I want to know what you think of gay marriage - ballot (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
I want to know what you think of gay marriage
11:20am Tuesday 23rd October 2012 in News By Tom Edwards
VIEWS: Peter Luff MP
PEOPLE in Worcestershire are being asked for their views on gay marriage after a county MP admitted he has yet to make his mind up over it.
Peter Luff, who represents Mid-Worcestershire, wants people to help him by offering their opinions.
He has also revealed a “significant majority” of letters he has received on the debate have been from objectors.
David Cameron wants to legalise same sex marriage by 2015, insisting the Conservative Party has locked out homosexuals for too long, although no date has yet been set.
But the proposal has already attracted objections from the church and some Tory MPs, the latter on the basis it could prove unpopular with some traditional core voters.
Mr Luff said: “I have had passionate e-mails and letters on both sides of the argument, with a significant majority against introducing same sex marriage. So I am aware this is a subject on which my constituents have strong views, but I have only heard from a small minority so far.
“I am anxious to gain a closer understanding of the views of a wider range of people and hope they will respond.
“The results will not determine how I vote – there is always a risk with online surveys of one side of an argument organising a massive vote in favour of their own view.
“I hope, though, that the findings will help me understand views more closely and shape my own thinking on this sensitive and controversial subject.”
Worcester MP Robin Walker has already come out strongly in support of gay marriage, saying “I will vote with my conscience”, despite admitting that it may cost him support.
Mr Walker also told the Worcester News most of his letters and e-mails over the issue have been negative.
The Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Rev Dr John Inge, has previously said he is against “imposing a new meaning on marriage”, putting him at odds with Mr Walker.
West Worcestershire MP Harriett Baldwin, like Mr Luff, has refused to side one way or another so far.
Anyone wanting to get involved in Mr Luff’s survey can visit surveymonkey.com/s/PY8VZRV
Comments(48)
ushmush83
says...
2:11pm Tue 23 Oct 12
Omicron
says...
5:10pm Tue 23 Oct 12
I can't help feeling there is some hidden agenda here. For the government to follow a path which could put the monarch into such a position is absolutely inexcusable, particularly as gay marriage gives no perceived advantage for the vast majority of the population.
To risk the possibility of a constitutional crisis is crazy to say the least.
Doogie 46
says...
5:44pm Tue 23 Oct 12
We don`t seem to label everyone who is in favour of anything a "zealot".
And yes, I agree with MTV - getting other necessary things right would detoxify the conservatives more than a minority issue like gay marriage.
ken001
says...
9:20am Wed 24 Oct 12
worcswolf
says...
10:54am Wed 24 Oct 12
ushmush83
says...
1:33pm Wed 24 Oct 12
Omicron wrote:So should we ban marriage between two people of different religions?
All laws passed by parliament have to have royal assent before they can become law. Just how can the Queen, who is also head of the Church of England, give royal assent to a law that the church disapproves of because of the teachings of the bible.
I can't help feeling there is some hidden agenda here. For the government to follow a path which could put the monarch into such a position is absolutely inexcusable, particularly as gay marriage gives no perceived advantage for the vast majority of the population.
To risk the possibility of a constitutional crisis is crazy to say the least.
Doesn't the bible also teach that women aren't allowed to lead an organised worship to God whilst in the presence of a man? I'm sure the C of E have female preists. It has nothing to do with what is written in the bible, don't kid yourself.
ushmush83
says...
1:35pm Wed 24 Oct 12
Doogie 46 wrote:If i were to suggest that black people should have a separate wedding ceremony and unified designation to white people, I'd quite rightly be called a racist. So could you please explain how distinguishing between straight people and gay people is any different, and therefore not 'extreme'?
Personally I have absolutely no interest one way or the other, but why people who have reservations or objections should be labelled "phobic" or "bigots" (both terms indicate EXTREME opinion or fear) is somewhat puzzling.
We don`t seem to label everyone who is in favour of anything a "zealot".
And yes, I agree with MTV - getting other necessary things right would detoxify the conservatives more than a minority issue like gay marriage.
Omicron
says...
1:43pm Wed 24 Oct 12
worcswolf wrote:I also cannot understand why any gays would want to get "married" in a church as to me it would be the height of hypocrisy. I can only think of one reason and that is that the church provides a nice background that looks good on the wedding photos.
I cannot see why people would want to get married in a church if they knew the church was so opposed to their union. Elton john has enough money to set up his own church thats the answer.
kettle64
says...
4:05pm Wed 24 Oct 12
And as for the charge of "bigots" and "homophobes", take note that Christoper Biggins is amongst those against gay marriage. Many of the comments on various websites suggest that those in favour of gay marriage are more intolerant (i.e. bigotted viewpoint) than those taking a personal stance against gay marriage.
ushmush83
says...
4:36pm Wed 24 Oct 12
It is an anti-equality viewpoint, therefore, bigotted towards the homosexual community. Explain why it is not?
Omicron
says...
5:55pm Wed 24 Oct 12
Firstly marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman for the procreation of children. The wording of a religious marriage ceremony can be altered when it is obvious that the woman may be past child bearing age.
Without going into detail what I suggest is that it would be beneficial for people to actually read the marriage ceremony (it can be found on the internet) and then try to imagine how it could be re-worded to cover two people of the same sex.
To reword or rewrite the religious ceremony to cater for two people of the same sex would destroy the religious significance and if that is the case why bother to get married in a church.
Also I would be intrigued as to what would happen if the church refused to write a religious ceremony for gay marriage as I believe no law could actually be passed to enforce the church to write the words for such a ceremony.
Should the European Union try to force the issue then it would have to be for the whole of Europe in which case they would no doubt be taking on the might of the Catholic church. I know who I would put my money on.
ushmush83
says...
9:45am Thu 25 Oct 12
anarchist
says...
10:10am Thu 25 Oct 12
It doesn't provide equality since that was achieved some time ago by introducing civil partnerships.
And it doesn't reduce discrimination since it actually enshrines religious discrimination in law by providing legal protection for religious institutions who discriminate against religious same sex couples by denying them the right to a religious marriage. It hence seems that the zealot fringe on the pro gay marriage side of this argument is apparently willing to accept religious discrimination against religious same sex couples in exchange for more rights for themselves.
And it doesn't prevent people entering into relationships of their choice since it is only about the way the State registers relationships and hence what name can be applied to describe them. So it is really about the meaning of the word 'marriage'.
There is one group who have an emotionally driven desire to describe their relationships as 'marriage' and another (much larger) group who have an emotional and religiously driven desire to leave the definition as it is now.
I am not religious but I oppose this legislation because i don't see the modest (if any) gains it provides for one group are sufficient to justify the impact it has on the religious convictions of others and the discrimination against religious same sex couples that it enshrines in law.
Robot 3021
says...
10:10am Thu 25 Oct 12
Nonsense. I'd like to know where this "definition" comes from! Since when has procreation had anything at all to do with marriage?
And I don't understand why the church is even being brought into this, it's got nothing to do with getting married in a church, it is just about getting married, two very different things.
Beyond arguing that it is the thin end of the wedge and churches will eventually be forced into carrying out gay weddings, which is baseless scaremongering, I really can't see any arguments against it as it really doesn't impact on anyone negatively in any way whatsoever.
Robot 3021
says...
10:28am Thu 25 Oct 12
I'm not arguing from a standpoint of any strong conviction on this, but I got married in a registry office and can call myself married, so I don't see why a gay couple shouldn't be able to do the same.
On the point about religious discrimination against gay couples being enshrined in law, I guess it would just be confirming what is already the case, and so doesn't change anything? I would imagine (rather like with straight couples if I am correct?) it would be left down to the individual church to decide who they want to marry, and if a church that a gay couple attended didn't want to marry them (fair enough, they shouldn't be forced to), perhaps it isn't the church for them.
Sorry, just rambling really.
anarchist
says...
11:32am Thu 25 Oct 12
Its nice to be able to exchange views and reasoned arguments in a civil and respectful way rather then trade insults (as often seems to happen when this subject comes up).
Robot 3021
says...
12:02pm Thu 25 Oct 12
:)
I'm reasonably happy with the status quo (though not quite whatever you want, whatever you like...), but I'll quite happily rally all day against people who use nonsense arguments such as procreation being an integral part of the definition of marriage, or churches being forced to marry gay couples.
Your reasons are well thought out and logical - I don't agree with them, for the reasons stated above, but at least they are rational and sensible.
iamthebinman
says...
12:54pm Thu 25 Oct 12
Omicron wrote:I have a gay sister is is a Christian and has been with her current partner, unmarried for many happy years. I don`t think they will get married but if they did i`m sure it would be in a church if that option was available.
worcswolf wrote:I also cannot understand why any gays would want to get "married" in a church as to me it would be the height of hypocrisy. I can only think of one reason and that is that the church provides a nice background that looks good on the wedding photos.
I cannot see why people would want to get married in a church if they knew the church was so opposed to their union. Elton john has enough money to set up his own church thats the answer.
My view is let people do what they want to do and dont make people do what they dont want to do. I am sure that my sister wouln`t want to be married by a priest/vicar who was against it.
CDH
says...
12:59pm Thu 25 Oct 12
ushmush83
says...
2:14pm Thu 25 Oct 12
anarchist wrote:anarchist wrote:
It is easy to see that that there are zealots on both sides of this argument but the zealots within the gay community seem far more interested in insulting those who don't share their views rather than explaining why this legislation is necessary and what significant benefits it will bring.
It doesn't provide equality since that was achieved some time ago by introducing civil partnerships.
And it doesn't reduce discrimination since it actually enshrines religious discrimination in law by providing legal protection for religious institutions who discriminate against religious same sex couples by denying them the right to a religious marriage. It hence seems that the zealot fringe on the pro gay marriage side of this argument is apparently willing to accept religious discrimination against religious same sex couples in exchange for more rights for themselves.
And it doesn't prevent people entering into relationships of their choice since it is only about the way the State registers relationships and hence what name can be applied to describe them. So it is really about the meaning of the word 'marriage'.
There is one group who have an emotionally driven desire to describe their relationships as 'marriage' and another (much larger) group who have an emotional and religiously driven desire to leave the definition as it is now.
I am not religious but I oppose this legislation because i don't see the modest (if any) gains it provides for one group are sufficient to justify the impact it has on the religious convictions of others and the discrimination against religious same sex couples that it enshrines in law.
It doesn't provide equality since that was achieved some time ago by introducing civil partnerships.
That isn't equality though is it? If you were to say the same thing to a black person about having their own bus to sit on as being equality, I'm sure you'd get a response just a vehemently condemning! Why do gay people have to be treated differently? I don't get it.
And I don't see how religion comes into it; I am not religious, and have no interest in getting married in a church, but if I do get married, it will be called marriage, the church don't have a say in it, so why should they have a say in whether a gay person can be married or not? Can a muslim be married? Do the church have a say in this? No.
anarchist
says...
4:09pm Thu 25 Oct 12
I have read the 'separate but equal is not equal' material extensively but I don't buy into any of it because it is based largely on a very unconvincing attempt to suggest that there is an equivalence in the harm caused by apartheid and segregation on the one hand and the inability of gay couples to register their relationships as marriages on the other.
Apartheid and segregation impacted on every aspect of millions of people's daily lives. Huge numbers of people suffered very serious, on-going persecution by the authorities; many were wrongly imprisoned and quite a few even lost their lives in pursuit of their cause. To pretend that there is any equivalence between this and the gay marriage registration issue is simply not credible.
Religion comes into this issue because huge numbers of people are religious and most religions want to retain the existing meaning of marriage.
And, of course, religious people have the same rights to lobby for their beliefs as those who support gay marriage do.
ushmush83
says...
5:20pm Thu 25 Oct 12
Of course religious people have the right to believe whatever they want. And of course a church has the right to decide who it should and should not marry on an individual basis. And I also believe that the courts made the wrong decision regarding the couple that were rejected at 'that' B&B, of which i forget the details. However, in this instance, it is purely about equality, or lack there of. And quite frankly, if equality upsets some people, then who gives a ****? I'm sure the suffragettes upset men of their time, but that seems to have passed. At one point in time, atheism was punishable by death, as was sodomy, if the church had it their way, I'm pretty sure this would still be the case. Just because we've come a long way, does not mean that we are there; we should always strive to better our civilisation, which I see as a part of our evolution.
ushmush83
says...
5:21pm Thu 25 Oct 12
imustbeoldiwearacap
says...
7:12pm Thu 25 Oct 12
anarchist
says...
8:44pm Thu 25 Oct 12
I doubt that I would campaign to change the hypothetical situation that you pose since I would probably not find good reasons to change it.
But I also feel the same about the current status quo (remember that I don't share your view that this is an equality issue - I might feel differently if I did).
Biggles
says...
9:24pm Thu 25 Oct 12
.
As far as I'm concerned, marrage, is the union between a man and a woman, just because that is what I was taught.
.
I also do not consider homosexuals to be my equal, in the same way I do not consider many groups who fall outside of the "norm" to be my equal
.
Disabled people, for example, are not my equal, if they were my equal, they would not be disabled, etc etc etc..
.
I consider homosexuals to be no different from anyone else with a chemical inbalance, (or mental illness if you wish).
.
I do not however seek to actively do them any harm, and I never cease to be amazed how people who support homosexuals consider themselves to occupy the moral high ground, and seek to label anybody that doesn't agree with them.
ushmush83
says...
9:15am Fri 26 Oct 12
Would just like to ask though, as ridiculous as this question is, as you see homosexuals being no different to someone with a mental disability, do you oppose people with a mental disability getting married too? Let's face it, they're not your equals, so who cares about their happiness right??
anarchist
says...
11:27am Fri 26 Oct 12
I suspect that everyone of us is abnormal in some aspect of our existence so its pretty meaningless for any of us to claim that we are normal unless we set out exactly what we mean by this
I also wonder whether you are confusing the words 'equal' and 'unequal' with the words 'same' and 'different'. The former pair imply a ranking, that is, if others are not equal to you, they are either superior or inferior. In consequence some are likely to see your words as insulting even if that is not your intention.
In contrast, the words 'same' and 'different' don't carry the same implication and are hence less judgemental of others.
In my view homosexuals have been treated appallingly in the past (and they still are in many countries). And, sadly, much of this persecution has been generated by misplaced religious teaching and dogma.
They hence need the support of others and it is perhaps not surprising that some of this goes too far and turns into reverse discrimination and 1984 style 'thought police' operations conducted by over sensitive and weak minded people in positions of authority.
pinkfluff
says...
12:29pm Fri 26 Oct 12
Biggles wrote:There never has been and never will be anything "normal" about you Biggles lol......behave yourself and get back in your cave you naughty man ;-)
I oppose Homosexual marrage, and I'm proud to say I oppose it. . As far as I'm concerned, marrage, is the union between a man and a woman, just because that is what I was taught. . I also do not consider homosexuals to be my equal, in the same way I do not consider many groups who fall outside of the "norm" to be my equal . Disabled people, for example, are not my equal, if they were my equal, they would not be disabled, etc etc etc.. . I consider homosexuals to be no different from anyone else with a chemical inbalance, (or mental illness if you wish). . I do not however seek to actively do them any harm, and I never cease to be amazed how people who support homosexuals consider themselves to occupy the moral high ground, and seek to label anybody that doesn't agree with them.
RichE76
says...
9:02pm Fri 26 Oct 12
If two people love each other and want to get married, what business of yours is it?!?! Jog on and mind your own business!!
anarchist
says...
10:36pm Fri 26 Oct 12
But when they seek to do this, they are specifically asking for other citizens to recognise their relationship, at which point it clearly becomes other people's business as well as their own.
RichE76
says...
11:54pm Fri 26 Oct 12
Biggles
says...
12:36am Sat 27 Oct 12
anarchist
says...
12:37am Sat 27 Oct 12
One group of people have an emotionally driven desire to change the definition of marriage so that it can be used to describe their gay relationships.
Another much larger group of people have an emotionally and religiously driven desire to retain the existing definition of marriage.
Both groups clearly feel that this proposal impacts on them since it would not have proved so contentious if this were not the case.
Biggles
says...
1:14am Sat 27 Oct 12
.
I am inside the definition of "normal, or The norm" that I was taught, we can only assess ourselves by the teaching we have recieved.
.
I will use words like "equal" and "unequal" etc, as I've had a very formal education, and I've lived a very large part of my life within a rank structure.
.
I actually remember being balloted on whether we wished to serve alongside homosexuals, a couple of times I seem to remember, although I can't remember the exact years, I think it was in the 1980's, on the first occasion I was a non commisioned officer, on the second occasion I was a commisioned officer, both times I believe the results were a resounding no we didn't wish them amongst us, but I can't recall if I ever knew the breakdown of the results, it was my own feeling that the commisioned side of things were slightly more tolerant of this sort of thing , than the rank and file were.
.
You will also need to know that we didn't wish to serve alongside women either, and in those days women were very restricted in regards to what duties they were allowed to perform, and homosexuality was an absolute "dishonourable discharge" activity.
.
During my childhood, (although I wouldn't have known what homosexuality was), it was actually illegal.
.
I know they have been treated very badly in the past, very sadly in some cases, some great men have been imprisoned and even driven to suicide, very heroic men.
.
I'm afraid I still cannot get to grips with this equality thing, and the need to shout about this chemical imbalance, even parade it around, and try to have it accepted as normal behaviour.
.
I cannot understand why some homosexual people cannot just get on with their lives.
.
I hope that answers some of your questions as to why I hold the views I do, and I am actually very impressed at the restraint shown on this thread.
Biggles
says...
1:26am Sat 27 Oct 12
ushmush83 wrote:I don't particularly care about anyones happiness outside of my family or friends, I'm not a "happy clappy love everyone" type .
With comments like that Biggles, I don't think anyone needs to label you! Would just like to ask though, as ridiculous as this question is, as you see homosexuals being no different to someone with a mental disability, do you oppose people with a mental disability getting married too? Let's face it, they're not your equals, so who cares about their happiness right??
.
I imagine your question regarding mental illness would depend upon a medical profesionals opinion regarding whether they were of sound mind etc.
anarchist
says...
8:32am Sat 27 Oct 12
I am not surprised that you have a military background as homosexuality has been a difficult issue for the military ever since moves towards gay equality became prominent in the 1960s.
The need to parade around - the 'gay pride' movement - has probably helped in removing the stigma of being gay but I am inclined to think it is now counter-productive in that it reinforces a negative stereotype of gay people as different to others (who don't feel the need to parade their sexuality around in public).
It may have once served a purpose but I suspect that it would now be better if it was consigned to history.
WhatGracieDid
says...
2:07pm Sat 27 Oct 12
We are not asking to be married in a church. We do not want to force a religion to marry us if they do not wish to. All we want is to be able to have a civil marriage - to be legally wife and wife.
The Doosra
says...
7:55pm Sat 27 Oct 12
On his own admission, he is a former member of HM Forces and HM Police.
It makes my skin creep to think that someone with his views was ever in a position to hold responsibility for my security and safety.
He calls himself "normal". Others might say that he has opinions about race, sexual orientation, and physical / mental disability which mark him out to be someone on the extremes of opinion - that is not for me to say, but I am not to blame if other people form un favourable opinions of him. Not that he will care I daresay.
Omicron
says...
6:30pm Sun 28 Oct 12
Robot 3021 wrote:As I said in my previous post try reading the church marriage ceremony and you just might find the answers. Or are you too embarrased to read religious "jargon".
"Firstly marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman for the procreation of children." Nonsense. I'd like to know where this "definition" comes from! Since when has procreation had anything at all to do with marriage? And I don't understand why the church is even being brought into this, it's got nothing to do with getting married in a church, it is just about getting married, two very different things. Beyond arguing that it is the thin end of the wedge and churches will eventually be forced into carrying out gay weddings, which is baseless scaremongering, I really can't see any arguments against it as it really doesn't impact on anyone negatively in any way whatsoever.
And as I said in my first post post on this subject just how can the Queen, as head of the Curch of England, give royal assent to a law legalising gay marriage.
RichE76
says...
7:02pm Sun 28 Oct 12
There aren't any objections that stand up. come on, be honest! There's no real reason not to allow two people who love each other to be happy is there.
Just some heterosexuals who think they should have the monopoly on marriage because the current system suits them! I just wish they'd have the courage to admit their real objections!
RichE76
says...
7:14pm Sun 28 Oct 12
Biggles wrote:Biggles
I oppose Homosexual marrage, and I'm proud to say I oppose it.
.
As far as I'm concerned, marrage, is the union between a man and a woman, just because that is what I was taught.
.
I also do not consider homosexuals to be my equal, in the same way I do not consider many groups who fall outside of the "norm" to be my equal
.
Disabled people, for example, are not my equal, if they were my equal, they would not be disabled, etc etc etc..
.
I consider homosexuals to be no different from anyone else with a chemical inbalance, (or mental illness if you wish).
.
I do not however seek to actively do them any harm, and I never cease to be amazed how people who support homosexuals consider themselves to occupy the moral high ground, and seek to label anybody that doesn't agree with them.
I know lot's of disabled people and lesbian and gays although I am neither myself. I'm pleased to tell you that you're quite right and I couldn't agree more.
Disabled people and homosexuals aren't your equal... absolutely true.... 100% right....! Probably best not to ask me to elaborate though....
anarchist
says...
9:22pm Sun 28 Oct 12
But that is not the issue (despite your efforts to pretend that it is).
It is the _registration_ of such a relationship as a marriage that is in contention.
MJI
says...
11:20am Mon 29 Oct 12
.
Religious ceremonies, it to me is up to the religion.
.
Also everyone is different, I remember watching a programme about John Barrowman* who asked why he was gay, his was AFAIR hormones within the womb, causing a slightly different brain structure (slightly female), not a handicap, just who he was.
.
And some people did not like him researching this, mainly gays. Whereas the why was why he did it.
.
* I had to look up as I could only think of Captain Jack Harkness.
Robot 3021
says...
11:35am Mon 29 Oct 12
Omicron wrote:I went to a very religious secondary school, and have seen many of my friends married in churches up and down the country, I'm not embarrassed by religious "jargon" at all... very odd point to make, and rather presumptuous, I don't really see the relevance I'm afraid.
Robot 3021 wrote:As I said in my previous post try reading the church marriage ceremony and you just might find the answers. Or are you too embarrased to read religious "jargon".
"Firstly marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman for the procreation of children." Nonsense. I'd like to know where this "definition" comes from! Since when has procreation had anything at all to do with marriage? And I don't understand why the church is even being brought into this, it's got nothing to do with getting married in a church, it is just about getting married, two very different things. Beyond arguing that it is the thin end of the wedge and churches will eventually be forced into carrying out gay weddings, which is baseless scaremongering, I really can't see any arguments against it as it really doesn't impact on anyone negatively in any way whatsoever.
And as I said in my first post post on this subject just how can the Queen, as head of the Curch of England, give royal assent to a law legalising gay marriage.
If you are trying to say that the church marriage ceremony specifically regards marriage as for the purposes of procreation, then there are a lot of childless married couples that are presumably frowned upon? If you are talking about the three causes of matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer, they are mutually exclusive and so not all will be relevant to each marriage, the third purpose stands alone as a reason a lot of people choose to marry.
Besides which, my argument was nothing to do with religion anyway, indeed I specifically grounded it without.
Geep
says...
6:24pm Mon 29 Oct 12
Do you support gay marriage Yes/No?
Like many, I don't give a ****. Pity there wasn't a I don't care option.
Geep
says...
6:24pm Mon 29 Oct 12
Do you support gay marriage Yes/No?
Like many, I don't give a ****. Pity there wasn't a I don't care option.
More Tea Vicar says...
11:57am Tue 23 Oct 12
Seems like a no-brainer, really. Just allow it, and move on.
There are far more important issues to deal with - the economy, the EU, immigration, housing, education, health, education, the infrastructure...
These are concerns for us all, whereas gay marriage can only be a concern for two relatively small minorities; gays, and those who oppose them getting married.