big scare tactics, and that is the religious rub.
Why opposed to adoption by same sex couples?

[m.]

:) Hi Deb. Thanks for the info about Chile - I didn't know and it's interesting. Still, not that surprising - it's not that I'm not aware that in some countries the church abuses the influence it has over the people. The point I was trying to make is that there are issues where the church and civil legislation can differ but exist independently without getting into conflict. And talking about South America, Notty, the liberation theology was condemned by Vatican, as it equalled Christian message with fighting for social justice and accepted violence. Brave the priests might have been, but that's not all that counts. :)

[NottyImp]

the liberation theology was condemned by Vatican, as it equalled Christian message with fighting for social justice and accepted violence.

Oh, I'm sure it was. Can't get those peasants getting too uppity, can we?

[m.]

:? So Notty, religion plus violence is bad but when we mix in a bit of Marxism it's passable???

[m.]

Why opposed to adoption by same sex couples?

I don't even like the expression 'right to adopt'. There are children who don't have parents or whose parents are unfit for the task (which boils down to the same); it's society's obligation to provide them with the best possible substitute, not anybody's 'right' to adopt them. So while I agree that adoption by a same sex couple would be better than remaining in an abusive family or loveless institution, I think that normally a family with standard heteresexual parents is much better environment for children. Simply, I think it's better to have a mother and father than two mothers or two fathers. Even if one doesn't accept their parents as absolute role models, he has the opportunity of seeing both sexes' ways of reaction, thinking, doing things - and admit it, there are some awful stereotypes that should be discarded, but those ways are different.

[NottyImp]

So Notty, religion plus violence is bad but when we mix in a bit of Marxism it's passable???

I think it depends on the context. I'm not a pacifist, if that's what you're asking. If "religion+violence" = burning witches and "Marxism + violence" = social emancipation then I might support it in the latter case, although I'm not actually a Marxist, and I'd have to think very carefully about it.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your point is, m.

[m.]

:) No, I like your reply, I wasn't trying to make a point but ask what you meant. Yeah, I think I kind of assumed you're a pacifist so your reaction confused me. And you know, first you declare that you don't like religion getting into the social and political, and then you bring up, it seems approvingly, the liberation theology which is a model example of religion doing exactly that... That is confusing.

And sorry, but you really have to think very carefully about it. :wink:

[skanky]

The Soviets did those acts in the name of State Communism, not atheism.

Fair enough. I ought not to have said "in the name of". But wasn't atheism a central tenet of Communism? And even if I am mistaken on that point, surely the great majority of those who commited the atrocities professed atheism. (Perhaps this should be another thread? Or perhaps we two crusties should put aside the bastinado?)

Of course, "Communism" and what went on the USSR are not exactly the same things (though that does not let Communism off the hook per se). However the system that was created there was a form of religion, especially under Stalin, where he was elevated to a form of deity in the same way that the Tsar was before the revolution. The only way to prove yourself better than the previous gods is to become a better one yourself.

His elevation to that status was not really any less valid than the creation of a "god" as carried out by the Judaism (and hence passed on to Christianity & Islam) and other religions. In fact it could be argued to have vastly *more* validity as Stalim could be seen to exist, and actually did run the rule of life and death over the members of his domain.


If the monotheists are right, then it could be argued that every death or cruelty caused by an atheist is one caused by their religion as it is their god who has ultimate sanction and the buck stops there, so to speak.

[Colyngbourne]

If the monotheists are right, then it could be argued that every death or cruelty caused by an atheist is one caused by their religion as it is their god who has ultimate sanction and the buck stops there, so to speak.


Only if one believes in a realist, time-and-space interfering God, and not in free will. That's a cheap way to deny responsibility.

[skanky]

Exactly. And those of us who don't wouldn't argue that point, and those who do probably think it's their god's way of testing mankind or something.

Anyway, any other type of deity's pretty meaningless and completely free will negates any point of having a god. But there you go.

Also, denying ultimate responsibility is not much of any defense.

"You can't execute me for murder, I'm merely like this because of God/genetic composition/society/parental upbrining* !"

"Of course we can, you're saying that we're not?"

(* delete as appropriate)

[Colyngbourne]

completely free will negates any point of having a god

Not sure about this, nor a vague corollary of it: completely free will negates God

[skanky]

Many religions were invented, or expanded, by people who used them to control the populace - whether that was the original intention or not (and we'll never know the answer to that). So by laying down rules you are constraining free will. Any constraint on behaviour removes a certain amount of free will.

You could argue that you have the freedom to act now and be eternally damned, but you're not *totally* free in that case.

It's noticeable how the various religious laws often make a broad sense based on the situations in which they were created - theft, adultary, etc. are bad for morale in relatively small communities, especially when in exile; it's useful to allow multiple wives if large numbers of the male population have been killed in wars or suchlike; there are many other examples. They may well be counter examples, but the laws are created by people who will have their own foibles (and sometimes by committees who will add the odd hump here and there).

If you allow completely free will, then you don't need a religion and religious commandments to control the people, therefore you don't need a god.

It's not necessary to have a religion to control people, but by converting them to your beliefs and persuading them that you are representative of the god, you create power and control for yourself that is far easier to maintain than in many other ways. It's not just down to fear, either. By using the carrot as well as the cliché, sorry stick, you gain subservient people who want you to control them. This is a stronger power base than fear lone and thus makes religion a better method than say, despotism.

You see it on many scales in cults and sects as well as (many of) the major religions of the world.

IHMO, of course.

[Colyngbourne]

This only works if you view God as a human invention, as part of social control. Of course there are many situations where God-belief has been manipulated/translated for use in handy political/social development, but it still doesn't make the idea of God a 'cunning plan'.

In my book, complete and utter free will is wholly part of the 'God' deal, including the free will to not believe, and without it, it's pointless. And being damned is a little too medieval for me, too. :twisted:

[rick green]

If you allow completely free will, then you don't need a religion and religious commandments to control the people, therefore you don't need a god.

I don't follow this. Who is doing the allowing here? As I see it, the more freedom one "allows" people, the more necessary it becomes for the people to be controlled. (From the point of view of the power elite.) This is reminiscent of the "manufacturing consent" idea of Noam Chomsky's. To paraphrase, because there is a certain amount of political freedom guaranteed by the political institutions of Western democratic countries like the USA & the UK, the opinions of the populace must be monitored and molded to maintain the status quo. If they had no free (political) will, that is, if they live under tyranny, they could think whatever they like b/c there would be no outlet for their will. Sorry if that's not too clear.

Anyway, the question of free will, as I see it, is intimately tied up with the notion of causality. In a world ruled by cause & effect, of which human beings are just pieces, how is free will possible? How can you say that you choose to do as you do freely, when everything that goes into that choice is beyond your control?

And the question of religion is more nuanced than we've allowed for. There are many varieties of what might be called religious experience. (Sorry Dr. James.) One of which might be called legalistic, another mystical. As I see it, in real seekers after God, the two are coexistent. The seeker adopts precepts, not because of coercion from outside, but because he/she feels that they will be of use in the search. And mysticism, the personal experience of God's grace, this is the object of the search, for which the precepts prepare the adept.

Religions arise in the wake of such seekers & make coercive laws out of self-willed precepts. This process of ossification is an attempt to hold onto the original virtue. But as Col pointed out, social problems do not reflect on the idea of God, only on the foibles of man.

And I'm sure that's quite enough sermonizing from me.

[m.]

In my book, complete and utter free will is wholly part of the 'God' deal, including the free will to not believe, and without it, it's pointless.

:D Yes. Still, I'm not sure if even saying 'free will to not believe' doesn't put the whole thing in categories rather unacceptable for (some type of) atheists, because it implies that adhering to the materialist point of view is a matter of choice and not of positive knowledge. I'm not sure if I'm clear here, and it's a shame because for me this is quite an important point. I mean, (most of?) atheists don't view theism as a real choice (like choosing between Windows and Mac) but as a theory they discard because they don't think it's true. But of course it can't be true because they misrepresent religion defining it by materialist categories. To understand religion they would have to, kind of, suspend disbelief, but why should they want to do that if the understanding they got wouldn't run in their materialist OS anyway.

[Colyngbourne]

Yes :wink: I think m. and rick are better at verbalising this stuff than I am.

[amner]

And gays and marriage...? :?

[Colyngbourne]

I think I said on the first page: no problem at all, neither with adoption.

[amner]

Jolly good, me too.

[Wavid]

Blimey, quite a few issues being discussed on this thread.

On the gay marriage thing, I can't really believe it would have a negative effect on society if same-sex couples were to be allowed to marry, or indeed adopt. Pretty progressive stuff for me, this, isn't it?!

The issue of the seperation of church and state is very relevant here. I agree with m. in that they should have nothing to do with one another. It's tricky when marriage is discussed, because the whole institution of marriage is connected to christianity, and indeed other faiths. But when you look at the issue objectively, what marriage is all about is pension rights, and whatnot, as JS pointed out, and actually it is a very practical step to take.

Those who drivel on about the sanctity of marriage, and who claim to care for its continued relevance in today's society which sometimes seems to look with scorn on the idea of long term committment should rejoice in the fact that so many gay people wish to be involved in this (on the surface) rather outmoded idea. Also, the more people involved in long term, committed and loving relationships the better for society.

On a totally seperate point, I attended a christening on Sunday, the first time I had been at a church service for a few years (the last one being a marriage...). I have to say I can see why people are turning away from the church. obviously a lot depends on the cleric (is this the right word?) conducting the service, but this was very dry, consisting of an awful lot of repetition of things which, even to someone who is sympathetic to the christian faith, if not actually a believer himself, sounded pretty odd. It had the effect of cementing the more determinedly atheistic of my family in their opinions, and rather embarassing the rest of us.

I just think it is a shame, that's all. I happen just to rather like the idea of Church, and certainly don't see it as being the root of all evil in society as some do. The trouble is that I just don't like it enough to go along, or, I suppose, to take it very seriously.

[John Self]

I think it does depend a lot on the person doing the doings (I think that's the correct term). I attended a funeral recently which was an entirely wonderful and fulfilling experience (apart from the obvious) mainly because of the way the minister conducted the service - decent and compassionate and not remotely full-on - and I understood then why people believe in a god and attend church more than I have at any time since standing with my neck cricked back in the rather wondrous Ely cathedral a year or more ago.

Obviously the church and the state should be separate but it's interesting to note that in Britain, where they're not, we have one of the most secular societies in the world, and in the US, where separation of church and state is enshrined, no would-be President would dare be anything other than a kowtowing kinda Christian.

[amner]

Watch for those splinters, Wavey.

Now, here's an odd thing. We didn't have the mini-amners christened, indeed I stuck my heels in quite deeply about it, despite much outside pressure (living directly opposite the village church seemed like a constant reminder/affront, too). But no, I wasn't having any of it. Why? Well, because it seemed deeply hypocritical to go through an expected ceremony (and it was just assumed, by some parties) when I was neither a regular (make that actual) member of the congregation nor was I a believer. Our local vicar is a very nice chap and does a lot of community work, and I thought 'I'm not going to waste your time here, Reverend'. If the girls want to get christened when they understand the significance of it all then fair enough...godspeed and all that...but then that would be their decision, but to embrace it for the sake of expectation? No, no, no.

Anyway, despite that position I was asked to be a godfather for some friends.

How does that work, I thought?

I wonder if those who work in the Church often get that hollow feeling that they're there for a more photogenic backdrop?

[Colyngbourne]

I think marriage is the way for formalising long-term commitment. I don't see any point in a long-term relationship without it, and the marriage service as it is, puts exactly what is needed into contract (plus the added dimension of faith and God if you go via the religious option) - commitment through the bad as well as the good, through the sickness as well as the health, and the impecuniary times as well as the well-off.

Churches get used all the time for scenic stuff, which can doubtless be frustrating for the clergy and congregations involved, but the idea of 'service' and a 'national church' really comes into play here (if you're dealing with the CoE of course) because part of the established church's role is to 'be there' pastorally for anyone, anyone at all, who needs them - I believe that is still a valid and valuable role to fulfill. Of course people who want to, 'shop around' but in any community, if someone is in need of some faith-related/spiritual need etc. there is a named and designated person who exists to be there. As far as pastoral concern goes, it would be a loss to dis-establish.

As regards baptisms, it's perfectly acceptable for someone who isn't a firm believer in God to act as what's known as a 'sponsor' to a child, rather than a 'god'parent. It's not hypocritical to take part in the service and make promises on that child's behalf, if the parents are intending a Xian upbringing for the child. All our kids have three godparents each, but the youngest has a sponsor and two godmothers.

As to vicars/priests/ministers, they vary wildly of course :wink:

[amner]

As regards baptisms, it's perfectly acceptable for someone who isn't a firm believer in God to act as what's known as a 'sponsor' to a child, rather than a 'god'parent. It's not hypocritical to take part in the service and make promises on that child's behalf, if the parents are intending a Xian upbringing for the child.

Quite. I was a little taken aback at the time, but my discussion with the parents essentially boiled down to 'I won't just be in this for the vol-au-vents and the cheese straws at the end, if junior wants to know stuff then I'll try my best' ... which was the only way forward I could think of. It sounds a bit pompous written down but I wouldn't have done it otherwise. I'll have to do a deal of research if that day ever comes, mind.

[Colyngbourne]

As far as responsibility goes, it begins with understanding from the parents exactly what they are expecting of the role. Godparents are chosen usually for their role in being an adult who can help with guidance with things spiritual in the child's upbringing. But quite often, with a sponsor, the parents feel that it is important that there is another adult connected with the family who is there for the child, who can point out the idea of there being a spiritual dimension in life, other dimensions and qualities beyond the physical and material, if if they are not committed to a particular spiritual belief themselves.

[wshaw]

.... But when you look at the issue objectively, what marriage is all about is pension rights, and whatnot, as JS pointed out, and actually it is a very practical step to take.

I wonder what will happen to gay society once it's allowed to formalise marriages. Some radical gays are anti-marriage because of what they fear it'll do to gay society.

One of the the things conservative society holds against gays and lesbians is that they're - cough - promiscuous. Would that change if they had the same legal rights as we breeders? Many gay/lesbo friends do indeed seem to have far shorter relationships than solidly straight members of the community like me. How much of that is because heterosexuals have a framework of legal obligation that binds them together when the relationship hits a few rocks?

(Against that, two gay friends I've known since they first hooked up at 18. Twenty-five years later they're still together. I don't know any heterosexuals of my generation with that kind of staying power. Unfortunately, the rosy picture of homosexual domesticity has just been shattered this week. They're splitting up... )

[bakunin_the_cat]

I think the reason why the battle lines are being drawn around the word 'Marriage' as opposed to civil unions is because if everybody is married then everybody is theoretically at least being treated the same. If you have one term for same-sex couples and one for 'straight' couples you're already making a distinction. You're saying they are different, when most gay couples do not want special treatment. They want to be treated the same.

If this ever happens, and I optimistically hope it does, then the whole issue of sexuality, like faith or spirituality, can be left to the individual and forgotten.

This is implicitly what the conservative Right fears. For reasons I don't really understand, instead of a world where people recognise differences and just try and get along, they wish to hold on to a world where conformity is a religion and individuality a sin. Maybe it's just fear and ignorance. Maybe it's a wish to keep hold of power, to maintain a grip on people by giving something to blame, something to hate. Maybe it's just jealousy. They're not really happy and don't want others to be any happier. Maybe they're bitter that people dare to do what they did not. Like I said, I don't know. But I know, it's ultimately a battle they can't win.

[m.]

Well, the argument I posted here against the adoption by same sex couples is pretty weak - on the same basis one could say that being brought up by a single parent puts a child at a disadvantage - and in a way it does, but so what?

After posting here I thought I'd ask my friends at work. Not really surprisingly, their position was quite similar to mine, they even used similar arguments and expressions... For all of them adoption was the biggest issue, and it appeared instantenously without any prompting on my part. And their attitude even doesn't seem to be linked directly to religion, one of the guys I asked is atheist, another (I guess) agnostic. One of them after my inquiring why actually gays shouldn't adopt, gave in - 'actually, why not?...' The point is though, that it really is a kind of abstract and irrelevant problem in Poland now and that we are more conservative than you, generally.

Eh, doing my best at trolling, and nothing, nothing at all. ;) But seriously, I'm not sure what's the right thing here.

[John Self]

Just a PS to my message on page 1: I found that poll on US opinion:

(Damn BBC has moved the URL again so this link is dead now, sorry)

[bakunin_the_cat]

The point is though, that it really is a kind of abstract and irrelevant problem in Poland now and that we are more conservative than you, generally.

I don't know the figures but I suspect the percentage of people this applies to in the UK would be pretty small, something of the order of .01% of the total population. In a way though this is irrelevant. Since the law if it existed would be on a moral position, what about the position that discriminating against one couple is one couple too many. Equally I'm not that I'm saying all gay couples should be approved for adoption. As with straight couples some are suitable and some are less so. But is their any real reason why a couple should be denied the chance to adopt just because they happen to be gay? Surely the only criterion should be are they able to provide a stable, loving family environment. Also sorry m. but I don't buy either the argument that they have to have parents of both sexes to know what they're like. No family unit exists in total isolation. Even if the adopted parents are one sex, there is always likely to be a number of people the child has contact with, e.g. family, friends, school teachers etc. Also children often grow up with hetero parents in environments where for whatever reason, there are more of one sex than another, for instance where a boy has two or three sisters, a mother and a
father who is out working most of the time. (I know it's a stereotype but it does still exist) Would people expect the boy to grow up unbalanced as he'd spent too much time with females? Of course not. Would couples in this situation be prevented from adopting a boy. No way.

Anyway I'd better stop now before this gets to rantcon 1, as to paraphrase red dwarf, I haven't got any red light bulbs.


Eh, doing my best at trolling, and nothing, nothing at all. ;) But seriously, I'm not sure what's the right thing here.

Everbody is their own moral judge. I've put forward how I see it. What you see as right is your call.

[NottyImp]

Single-parent families (of either sex) are now pretty much accepted in Western society as being amongst the norm for possible familiy set-ups. Of course, this hasn't always been the case, and the right of the political spectrum still pays lip-service to the nuclear family.

Given that fact, in principle, why should it be worse for a child to be brought up by two men or women, rather than just one? If societal aprobium has faded for single-parent families, why not for gay couples wishing to adopt?

The answer, of course, lies in the word "gay". The residual homophopia still fairly deeply rooted in most societies has more to do with this than models of "ideal" families, whatever the proponents of such might say. The fear that two gay men will "make" a young boy gay as well, or two gay women will "make" their daughter into a man-hating lesbian is what is at work here.

[m.]

Hey guys, I've already admitted my argument wasn't worth too much:

Well, the argument I posted here against the adoption by same sex couples is pretty weak - on the same basis one could say that being brought up by a single parent puts a child at a disadvantage - and in a way it does, but so what?

- but thanks for developing it further. Well, it seems (but I have to think it over yet) that I'm really in the losing position here, because if we exclude religious reasons (and we agreed that religion shouldn't dictate civil legislation) there's probably only the argument of tradition left... And I don't know if this argument can be called 'rational'.

-to be continued-
(can't write right now)

[m.]

When I said it's an abstract and irrelevant problem in Poland I didn't mean that there are fewer gay /les couples interested in adoption in Poland than in UK (though in all probability this is the case) but that people at large aren't interested in discussing this problem. Simply, there are more important issues – really. But I do think it's good to analyse one's own opinions and see what they are really based on, even if the issue isn't the most urgent one at the moment.

[ here was a fragment that I decided to edit out because on rereading it didn't make much sense, just some obvious things and I got lost myself what I had been trying to say. Sorry :? ]

[Eve]

4 pages? I'm lazy.

Let them marry & adopt. Case closed. :lol:

[amner]

4 pages? I'm lazy.

It veers away from Gay marriage, believe me.

[Eve]

I skimmed. Can't see why communism should be brought in to it. :shock:

[Wavid]

The joys of a Palimpular debate.

Tangents a speciality.

[Colyngbourne]

Yup. Though I found it a tad stressful in parts (similarly in our Passion of the Christ discussion), Palimpular digression is as tasty as the main course.

[m.]

...Though I found it a tad stressful in parts...
:? Stressful? Really? You know I'm all the time frustrated in this thread because I come across as a bigot here while elsewhere they think I'm a crazy liberal (on this issue), and I seem never to say what I want to say, but generally I rather enjoy it. :D

edit: well, on second thoughts, if I'm to be totally sincere, it's been slightly stressful for me too at times - when I think you may think I have some idiotic attitude towards homosexual people. This isn't a subject I could enjoy coming across as a bigot - I meant enjoying the discussion.

[Colyngbourne]

Oh, I enjoy it too but the necessary arguments for defending my position don't always come easily to me, and as one of the few (so it seems) faith-believers on the board, I panic at how to represent my argument so that I don't come across as an idiot, or belligerent either, and also don't fail to justify what I believe clearly.

Sometimes my two pennorth seem a little too lightweight when I'm hunting for the right way to present my thoughts. Defending a belief in God is rather hard to do and hence somewhat stressful for me.

[Wavid]

m. - do not be concerned. No one thinks you come across as a bigot. The point of this site is that people can put their points across in an intelligent way - as long as that is done I don't think anyone could be accused of bigotry, however much they may disagree with you.

I know what you both mean about the stresses of posting what can be highly personal opinions or values, and the possible reaction they might attract.

But it is possible to have a thorough discussion without things turning nasty and personal, and it's something that has been managed on this forum since its conception, despite some tricky subjects (this, and the public schools one spring to mind).

[m.]

Sorry, editing took me so long... :oops:

[amner]

Oh, I enjoy it too but the necessary arguments for defending my position don't always come easily to me, and as one of the few (so it seems) faith-believers on the board, I panic at how to represent my argument so that I don't come across as an idiot, or belligerent either, and also don't fail to justify what I believe clearly.

Sometimes my two pennorth seem a little too lightweight when I'm hunting for the right way to present my thoughts. Defending a belief in God is rather hard to do and hence somewhat stressful for me.

Sod it, just wrote a very long response to this (rather supportive, despite our different POVs on a couple of things Xian) and then deleted it all when a PM came through. Grrr.

Needless to say, Col, lightweight is not a criticism I'd level at your stout defending of belief, and I enjoy them when they come along. So ner.

[bakunin_the_cat]

Oh, I enjoy it too but the necessary arguments for defending my position don't always come easily to me, and as one of the few (so it seems) faith-believers on the board, I panic at how to represent my argument so that I don't come across as an idiot, or belligerent either, and also don't fail to justify what I believe clearly.

Sometimes my two pennorth seem a little too lightweight when I'm hunting for the right way to present my thoughts. Defending a belief in God is rather hard to do and hence somewhat stressful for me.

Adding my humble two pennorth worth, IMHO, Col, you've always managed to present your beliefs about God etc. in a way that's intelligent and non-preachy, which isn't an easy thing to do. I may not always personally agree with your arguments but I enjoy the reasoned debate.

M. , I don't think you're bigoted. And in a way you are right that there are more important issues in the world. If all anybody in the world had to worry about was whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt, then the world would be in a pretty good state. No war, murder, rape, poverty, exploitation, intimidation, disease, starvation,debt. That would be pretty good going really. But this doesn't stop me wanting to improve things here, as well as in less fortunate locations. After all, if Western democracies are supposed to be a model for the world, at least in terms of human rights, then shouldn't it be the best model it can be.

Needless to say, Col, lightweight is not a criticism I'd level at your stout defending of belief, and I enjoy them when they come along. So ner.

ner, ner, ner (= I agree wholehartedly with Amner's statement)

[John Self]

So here we are. Gay marriage - or 'civil partnerships' if you absolutely insist - becomes legal in the UK today, though because of the waiting period once an application is lodged, the first ceremonies will not take place for a couple of weeks. Ironically - given that Northern Ireland was the last place in the UK to decriminalise homosexual acts between men, in 1982 - the first gay marriages will take place in Northern Ireland, as some anomaly of the law means that registration can take place here one day before Scotland, and two days before England (December 19, 20 and 21 respectively).

Unbelievably, even now there are some numpties (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/4492024.stm)opposing the law, on the basis that it 'undermines marriage.' I have never understood this argument. Do they mean that because gay marriage is available, a gentleman who was considering marrying a lady might change his mind and decide to enter into a civil partnership with another chap instead? I think that highly unlikely.

[grendel]

It shall be interesting to see what divorce rates will be like with the gay couples. What would it say about the "hetero-marriage" if the divorce rate is around 50%, and the gay unions divorce rate is significantly less?

[John Self]

I suspect it will be decades before we would have any meaningful statistics. Were you being hypothetical about the (heterosexual) marriage divorce rate, grendel, or is it really 50% in your part of the world? In the UK I think it reached a high of about 40% some years ago and is now slowly declining.

[knovella]

Regarding the divorce rate, I heard Po Bronson talking about his new book on families. Apparently 100 years ago the number of kids raised in single-parent families in the US was higher, and it was even higher still 200 years ago. Early death was one factor, but fathers deserting their families was fairly common. Also, there were more families with step-parents and those headed by grandparents, in the absence of parents. Of course, divorce was illegal, but that didn't stop families from breaking up.

BTW, the current divorce rate in the US is slightly below that of the UK, at about 37%. There is a statistical error common in that some people cite the numbers of one divorce for every two marriages per annum in recent years as a 50% divorce rate, but this is not calculating the actual rate correctly.

[JunkMonkey]

To clarify for rick, in response to his original question: no, gay people cannot get married in the UK. (Or should I say, same sex couples, since presumably some gay people are already married... )

Just to point out that you don't have to be gay to "Get Married" under the new UK law. Just as there is no requirement to consumate a hetosexual marrage under existing UK law there is no reason to expect two people making a Civil Partnership to do so either.

[JunkMonkey]

Regarding the divorce rate, I heard Po Bronson talking about his new book on families. Apparently 100 years ago the number of kids raised in single-parent families in the US was higher,

I seem to remeber reading somewhere that the length of marriages in Victorian times was, on average, about the same as today for the same reasons: death desertion &c.

[John Self]

Just to point out that you don't have to be gay to "Get Married" under the new UK law. Just as there is no requirement to consumate a hetosexual marrage under existing UK law there is no reason to expect two people making a Civil Partnership to do so either.

True, though failure to consummate a heterosexual marriage is grounds for annulment, ie for declaring the marriage never to have lawfully taken place (as distinct from divorce, which ends a lawful marriage); so it's effectively if not actually a requirement. You're right of course about civil partnerships: there would really be no way, for example, to define what for a female same sex couple would constitute 'consummation' of the relationship and what wouldn't. And there's no reason to presume that all male gay couples have penetrative sex. So although the civil partnership 'divorce' laws are based on the Matrimonial Causes Act (which is the root of heterosexual divorce law), presumably there is no equivalent to annulment for non-consummation.

[Stewart]

I see that that one of the first two homosexuals in Britain to be "married" has died one day after the wedding.

[John Self]

Yes he and his partner were allowed special dispensation to skip the waiting period, which is a rare example of bureaucracy showing some compassion.

[m.]

Meanwhile in my country things seem to go in a rather different direction. (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGEUR370022005)

[John Self]

The UK's first 'gay marriage' ceremonies took place today in Belfast. A happy sign of the times was that even in God-fearing, Bible-belting Ulster, the DUP and Free Presbyterians could only summon 40 people to mount a protest. Good looking chaps though.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41136000/jpg/_41136346_protestgays203.jpg

[Colyngbourne]

I was very pleased that the phone connection failed this morning on the Today prog c. 7.20, when a Free Presbyterian was mid-rant re the devilry and abomination of sodomy, and the unworthiness of those Christians who pick and choose which bits of the Bible to follow word-for-word.

[NottyImp]

"...and the unworthiness of those Christians who pick and choose which bits of the Bible to follow word-for-word."Yes, I'm sure he'd never be found doing that.

[amner]

If anyone looks like he needs a bit of back door action it's the miserable twat third from the left in that picture.

Who else has the urge to tippex out the second S in "is sin"?

[wshaw]

My town, Brighton, was busting a gut to have the first official Gay civil partnership to show how gay we all here. While I quite like living in a town where even the straightest councillor was, er... bending over backwards... for that to happen, it's just so perfect that in the end it was Belfast wot won it.

Isn't it lovely that the last place in Britain to legalise homosexuality becomes the first place to have a gay marriage?


"You need to turn yourself away from your sinful lifestyle. You’re an abomination before God," the Rev. James Dawson, a Scottish vicar, told one lesbian couple as they walked past.

"You would be so lucky to have this lady, love," said the woman, referring to her partner. "I’ll see you at the gates of heaven."

Others among the crowd carried posters mocking reactionary views, with the slogans: "Earth is flat" and "Bring back slavery".

"If there was a protest like this in London or Manchester, these people would be laughed off the street," said Andrew Thompson of Belfast Pride, a gay rights group, who added that Northern Ireland, despite an increase in homophobic crime, was becoming more tolerant.

"We’ve had 30 years of mindless crap here, but now more and more people are saying ’Let’s get on with life, let’s live and let live,'" said Mr Thompson.

[JunkMonkey]

Meanwhile their cousins on the Hebrides (and there is a joke just waiting for someone to make it) are getting into martyr mode.


...at a meeting of the Western Isles Council's Policy and Finance Committee last Thursday, councillors decided to outlaw such ceremonies.
It followed complaints by the council's registrars, who said they would be unwilling to carry them out. Consequently, any gay couples on the island will have to make do with legal registration.


The ruling is thought to be unique across the British Isles. While two Scottish councils - Highlands and East Renfrewshire - had voiced doubts about conducting the ceremonies, they have agreed to offer them to couples, following pressure from the Scottish Executive and gay rights campaigners.


But the Western Isles council is showing no willingness to compromise on the issue.

[John Self]

Filling in various online loan applications for a new car (see Top Ten Driving Irritants thread), I see that of all the financial institutions I looked at, the only one which listed 'Civil Partnership' as an option for 'marital status' was our good old mutual friend the Nationwide. Hats off to them.

[Bricklane]

I skimmed. Can't see why communism should be brought in to it. :shock:

haha..hey... communism has to do with almost everything. It's permeating, infiltrating, affecting, even to the lives of dogs, say police dogs. (A thought just jumped to me, wondering if different programms was tailored to train those police dogs at the airports in different countres, say in domecratic and communistic. ):roll:

Ah. gay marriage, not much to say. But not quite understand what's on their minds when people who make tons of fussiness as to the matter of who chooses whom to live with. Isn't it an individual's own interests/preferences? Why there is so much curses and hatred?

[amner]

I was very pleased that the phone connection failed this morning on the Today prog c. 7.20, when a Free Presbyterian was mid-rant re the devilry and abomination of sodomy, and the unworthiness of those Christians who pick and choose which bits of the Bible to follow word-for-word.

Right on.

But since the Bible teaches that death began only after the first sin, then there could not have been millions of years of suffering and dieing before man. Without picking and choosing what we believe from the Bible, this problem is hard to reconcile.

Oh, er. Blimey Charlie, it's not easy this, is it?!

[Sammi]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41136000/jpg/_41136346_protestgays203.jpg
The thing which amuses me is that, if the "one-in-ten" statistic is fact (seems like an okay estimate to me,) then that means that probably nine times more straight people commit sodomy than gay people. (I'd bet large portions of money that, out of fourty people, at least one of them has given/been given a blow job or anal sex. It's just too popular and, according to guys I've heard from on the subject, fun.)

[Saris]

I am living in New Zealand, and Gay marriage has been legal here for over a year. Surprisingly life as we know it has failed to end. As far as I am aware the institute of marriage is still going strong (why its an institute I don't know, do you get a grant for it?), and hasn't come crumbling down around our ears. I am shocked. I was expecting fire and brimstone to come raining down around us the moment it was passed.

Well there you go.

I can understand that for those groups in society for whom this is a sin that you are going to Hell for then it would be a bad thing. However, just because this is now an option for Gay and Lesbian couples, it does not mean that we are going to make you do it yourself. And since when have the actions of people that you dont know, that as far as I am aware don't hurt anyone, become your business when you claim that it comes within the remit of faith / religion / God. I am fairly sure that if God does exist and still takes an interest in what we all get up to, he is quite capable of dealing with it himself.

Religion on the whole is fine. Its the people that get involved in it that I have the problem with. They twist it to fit whatever agenda they want, and then twist it back when it suits.

I will will have time for religious people when they can come to me with facts. You can believe whatever you want, just dont interfere with me or mine untill you can back up you argument with facts and logic.

And for all those who argue that millions of people can't be wrong, um yes they can. If we work on the basis of 'I believe so its true' then Aliens have been amongst us for years, Father Christmas lives at the North Pole and the Tooth Fairy has a bottomless pot of gold that she probably got from the bottom of a rainbow.

If you are going to argue it, them prove it. Dont tell me that something is wrong because you believe it to be wrong, or that God says its wrong, prove that its wrong.

[Hinton]

The world doesn't seem to be ending in San Francisco either.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/03/05/notes030504.DTL

[NottyImp]

And since when have the actions of people that you dont know, that as far as I am aware don't hurt anyone, become your business when you claim that it comes within the remit of faith / religion / God.

A good point, well made. Sadly, many religious folk of an Evangelic bent claim God exhorts them to save our souls (of course, if he didn't damn us in the first place, that wouldn't be a problem, would it?), which they think gives them the carte blanche they need to interfere in any aspect of another person's life.

[Hekaterine]

As far as I am aware the institute of marriage is still going strong (why its an institute I don't know, do you get a grant for it?)

It's also known as an institution and I don't want to live in one of those either!

It's interesting, isn't it, that same-sex couples are fighting for a right they have been denied (in this case, marriage) and there is so little in the way of rights for those people (of whatever sexual orientation) who choose to cohabit but not marry.

Hekaterine

[Colyngbourne]

Isn't it to do with 'if in the eyes of the law, someone isn't prepared to undertake a contract that states their relationship, obviously there is no contract that can assert the rights or demands of that relationship in terms of other legal things - pension rights, division of effects when the relationship ends etc.'?

Which is why it's fair to create a contract for same-sex relationships that equates legally to the contract of marriage.

[John Self]

It's interesting, isn't it, that same-sex couples are fighting for a right they have been denied (in this case, marriage) and there is so little in the way of rights for those people (of whatever sexual orientation) who choose to cohabit but not marry.

I don't buy this argument - though I am not sure if you yourself are making it, Hekaterine, or just flagging its existence up for our attention. Yes, partners who don't marry or enter a civil partnership, will not (necessarily) have pension rights, rights of survivorship, next of kin rights etc - so they presumably must not want them, otherwise they would get married/civil partnershipped. Rights generally come with responsibilities, so if you want the rights that come with legal recognition of your relationship (which is all marriage/civil partnership is), you also have to accept the responsibilities of the legal commitment. I don't see any contradiction or unfairness in that at all.

EDIT: Col's post appeared while I was typing mine.

[Hekaterine]

Isn't it to do with 'if in the eyes of the law, someone isn't prepared to undertake a contract that states their relationship, obviously there is no contract that can assert the rights or demands of that relationship in terms of other legal things - pension rights, division of effects when the relationship ends etc.'?

Which is why it's fair to create a contract for same-sex relationships that equates legally to the contract of marriage.

I absolutely agree that it's fair that same sex couple should have that right, I was highlighting an interesting issue.

I'm still not sure I want to have any sort of contract that states my relationship, but maybe I would thus need to take the consequences...

Hekaterine

[ono no komachi]

I'd've thought that part of the point of a cohabitation arrangement would be to maintain a certain level of independence that would no longer exist were the participants to be married.

[ono no komachi]

Apologies, being pressed for time yesterday, I may have seemed a little brusque.

I suppose my feelings in this area are influenced by a (perhaps mistaken) idea that there are some common reasons for people to get married, e.g. wanting to make a lifelong commitment, wanting to formalise a partnership, or wanting to create a legal framework, for example where a partner has children independent of the other partner.

On the other hand, heterosexual couples who choose not to marry may have any number of different reasons for their choice, including a desire to ensure that any future parting of the ways (which no-one thinks is going to happen when they embark on a relationship) be as uncomplicated as possible. Presumably, if the current proposals are implemented, dissolving such an arrangement is going to be almost, if not as difficult as getting divorced.

[John Self]

Presumably, if the current proposals are implemented, dissolving such an arrangement is going to be almost, if not as difficult as getting divorced.

I'm not sure what proposals you mean, ono?

In any event getting a divorce isn't hard. All you need is one of five things:

1. Unreasonable behaviour
2. Adultery
3. Desertion
4. Two years' separation (spouse's consent needed)
5. Five years' separation (spouse's consent not needed)

Frankly unreasonable behaviour is a broad church and many couples who want to get divorced amicably, but don't want to wait two years, are happy to agree some mild instances of unreasonable behaviour between them and then push the divorce through on the nod. Even if it's not amicable, if one party issues a petition on unreasonable behaviour, provided the allegations are not too wild, their spouse is unlikely (having received legal advice) to dispute it, because if they successfully dispute it, the divorce will not be granted, and they usually want it just as much as the petitioning spouse does.

[ono no komachi]

Sorry John, it's a bit of an old story now, but I was referring to this discussion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5033822.stm) of a few weeks ago.

I personally have done the two years' separation divorce thing, and while I agree that it's not the most complicated thing in the world, I personally found it added considerably to the whole emotional turmoil of a relationship ending.

It's one reason I wouldn't suggest getting married to my current partner, though of course I have no intention of ever dissolving the relationship.

[John Self]

Iris Robinson, Northern Ireland MP and Assembly Member, and wife of the First Minister and leader of the DUP Peter Robinson, has been in the news recently for saying (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7439661.stm) on a local radio show that homosexuality is "an abomination" and that gay people should seek "counselling."

When challenged in a later TV interview, she compounded (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7447850.stm) her idiocy by comparing gay people to murderers: "just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ, so can a homosexual. ... If anyone takes issue, they're taking issue with the word of God."

She needs to brush up on her Bible studies - she seems to be taking her stance from the teachings in Leviticus and the rest of the Torah and ignoring the teachings of Christ, who never condemned homosexuality. Wouldn't this technically make her a Jew rather than a Christian?

But apart from that, what's appalling is that any politician in Great Britain who said these things would be sacked immediately. Please help put pressure on the party, or at least embarrass them further, by signing the petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Robinson-Gay/) to the Prime Minister for Robinson to be condemned for her comments. It already has 1,600 signatures. All you have to do is put i your name and address (your address will not be made public) and then click on the link they email to you.

Remember: love the sinner, hate the sin!

[Noumenon]

Wow. Sometimes I wonder if the fundies say this kind of thing just so they can get other people to say "Jesus Christ", even if in tones of disgust.

[beer good]

Would have signed if not for that pesky citizenship requirement. To drag up an old favourite:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b339/beergood/avatarer/leviticus-1.gif

In related news, Norway makes gay marriage legal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080611/lf_afp/norwaygayrights_080611183615) along with adoption for gay couples and insemination for lesbians. Crap. They got there before us.

[John Self]

Nice gif. I've tried to report Robinson's friendly gay-fixin' psychiatrist (http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Gay-row-doctor-defends-claims.4163211.jp)to the General Medical Council for carrying out work in contradiction to the Royal College of Psychiatrists' position on homosexuality. You probably have to be a patient though.

[kirsty]

Thanks for the link JS. I heard about this on the radio the other morning, and couldn't believe it. Have signed the petition, and will forward it on.

[wshaw]

Thanks. I too have passed it on to some of the more sinful of my friends.

I note from the BBC news clip that Iris Robinson, upholding the need to obey the word of God, appears to pick and choose her abominations a little.

Is that a gold chain around her neck? Tsk tsk. (1 Peter 3:3: Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing.") And I suspect that delightful M&S top she's wearing may fall foul of Leviticus 19:19: "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." And let's hear it for the first letter to the Corinthians, 14:34 "Women should remain silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but must be subordinate, as the Law says."

Good God. I bet she even eats shellfish.

[amner]

Good God. I bet she even eats shellfish.

Anyone who's read Tipping The Velvet will be smirking happily at that thought.

[John Self]

It now has almost 2,000 signatures, not bad for four days. I've emailed it to everyone I know.

[kirsty]

Anyone who's read Tipping The Velvet will be smirking happily at that thought.

:lol:

[amner]

Because there are so many signatories, only the most recent 500 are shown on this page.

That's what we like to see!

[John Self]

Yep, over 500 added today so far.

Saw Bernard MacLaverty's name on there. Good man yourself.

[John Self]

A local gay rights group have produced this guide to reporting Iris Robinson to the police for hate crime offences. I liked the description of the offender. "Thin lips." It also provides a partial transcript of the exchange with radio talk show host (and widely believed to be, well, you know) Stephen Nolan:

HOW TO REPORT IRIS ROBINSON FOR
HOMOPHOBIC HATE OFFENCES

Go to:

http://www.psni.police.uk/index/hate_crime_reporting.htm?x=89&y=20

Click on the “Report Hate Crime” box.

For the question “What was the Motive behind the Incident ?” use the drop box to enter: “homophobic”.

For the question “Are you the victim or the witness” click “victim” if you are lesbian, gay or bisexual and “witness” if you are straight.

Under “the incident” section enter the following:

The incident was a radio-telephone interview between Mr Stephen Nolan and Mrs Iris Robinson MP/MLA. Below is the reason I perceive it to be a hate crime perpetrated by homophobia:

Comments made by Iris Robinson MP MLA - BBC Radio Ulster, Friday 6 June 2008, 9.15am approximately

Stephen Nolan: Do you think for example that homosexuality is disgusting?

Iris Robinson: Absolutely

Stephen Nolan: Do you think that homosexuality should be loathed?

Iris Robinson: Absolutely

Stephen Nolan: Do you think it is right for people to have a physical disgust towards homosexuality?

Iris Robinson: Absolutely

Stephen Nolan: Does it make you nauseous?

Iris Robinson: Yes

Stephen Nolan: Do you think that it is something that is shamefully wicked and vile?

Iris Robinson: Yes, of course it is, it’s an abomination.

Mrs Robinson was also quoted as saying that all gay people should seek therapy and counselling to 'cure' themselves away from homosexuality. This I found particularly threatening.

I perceive this to be a hate crime as, in my interpretation and perception, is in breach of the following:
Article 9 of the Public Order (NI) Order 1987,provides:-
"9.—(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up hatred or arouse fear; or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances hatred is likely to be stirred up or fear is likely to be aroused thereby." [Note GB legislation only refers to "threatening".]

Article 8, as amended by Article 3 of the Criminal Justice (No 2)(NI) Order 2004, provides:-
8. "In this part—
"fear" means fear of a group of persons in Northern Ireland defined by reference to religious belief, [sexual orientation, disability], colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;
"hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in Northern Ireland defined by reference to religious belief, [sexual orientation, disability], colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."

For the question “When did the incident take place” enter “Friday 6 June”.

For the question regarding incident time enter “9.15 am”.

For the “where did the incident take place” enter “The incident took place on the Nolan BBC Radio show on Radio Ulster during a telephone interview.”

For the question “Where you or the victim injured?” enter “No” (this relates to physical injury).

For the question “Did any loss or damage to property result from incident?” enter “No” again.

For the question “Where there any witnesses” enter “yes” and “The listeners of the programme”.

For “How many offenders were there?” enter “one”.

Enter “Yes” for “Do you know them?” and “Can you name them?” and provide the following details: “Iris Robinson c/o DUP HQ, 91 Dundela Avenue, Belfast BT4 3BU”.

Under “Can you describe the offenders?” enter “Woman, middle-aged, white, shoulder length brown hair, thin lips, brown eyes” (or something similar).

Offender ethnicity is “white”. “Did they have a vehicle” enter “No”

Then enter your personal details, including name and address if you want to provide these, and click “no” under “Do you want to be contacted by a Minority Liaison Officer”.

Press submit.

[Ophelia]

I am against gay marriage because it will only lead to gay divorce and you just know that's gonna get bitchy.

[pandop]

And I suspect that delightful M&S top she's wearing may fall foul of Leviticus 19:19: "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

Actually, that only applies to linen/wool blends (shantnaz I think), and they aren't easy to come by these days (there has been much discussion of this in a knitting community I belong to)

Incidentally, 41 years ago another marriage barrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) was kicked down

[wshaw]

Actually, that only applies to linen/wool blends (shantnaz I think), and they aren't easy to come by these days (there has been much discussion of this in a knitting community I belong to)

Incidentally, 41 years ago another marriage barrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) was kicked down

Pandop, I'm fascinated by the in-depth expertise of your knitting community.

Incidently the petition is up to about 3,000 signatures now, though checking through, my signature doesn't appear to be on the list, despite the fact I confirmed my email yesterday. Have any other signatories checked it? Is there a lag?

[Noumenon]

I just signed and was added immediately. There was a click-link-to-confirm email sent for the clicking before my power was fully wielded, have you done so?

[John Self]

New signatories are added to the bottom of the list, not the top, wshaw; did you look there? If you signed yesterday it won't be among the latest 500 signatures anyway, so you'd need to trawl through all 3,100 (at present). Good luck with that.

[amner]

You were there, wshaw. Saw you yesterday.

[wshaw]

You were there, wshaw. Saw you yesterday.

Though I can't find myself, I'm reassured. There's nothing an evangelical fundamentalist likes more than a bit of persecution. It makes them feel Christ-like, and I'm always glad to help.

[John Self]

Now over 4,300 signatures on the Iris Robinson petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Robinson-Gay/), and it's in the top 40 most popular petitions (I heard the chart rundown yesterday).

[wshaw]

Now over 4,300 signatures on the Iris Robinson petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Robinson-Gay/), and it's in the top 40 most popular petitions (I heard the chart rundown yesterday).

I love the idea of the petition chart rundown, with the ghost of Alan Freeman presenting. Is there really such a thing? Incidentally, it seems to be in the top 40 with a bullet, picking up signatories faster than any of the last 1000 petitions created.

[JunkMonkey]

And in at number 40, poll-pickers it's...

[beer good]

I try my best to be a cynic, but this story (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/16/samesex.couple/index.html?section=cnn_latest) honestly moved me.

[wshaw]

[wipes tear from eye in a kind of manly way]. Yes. Indeed. Not everything is crap in the world.

[Stradlater]

Aw! What an amazing couple.

[Hekaterine]

What a great news report. And covered well by the journalist themselves too. Great subject, well written.

I was filling up a bit too.

I'm so pleased Del Martin's daughter was there and happy for the couple - gives the lie to these idiots who want to refuse to allow gay couples to adopt!

[John Self]

Without wishing to sound cruel, I hope they both die before November, when the referendum on the issue will no doubt render the law void - again.

[kirsty]

I saw the same story on the USA Today website yesterday when someone sent it to me, but the story was, well, less well received by the commenters. Some people are just such *idiots*:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/they-do-first-s.html?loc=interstitialskip

[John Self]

Sorry kirsty, I ain't gonna click that link. What would be the point?

In good news, the Iris Robinson petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Robinson-Gay) is now in the all-important top 20 of most subscribed petitions, with almost 6,000 signatures.

[beer good]

November, when the referendum on the issue will no doubt render the law void - again.
As I understood it, the reason it was made legal now was because the law against it was found unconstitutional - which means it would take more than a simple referendum to reinstate it, they're going to have to amend the constitution, which is a slightly different matter... of course, I wouldn't be surprised if they do, but one can always hope. And one article I saw had a poll that showed a majority against a constitutional ban.

(Naive, I know...)

[amner]

Sorry kirsty, I ain't gonna click that link. What would be the point?

You're right, of course. I started, and now I'm angry. Wankers.

[Noumenon]

A minor connection to the subject of the petition (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7490997.stm).

[aemy]

Don't despair, all right- (um, more'n likely left-) thinking and stalwart souls. If it can happen in sometimes wishy-washy Canada, it can happen anywhere. And it did happen here - June 28, 2005. The third country to make same-sex marriage legal, preceded only by the Netherlands and Belgium.

Strategy to consider: find ways - other than this issue - to radically divide a party (e.g., the Liberals; Chretien was PM and fellow Liberal Paul Martin would have killed for the position. In the furor which followed, all possible members of the electorate were courted - so to speak.)

The Win for legal same-sex marriage in 2005 ... 158 to 133.

Sorry, can't do the link in that smooth green-line sophisticated way (all advice gratefully received) but the url is:

www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html)


And Stephen Harper (now Conservative Prime Minister) is busy privatising much of our nation-wide universal health care system, and making huge cuts to various levels of education. He's not bothered much by same-sex marriage at the moment. More money and corporate support to be found in fresh fields and pastures new.

Nice synopsis by the CBC .. including Martin's allusion to Canda's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a legacy of the controversial but judicially independent-minded Pierre Trudeau.

I like this country.

[Colyngbourne]

Sorry, can't do the link in that smooth green-line sophisticated way (all advice gratefully received) but the url is:


When posting, if you click the icon above the text panel that is the little blue world + chainllink, you can then paste the URL of your link into that pop-up box. After clicking OK, the URL will appear properly formatted in the text box but with the middle bit highlighted. Change that middle bit to whatever you like, as your wording for the link. That should work :-D

[aemy]

Thanks, Col.

I'll try to remember.

[John Self]

Iris Robinson takes her campaign of stupidity further:

"Gays more vile than child abusers" (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/iris-gays-more-vile-than-child-abusers-13913517.html)

[Adr.]

Just when I thought she couldn't sink any lower...

[beer good]

But she's saying it out of love! Stop persecuting her! :roll:

[Adr.]

Iris Robinson tries to backtrack:

"I clearly intended to say that child abuse was worse than even homosexuality and sodomy ... At no point have I set out to suggest homosexuality was worse than child sex abuse."

'erm...yes you did, Iris. If you clearly intended to say that child abuse was worse than even homosexuality and sodomy, you should have said it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/22/northernireland.gayrights

[John Self]

It doesn't really wash. Even if she's now accepting that she's just not very good at expressing herself - even though she did so very clearly in the debate recorded by Hansard - she still maintains that homosexuality is "comparable" to child abuse.

“I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable. I feel totally repulsed by both.”

Which was her response when the Belfast Telegraph asked her for clarification. I presume she's now been told by the DUP press office to shut up and not respond to any more questions on it while the spin doctors do the talking for her.

What's most appalling is that she wasn't immediately sacked, either after the first comments or after these. Still, the petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Robinson-Gay)for her to be reprimanded is now the seventh most popular on the PM website, with almost 11,000 signatures in six weeks.

[JunkMonkey]

I'm fascinated by her automatic assumption (and she is not alone in this) that homosexuality and buggery automatically follow one another, like night follows day. I remember hearing / reading Armistead Maupin saying he had been living with his partner for years and had only tried anal sex once - and not repeated the experiment.

I just marvel at the logic that says a happily married heterosexual couple who occasionally like to play games in bed are comparable to predatory peadophiles.

[John Self]

I'm pleased to see that in the interests of balance, a rival petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Iris-is-right/) has been set up on the PM's website calling for Iris Robinson to remain unreprimanded for her comments.

It has 42 signatures, against the original petition's 12,000. Some of the signatories have unusual names:

believe Iris Robinson should resign after her latest outrageous comments against gay people

Iris Should Resign She Shares Power with Terrorists Anyway

have the right to express my view that Iris Robinson must go

Nathan Anderson is a closet gay (just like all Free P/Paisleyites)

find Iris Robinsons remarks about homosexuality to be vile and loathsome

think Iris Robinson is a disgrace and must resign immediatly for saying such hurtful things

and of course, Jessica Smyth.

[John Self]

Local pisspoor Glenda Slagg clone Gail Walker has weighed into the gay/liberal/DUP row with her column (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/gail-walker/gail-walker-why-media-row-with-iris-just-doesnrsquot-add-up-13918156.html)in Tuesday's Belfast Telegraph.

I have submitted the following comment (hard to keep a rant within 500 characters), which may or may not appear after moderation.

I know that building bricks without straw is an occupational hazard of writing a regular column, but even by Gail Walker's standards, this piece is ill thought out.

"Ireland is united on abortion," she says, without checking recent polls (see "Abortion in Ireland" on Wikipedia) which show 35-45% support for abortion on demand.

To suggest that equality for gay people is espoused "only by the spokespeople themselves" who are "freaks" representing "nobody but themselves" is offensive not only to every gay person in NI but also to people like me and everyone I know, who opposes discrimination against homosexuals.

In fact it's those who oppose homosexuality who are at the bottom of the poll: an Ipsos/MORI survey in Feb 06 showed 88% of NI people oppose discrimination against homosexuals. (Google for "observer mori gay northern ireland")

Below the window where I am typing, it says that offensive comments will be removed. Does this also apply to offensive columnists?

[ono no komachi]

It amuses me* that those of a conservative bent (if I may use that term without causing offence, to paraphrase the extremely irritating start of Ms Walker's article) characterise those who are pro-choice as being 'pro-abortion' as though we are all gaily attempting to encourage women to get pregnant so they can have an abortion because they're so much fun.

Your comment is admirably restrained, JS, I'm not sure which is worse, the views themselves or the blithe assumption that everyone shares them.

*When I say amuses, of course I mean annoys the hell out of.

[Beth]

Just clicked on the ''view all comments'' link at the bottom of Walker's vomitus, and nothing comes up. Can't be.

[John Self]

The Iris Robinson petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Robinson-Gay/), which has now gathered over 15,000 signatures, closes tomorrow. Will be interesting to see the Prime Ministerial response.

[JunkMonkey]

The Prime Minister's Office speaks.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page16526

There is no constitutional role for the Prime Minister to reprimand individual Members of Parliament who are accountable to their electorate for their own comments.

[Hekaterine]

Does that mean her electorate can string her up if they want to then?

I'll help.

[Noumenon]

I just spotted this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7572163.stm), thought here would be the best place to make mention.

[beer good]

Without wishing to sound cruel, I hope they both die before November, when the referendum on the issue will no doubt render the law void - again.
Without wishing to make you feel bad, you weren't far off (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_re_us/obit_martin_2). :-(

[John Self]

Erk. Must... use... powers... for good...

[Noumenon]

I noticed that Iris Robinson's thoughts had found their way onto that Fundies Say the Darndest Things site a few days ago.

[Colyngbourne]

This gives a little hope after the disappointment of losing the anti-Prop 8 vote:

Gay couples to marry in Connecticut (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD94DFJ780)

[Stewart]

The Pope outlines his plans for a bit of festive gay bashing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7796663.stm). The Daily Mash responds (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/pope-calls-for-cap-on-gay-emissions-200812231477/).

[Daveybot]

A neat graphic (http://www.geocities.com/patrick_farley/gayMarriageChart-large.png)

[Adr.]

So, a man in a dress is worried about the blurring of gender roles...

[beer good]

Here's a charming ultimatum:

Catholic Church in Washington DC: Legalise gay marriage and we'll let homeless people starve. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html)

[Noumenon]

Here's a charming ultimatum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0&feature=player_embedded): or something.

[BiNS]

I thought this (http://www.bigdumbhick.com/2010/01/no-more-special-rights-for-homos.html) was going to be a fundie rant.

[John Self]

"A warm welcome awaits all guests at Suzanne Wilkinson's Swiss Bed and Breakfast (http://www.swissbedandbreakfast.co.uk/) in the idyllic village of Cookham, near Maidenhead in Berkshire." All guests, that is, except gay ones (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8578787.stm).

[ono no komachi]

I am not a hotel, I am a guest house and this is a private house.

Quite aside from the dodgy semantics of "I am a guest house"; it's not a private house if you are charging people to stay there, it is a business. Presumably she has to abide by the tax laws, why does she think the anti-discrimination laws don't apply to her business?

[JunkMonkey]

Wait? What? You mean you're not allowed to put a notice saying 'No Blacks, No Irish, No Poofs' any more? I dunno, what is the country coming to?

[Daveybot]

Wait? What? You mean you're not allowed to put a notice saying 'No Blacks, No Irish, No Poofs' any more? I dunno, what is the country coming to?

...And yet you are allowed to put signs in shops saying 'no youths', or 'no more than 2 children at a time'. So prejudice isn't dead yet - hooray!

[Ang]

No shirt, no shoes, no service. (This sign was very prevalent in my home town in Iowa but I can't say I've seen it anywhere else!)

[KevinfromCanada]

No shirt, no shoes, no service. (This sign was very prevalent in my home town in Iowa but I can't say I've seen it anywhere else!)

Both my local convenience store and liquor store put up exactly that sign every May. Guess it is a North American thing.

[loupgarous]

I don't have a problem with it personally. I can see how, politically, it's more contentious than it ought to be, because straight conservatives see it as one more leftist issue they ought to oppose on general principles, while fundamentalists and Catholics are required by their religious leaders to oppose it. Not that it takes a whole lot of urging for most folks in those sects. You have to have a friend or close relative who is gay to have your conscience raised on the matter, seems like (my wife's brother was before he died of AIDS).

Here in Denver, the Catholic Archdiocese made a great show of expelling a little girl from a Catholic pre-school because her parents were lesbians, which I think took very little guts and a lot of spite. But that's just my take on it. Meanwhile, the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver doesn't seem to be expelling kids whose parents may be heterosexual couples cohabiting without benefit of marriage, so their moral authority isn't the greatest, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm straight, but I don't think that gayness is any more evil than heterosexuality. Plenty of scope for good and evil moral behavior in both groups.

[loupgarous]

I thought this (http://www.bigdumbhick.com/2010/01/no-more-special-rights-for-homos.html) was going to be a fundie rant.
Nope. It was a liberal one.

[loupgarous]

Quite aside from the dodgy semantics of "I am a guest house"; it's not a private house if you are charging people to stay there, it is a business. Presumably she has to abide by the tax laws, why does she think the anti-discrimination laws don't apply to her business?
Not to mention Ms Wilkinson's evident confusion as to what she is: the proprietor of a guest house, not a guest house herself. I've stayed in both types of places while living in England, but don't know what the exact law is distinguishing a guest house from a hotel. Going by her Web site, I don't see that the services she offers are easily distinguishable from hotel services, except in the matter of swimming pool availability.

Ms Wilkinson's in the position of wanting to offer services to the general public without complying with the rules appertaining to those in that business. Further, it could be argued that she gave no advance notice to prospective guests that she was a bigot, so that when the meeting of the minds (to use a term of legal art) occurred online or over the telephone and her guests made a reservation to stay in her B&B, she was in the position of having made a contract on which she defaulted.

Maybe she could have an ideographic symbol denoting her aversion to gays on her Web site - circle and slash through the word "gay," or perhaps a simple swastika á droit.

It would be controversial to say that Christian beliefs cover Ms. Wilkinson's preferences in the matter, as many Christian sects make a practice of trying to include gays to as great a degree as possible in the life of the community; of course, there are other Christian (and other faith) sects which demonize gays to as great a degree as legalism in faith allows.

I'm honestly curious as to which Christian sect Ms. Wilkinson claims membership in. The Archbishop of Canterbury has gone as far as pointedly not inviting gay bishops from the Episcopal Church of the United States to the Lambeth conference of bishops from throughout the Anglican Communion, so perhaps Ms. Wilkinson is taking her lead from Canterbury, who has implied several times that we in the Episcopal Church are in jeopardy of being ejected from Anglicanism worldwide for failing to exclude gays from our church life.

Which works for me; I wouldn't want to belong to a worldwide religious convocation that would have me as a member (paraphrasing Groucho Marx). I made a very careful decision to become an Episcopalian over thirty years ago and have remained faithful to that decision. I have viewed many things that my church leadership has done as very ill-advised (the 1984 Hymnal was a mistake, I still hold) but our stance on gay members is consistent with Christian values, in my humble opinion. I grieve that the Anglican Communion has recoiled in horror from our decision to treat people decently, but that is their decision to make, not mine.

Here endeth the rant.

[Colyngbourne]

I think the issue with Lambeth is not about treating people decently but the decision being taken without agreement or consultation with the wider Anglican church. The Windsor Report was about the decision-making process (and the lack of) in the context of agreed and signed-up statements from all the parties concerned. The Episcopal church had said they wouldn't consecrate a gay bishop but went ahead and did it, knowing it would cause ructions elsewhere. Canterbury is trying to example how to hold people together who disagree or who are in tension, regardless of his own personal convictions on the matter. He's in a cleft stick. Me, I have no problem with gay or lesbian bishops but I do think the process of staying in communion with the rest of the church is crucial too, and that's where the American consecrations are difficult.

A guest house is just as responsible to the law as a hotel. Isn't it a clear case of discrimination.