If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Gay Marriage
This discussion has been closed.
Essential support for under 25s
Comments
Or maybe if any of them had at least a thought-provoking (yet not agreeable) reason they were still too worried about the undoubted "Pitchforks!!!" backlash?
You're quite right in the most uninteresting and unimportant of ways: we haven't heard every single person give their reason for voting. There might well be one MP who has a super-duper-starship-trooper reason for voting against gay marriage. In fact it's so good they're jealously guarding it for themselves and not broadcasting it at all.
So rather than speak up (i.e. the job they're paid to do) in the hope of convincing others to side with them, they decided to quietly vote against it anyway with no explanation, and have everyone assume it was for bigoted reasons anyway?
Nobody is suggesting there's a "super-duper" reason. The point I'm trying to make is the attitude of not bothering to at least hear their reasons before labelling them evil bigots is fucking sickening for a site like this.
I'm not sure it matters. It is a vote against equality.
As others have said, I have yet to come across a reason which is not based in prejudice, but I would be genuinely interested to hear one.
That's right, because MPs have nothing better to do than answer each and every one of their decisions within hours of making them.
Basically her previous voting record gives her the benefit of the doubt. That and she's just completely torpedoed any last chance she had of getting re-elected.
I agree. There isn't a reason to vote against equal rights.
Finally a voice of reason.
I agree that there's unlikely to be a valid reason (or at least a reason valid enough to placate the rabid lefties for 5 seconds). However the point I'm making is that people don't even seem interested in finding out what it is, other than someone earlier who emailed their MP only to find out he wasn't present for the vote.
So why not ask them directly (to at least try) to justify their stance as someone did earlier? Is it because it's easier to write them off as bigots?
Incidentally, there is one rational reason to vote against it, and that's because you don't believe that the government should be involved in recognising any personal relationships. I've never heard a politician come out with that one though.
Just thought some of you might enjoy this.
For the record, demanding I be treated the same as if I were straight doesn't make me "rabid". Denying me equality is bigotted.
I don't think anyone has suggested it does.
So (not aimed directly at you btw) just to be sure that I'm understanding this correctly, any MP voting 'yes' isn't a bigot but those that voted 'no' are?
Well they can be a bigot for other reasons.
That's not bigotry. That's utter twattery.
You've made this argument a few times. I think we should just knock this on the head now and discuss your other points.
If you voted for the right for gay people to get married, you're 'with' people who support that.
If you abstain or don't have an opinion, you're neither with or against. Maybe you have opinions, maybe you don't. Nobody is really criticising the apathetic in this thread. Find one example. You won't.
If you voted against gay people having the right to marry, then yes, a lot of people will want to know why. The reasons given are generally, 'its not natural' or 'its intrinsically wrong'. These aren't logical arguments, rather are emotive arguments - it doesn't feel right to that person. That doesn't intrinsically make someone a bigot, but it indicates they probably are. That doesn't mean they hate gay people, just that they're intolerant of other people. If they don't explain themselves, then yea, they're probably going to be labelled a bigot.
Hopefully that makes it clear that you don't need to go on a pride march to not be castigated. You just need to not be an accountable, elected representative of the people who votes against people's natural human rights as per the UN without giving any sound reasoning other than 'it feels a bit funny'.
Equalise civil partnerships.
Upgrade any pre-existing state recognised marriage to a civil partnership.
Change all references to marriage in law to exclusively civil partnerships.
Ignore all future marriages.
If the churches don't like it (excuse the expression) sod the lot of them.
Sometimes change is a good thing. The world moves on.
We now know the world is not flat, left handed people aren't witches, black people are not second class citizens, and we are finally starting to realise that homosexual love is every bit as valid as heterosexual love.
I think it probably is homophobic, its one of the reasons a civil partnership isn't equal, in that adultery isn't grounds fo dissolution, because sex isn't part of a homosexual relationship.
Also, I think I could be swayed by your arguments on the state and marriage.
I would agree with that.
Weren't we just discussing whether thesite is' go on Pride or be damned' as you attested, and I disagreed and said "just don't vote against good things with no reason other than intolerance of homosexuality".
Also for calling them bigots, I don't think that was a main feature of the thread prior to your "thesite is raving lefties" argument. I think that they're bigoted is implied, yes, and I think the anti crowd are a bit upset by that, yep.
Same way as the pro apartheid chaps got labelled as racist, poor folks. I'm sure they're doing ok now though :-)
Ooooh I'll look that up. I quit The Moral Maze on the grounds of Melanie Philips' voice.
Change 'can' be good...but not always. In amongst how this new bill will play out I foresee some gay couple (obviously backed and funded by an activist group) trying to take a particular church to court (most likely Strasbourg) as a test case to overturn its right to choose whether or not to allow a gay couple to get married on its premises. I hope I'm wrong about that but I have a feeling it will not turn out well.
Frankly, I don't see why the church can't move on with this like it has on everything else.