Worcester Tory hits out at gay marriage (From Worcester News)

Why can't folks just live and let live?

What utter nonsense. If him and his sky fairy worshiping friends don't like gay marriage, that's up to them. No-one is forcing them to adopt it. But to prevent gay marriage on a non religious basis has nothing to do with them. A further example of religion doing far more harm than good.

As they now form a minority amongst our society, I think it would be undemocratic for them to have a more prominent say than the rest of us.

It's a ridiculous issue that should have been resolved a long time ago. I certainly wouldn't vote for a party that displays such bigoted views.

Mark Garnier has now disappointingly withdrawn his support - Despite there being so many protections in place for those who do not wish to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies or teach in schools about same-sex marriage.

Do his LGBT constituents not matter? Are they not important too?

I just hope that Robin Walker does as he said he would to support Equal Marriage because that's exactly what's its about, being equal, having the same rights.

Why do I have to explain to my children in the future that Mummy and Mummy were barred from marrying each other despite loving each other just like everyone else's parents. That our family is less valid, less real and less important.

And once again, it's Equal Marriage not Gay Marriage!!

Good on Andrew Grant for speaking up and representing the majority of views on the subject.

It's a shame the Conservative Party has morphed into the Liberal Party.

Presumably they have no desire to win further elections and this is reflected in the polls.

What majority? An ICM poll in December 2012 showed that 52% of those that voted conservative in the last election are in favour of Equal Marriage with 62% of the public agreeing.

The only thing children will be confused about is WHY it should be a problem. Children are more logical and sensible than some people seem to give them credit for.

Forgive me if I've got this completely wrong, but marriage belongs to the church. Why don't just give it back to them?

I've never understood why you would want to get married in eyes of God if you are not a practising Christian. Everyone else can have civil partnerships. Both of them entitling you to the same legal benefits.

Plucking a figure out of thin air, I would take a guess that 80% of married couples in the UK are not practising Christians.

No faith is up to date with modern views or values but we have to respect the people who follow these faiths. However incorrect we find these views to be.

Rather than stealing it from the church and making it what we want it to be, why don't we give it back and create our own equal partnership system in line with our modern day values, create equality that way.

Andrew Grants Estate Agent Facebook(https://www
.facebook.com/pages/
Andrew-Grant) and Twitter(https://twit
ter.com/AndrewGrantL
LP). Everybody feel free to make you comments there! I sure am!
Me and my partner voted Conservative. Well you have lost our votes now!

Ralph123 wrote:
Forgive me if I've got this completely wrong, but marriage belongs to the church. Why don't just give it back to them?

I've never understood why you would want to get married in eyes of God if you are not a practising Christian. Everyone else can have civil partnerships. Both of them entitling you to the same legal benefits.

Plucking a figure out of thin air, I would take a guess that 80% of married couples in the UK are not practising Christians.

No faith is up to date with modern views or values but we have to respect the people who follow these faiths. However incorrect we find these views to be.

Rather than stealing it from the church and making it what we want it to be, why don't we give it back and create our own equal partnership system in line with our modern day values, create equality that way.

Hi Ralph123, I understand where you are coming from but Mariage doesnt belong to the church. It belongs to the goverment or we wouldnt get a look in from the church. If we cant marry then we arent equal

It 2013. Why is this even being debated still? They'll be re-thinking votes for women next...

Well done, Andrew Grant, to be so much in the public view but bold to speak out. Peter Luff's & Robin Walker's positions on this is weak & disappointing. The so-called 'triple lock' is a worthless gesture. If this proposal is passed it's not within Westminster's power to put in place any measures which will guarantee protection to religious bodies from ECHR. It would be much less dispruptive & more logical to create a completely new formal status of Civil Marriage, entirely separating secular/state processes from religious ceremonies.

chrism89 wrote:

Ralph123 wrote:
Forgive me if I've got this completely wrong, but marriage belongs to the church. Why don't just give it back to them?

I've never understood why you would want to get married in eyes of God if you are not a practising Christian. Everyone else can have civil partnerships. Both of them entitling you to the same legal benefits.

Plucking a figure out of thin air, I would take a guess that 80% of married couples in the UK are not practising Christians.

No faith is up to date with modern views or values but we have to respect the people who follow these faiths. However incorrect we find these views to be.

Rather than stealing it from the church and making it what we want it to be, why don't we give it back and create our own equal partnership system in line with our modern day values, create equality that way.

Hi Ralph123, I understand where you are coming from but Mariage doesnt belong to the church. It belongs to the goverment or we wouldnt get a look in from the church. If we cant marry then we arent equal

I'm probably being naive here, I know very little about the subject. If a law was past to allow gay marriage would that require all churches to be willing to marry same sex couples? Or would they still be able to decline, however a marriage could be carried out in a non-religious setting?

Would the campaigners accept that as an agreement or would they insist that the church has to marry same sex couples?

I'm only interested and I suppose I could google it, but thought I would ask.

What a complete Pratt... I'm am straight and have many freinds that are gay and lesbian.. Now not being funny but why can't they marry the same I as I have..... Should be stopping immigrants from invading our country not putting more restraints on the people that should be here

If the bill is passed, the civil same-sex marriage would be able to take place and those religions that wish to perform same-sex marriages would be able to do so if their governing body opted in. The Church of England (and Church of Wales) are expressly forbidden by the quadruple lock (which they asked for) from taking part.

The bill also provides protections against those who do not wish to perform ceremonies if they personally do not want to and protections for teachers.

WhatGracieDid wrote:
If the bill is passed, the civil same-sex marriage would be able to take place and those religions that wish to perform same-sex marriages would be able to do so if their governing body opted in. The Church of England (and Church of Wales) are expressly forbidden by the quadruple lock (which they asked for) from taking part.

The bill also provides protections against those who do not wish to perform ceremonies if they personally do not want to and protections for teachers.

Well that sounds utterly reasonable, I'm sold!!

CJH wrote:
It 2013. Why is this even being debated still? They'll be re-thinking votes for women next...

Now that's a good idea ..........

Piccolo wrote:
Well done, Andrew Grant, to be so much in the public view but bold to speak out. Peter Luff's & Robin Walker's positions on this is weak & disappointing. The so-called 'triple lock' is a worthless gesture. If this proposal is passed it's not within Westminster's power to put in place any measures which will guarantee protection to religious bodies from ECHR. It would be much less dispruptive & more logical to create a completely new formal status of Civil Marriage, entirely separating secular/state processes from religious ceremonies.

I have looked into this further and I completely agree that to appease what people want from both sides (and all we want is for everyone to be happy) is "entirely separating secular/state processes from religious ceremonies".

I think that this has not been thrown about the place as an option because a) the financial implications for the church? and b) the use of the word marriage? It's just a word,forget "marriage" in reality its equality that people are striving for. If the answer is to abolish marriage, unless in a religious context, then so be it.

Keith B wrote:

CJH wrote: It 2013. Why is this even being debated still? They'll be re-thinking votes for women next...

Now that's a good idea ..........

I was thinking that !
.
And, just for the record, I don't support gay marrage either, and I'm a Tory voter, so they'll win some and lose some whatever the outcome is.

It's a disgrace that a local political figure should have such a bigoted view. Love is love and a caring family home is just that, it doesn't matter the gender or sexual orientation of those within that home. Who are we to judge what is right or wrong? I am not a religious person but one thing I understand of religion is that it's not our place to judge or decide what is 'morally acceptable' personally I think we should have political representatives who aren't repressed idiots and who actually try and do what is best for our community rather than preach outdated and fun fundamentally wrong bile.

courtman123 wrote:
It's a disgrace that a local political figure should have such a bigoted view. Love is love and a caring family home is just that, it doesn't matter the gender or sexual orientation of those within that home. Who are we to judge what is right or wrong? I am not a religious person but one thing I understand of religion is that it's not our place to judge or decide what is 'morally acceptable' personally I think we should have political representatives who aren't repressed idiots and who actually try and do what is best for our community rather than preach outdated and fun fundamentally wrong bile.

I agree. Hopefully the old duffer is close to retirement. There is no place in society for such outdated views. Big fat facepalm for Andrew Grant.

Most Christians believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. If the new law is passed, despite the assurances there will be people taking churches to court in the near future for not allowing marriage between people of the same sex. Christian churches should be allowed to decide whether people of the same sex can marry there. However, I suspect they will come under increasing pressure from people outside the church to allow same sex couples to marry.
Civil Partnerships already exist. Isn't that enough?

A Local Reader wrote:
Most Christians believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. If the new law is passed, despite the assurances there will be people taking churches to court in the near future for not allowing marriage between people of the same sex. Christian churches should be allowed to decide whether people of the same sex can marry there. However, I suspect they will come under increasing pressure from people outside the church to allow same sex couples to marry.
Civil Partnerships already exist. Isn't that enough?

You should be able to hold the beliefs that you and all other Christians hold, that is you right.

Other people should be able to hold on to the beliefs that they hold, that is their right.

We should allow all this to happen without one group having a detrimental effect on the other. Every person has a right.

I've no idea how, but lets keep our fingers crossed xx

Keith B wrote:

CJH wrote: It 2013. Why is this even being debated still? They'll be re-thinking votes for women next...

Now that's a good idea ..........

Naughty Keith! Bad boy!

Biggles wrote:

Keith B wrote:

CJH wrote: It 2013. Why is this even being debated still? They'll be re-thinking votes for women next...

Now that's a good idea ..........

I was thinking that ! . And, just for the record, I don't support gay marrage either, and I'm a Tory voter, so they'll win some and lose some whatever the outcome is.

And naughty Biggles as well!

This guy is an ESTATE AGENT !! Since when have they been known for their virtue and high morals ??

Presumably Worcestershire's LGBT community will now be thinking very carefully about where they spend their pink pounds when buying and selling property ??

The proposed legislation is to allow gay people to marry. The only likely outcome of this is,er,let's think about it, oh yes... some gay people might get married. That's it... the world won't implode !!

As they say... some people are gay. Get over it.

Ralph123 wrote:

WhatGracieDid wrote:
If the bill is passed, the civil same-sex marriage would be able to take place and those religions that wish to perform same-sex marriages would be able to do so if their governing body opted in. The Church of England (and Church of Wales) are expressly forbidden by the quadruple lock (which they asked for) from taking part.

The bill also provides protections against those who do not wish to perform ceremonies if they personally do not want to and protections for teachers.

Well that sounds utterly reasonable, I'm sold!!

Reading press releases on this topic from the various political parties it is interesting to see the UKIP position, which is that where the Bill purports to protect the individuals and religious institutions, it is their fear that via legal interference, quite the reverse is true.

The issue is not the clean-cut black and white debate that is being portrayed in the media. It raises a variety of challenging questions ranging from the definitions of consummation of marriage to adultery, which will lead to a Gordian knot of legal implications and difficulties likely to wind up in a court in Strasbourg to which British law is fully subservient and over which Britain bears no control.

UKIP believes the Bill is rather cynically being used as a popularity boost and a distraction from other issues, when in fact there is far more at stake than meets the eye.

Perhaps David Cameron is playing a really clever game here? If the Conservatives manage to offload all their bigots on to UKIP, then neutralise UKIP by having an EU referendum, they might even end up being electable again.

As for Andrew Grant, I have a simple piece of advice: If you don't want equal marriage, all you have to do is check carefully that anyone you're going to marry isn't a man and you'll be fine.

Biggles wrote:

Keith B wrote:

CJH wrote: It 2013. Why is this even being debated still? They'll be re-thinking votes for women next...

Now that's a good idea ..........

I was thinking that !
.
And, just for the record, I don't support gay marrage either, and I'm a Tory voter, so they'll win some and lose some whatever the outcome is.

When the next election comes round we may be place our vote on a party's view on the economy, employment, health, war or education rather than wether they agree with a small handful of gay couples wanting their relationship bonded in marriage. If a church wants to marry two people, it won't hurt me and my children won't be confused as it is far too simple to confuse anyone whose brain cells multiply!

The answer isn't yes or no but why are they wasting time discussing it when there are so many other pressing issues.
.
BTW Cameron lost support with the rise in foreign aid and the cutting of defence.
.
The Conservatives need a new leader sooner rather than later. A non ditherer and someone who prioritises our country.
.
However Cameron is still better than the alternatives of the other Milliband or Clegg.

Lew Smoralz wrote:

Ralph123 wrote:

WhatGracieDid wrote:
If the bill is passed, the civil same-sex marriage would be able to take place and those religions that wish to perform same-sex marriages would be able to do so if their governing body opted in. The Church of England (and Church of Wales) are expressly forbidden by the quadruple lock (which they asked for) from taking part.

The bill also provides protections against those who do not wish to perform ceremonies if they personally do not want to and protections for teachers.

Well that sounds utterly reasonable, I'm sold!!

Reading press releases on this topic from the various political parties it is interesting to see the UKIP position, which is that where the Bill purports to protect the individuals and religious institutions, it is their fear that via legal interference, quite the reverse is true.

The issue is not the clean-cut black and white debate that is being portrayed in the media. It raises a variety of challenging questions ranging from the definitions of consummation of marriage to adultery, which will lead to a Gordian knot of legal implications and difficulties likely to wind up in a court in Strasbourg to which British law is fully subservient and over which Britain bears no control.

UKIP believes the Bill is rather cynically being used as a popularity boost and a distraction from other issues, when in fact there is far more at stake than meets the eye.

So the UKIP bigots are with the Tory bigots on this one. No real surprise there from the party that also cynically attempts to boost its popularity at every opportunity.

It will confuse children? Oh come on, that is one of the big arguments against? Two men or two women who love each other can't get married because you don't want to take five minutes out to sit down with your children and explain it to them?

There are quite a few countries where gay marriage is already allowed, and guess what, not much has changed really, society hasn't fallen apart, children aren't confused, and no-one's god has smote or smited or appeared in a bush with an angry voice or anything.

I find it hard to credit that this bill is about to become part of British law, when it seems to me that so many gay people, particularly men, can't be open about their sexuality.

penelope52@btinterne
t.com wrote:
I find it hard to credit that this bill is about to become part of British law, when it seems to me that so many gay people, particularly men, can't be open about their sexuality.

Unfortunately it won't be entering the statute book anytime soon, there's a third reading to take place yet...and the ping-pong between the Commons and Lords.

If we want to rid Worcester bigots of their voice, then let's all join the Tory party and vote 'em out. After all, they are the cheapest political party to join - it's just their incessant demands for £5K to sit in the same room as some Tory grandee that get a little tiresome.

On a personal level, I see no problem with gay marriage, and can completely understand the arguments in favour.

However, because of mass immigration and multiculturalism, religion has become an issue again in this country, after generations of it being an irrelevance.

At the moment, the focus is on Conservatives and Christians. But in the not too distant future, we might well find other faiths facing questions.

Those who are ridiculing christian views and Tories now might find themselves on the other side of the argument in future, if and when there are issues with, say, muslims, jews etc.

I don't know what the koran says about homosexuality, but looking at the way gays and other minorities are treated in some muslim countries, which have communities in the UK, it is easy to imagine that there could be quite serious issues.

WHY oh why is this even being discussed now ?, Luff and Walker will toe the party line as they can't think for themselves and worse they are not representing who voted for them.

We have an economy in dire straights, an incompetant coillition who have no mandate to do anything, a bunch of clowns again using this debate as a smoke screen to cover up how bad everything is, I personally don't care either way who marries who as long as they don't keep flaunting it to me as i am not a supporter of it but each to there own.

It's just correcting a bit of legislation that should have been corrected years ago, as it was originally fudged to stop bigots getting upset. Effectively it won't make any difference at all, and shouldn't need all this fuss. But it is for the reactionary to oppose any tiny steps forwards on the grounds that they creep us ever closer to the dystopian nightmare of true equality.

pronstar wrote:

Lew Smoralz wrote:

Ralph123 wrote:

WhatGracieDid wrote:
If the bill is passed, the civil same-sex marriage would be able to take place and those religions that wish to perform same-sex marriages would be able to do so if their governing body opted in. The Church of England (and Church of Wales) are expressly forbidden by the quadruple lock (which they asked for) from taking part.

The bill also provides protections against those who do not wish to perform ceremonies if they personally do not want to and protections for teachers.

Well that sounds utterly reasonable, I'm sold!!

Reading press releases on this topic from the various political parties it is interesting to see the UKIP position, which is that where the Bill purports to protect the individuals and religious institutions, it is their fear that via legal interference, quite the reverse is true.

The issue is not the clean-cut black and white debate that is being portrayed in the media. It raises a variety of challenging questions ranging from the definitions of consummation of marriage to adultery, which will lead to a Gordian knot of legal implications and difficulties likely to wind up in a court in Strasbourg to which British law is fully subservient and over which Britain bears no control.

UKIP believes the Bill is rather cynically being used as a popularity boost and a distraction from other issues, when in fact there is far more at stake than meets the eye.

So the UKIP bigots are with the Tory bigots on this one. No real surprise there from the party that also cynically attempts to boost its popularity at every opportunity.

“A bigot is a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.” Cambridge Dictionary online.

Again, quoting from the press release “UKIP are not in any way opposed to civil partnerships. Indeed they are the only party to believe that transferable married tax allowance should be made available to couples in civil partnerships and that they should be on an equal footing with traditional marriages. We are more than happy for people who wish to define themselves within society as “married” to do so, however we wholly disagree with the intrusion of the Government on a religious institution's definition of the term marriage, whatever that religion may be.”

I did not include that section in my previous post as I thought that everyone was already aware that UKIP supports same-sex partnerships, and believes in personal freedoms for all. So, thanks for the opportunity to enlighten any strong, unreasonable beliefs about UKIP.

The point UKIP made here is that the government must not interfere by either trying to redefine marriage for religions, or create a situation where courts will attempt to do that. As British Courts are subservient to Strasbourg, it is probable that someone will involve that court when a mosque/temple/church
/chapel refuses to marry them.

The result of a Strasbourg law ruling is not something that this Kingdom has control over, so the religion involved may find that they are convicted of breaking the law. It is not in the power of Cameron to control the actions of the Strasbourg courts, so he cannot honestly make any claims about protecting religions from criminal prosecution.

Lew Smoralz wrote:

pronstar wrote:

Lew Smoralz wrote:

Ralph123 wrote:

WhatGracieDid wrote:
If the bill is passed, the civil same-sex marriage would be able to take place and those religions that wish to perform same-sex marriages would be able to do so if their governing body opted in. The Church of England (and Church of Wales) are expressly forbidden by the quadruple lock (which they asked for) from taking part.

The bill also provides protections against those who do not wish to perform ceremonies if they personally do not want to and protections for teachers.

Well that sounds utterly reasonable, I'm sold!!

Reading press releases on this topic from the various political parties it is interesting to see the UKIP position, which is that where the Bill purports to protect the individuals and religious institutions, it is their fear that via legal interference, quite the reverse is true.

The issue is not the clean-cut black and white debate that is being portrayed in the media. It raises a variety of challenging questions ranging from the definitions of consummation of marriage to adultery, which will lead to a Gordian knot of legal implications and difficulties likely to wind up in a court in Strasbourg to which British law is fully subservient and over which Britain bears no control.

UKIP believes the Bill is rather cynically being used as a popularity boost and a distraction from other issues, when in fact there is far more at stake than meets the eye.

So the UKIP bigots are with the Tory bigots on this one. No real surprise there from the party that also cynically attempts to boost its popularity at every opportunity.

“A bigot is a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.” Cambridge Dictionary online.

Again, quoting from the press release “UKIP are not in any way opposed to civil partnerships. Indeed they are the only party to believe that transferable married tax allowance should be made available to couples in civil partnerships and that they should be on an equal footing with traditional marriages. We are more than happy for people who wish to define themselves within society as “married” to do so, however we wholly disagree with the intrusion of the Government on a religious institution's definition of the term marriage, whatever that religion may be.”

I did not include that section in my previous post as I thought that everyone was already aware that UKIP supports same-sex partnerships, and believes in personal freedoms for all. So, thanks for the opportunity to enlighten any strong, unreasonable beliefs about UKIP.

The point UKIP made here is that the government must not interfere by either trying to redefine marriage for religions, or create a situation where courts will attempt to do that. As British Courts are subservient to Strasbourg, it is probable that someone will involve that court when a mosque/temple/church

/chapel refuses to marry them.

The result of a Strasbourg law ruling is not something that this Kingdom has control over, so the religion involved may find that they are convicted of breaking the law. It is not in the power of Cameron to control the actions of the Strasbourg courts, so he cannot honestly make any claims about protecting religions from criminal prosecution.

Well said, Lew.

UKIP is a libertarian party, and thus unlikely to have any problem with people's sexual orientation.

On the other hand, those who regard opposition to gay marriage as a 'right wing' or 'conservative' thing, might be in for a shock. The Muslim Council of Britain has stated its opposition to gay marriage, for example.

It is easy to imagine there being a 'conflict of rights' between gays wanting to marry, and religious people for whom it is unthinkable.

If gays want to get married - so what? But I must admit I am bored to death by this subject - it does after all only involve a small minority of the population, so in the scheme of life it is of little importance. Can the Tory party get back to sorting out the policies that MATTER to the majority please.

In the words of football fans, THEY don't know what there doing, that's why this Gay marriage stuff is being pushed.

This is a church matter as far as i am concerned.

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between a civil partnership and a 'marriage', in terms of legislation, rights etc? I genuinely don't know, and think it would help me understand the debate better.

As far as I understood it, they are the same. Which makes me think that the whole debate is over the word 'marriage', which I personally wouldn't think was that important (but fully agree with the right of those who think it is, to fight for it).

Obviously, if there are significant differences between a marriage and a civil partnership, then I can see what the fuss is about.

mayall8808 wrote:
In the words of football fans, THEY don't know what there doing, that's why this Gay marriage stuff is being pushed.

This is a church matter as far as i am concerned.

I agree with you on this one.

For the vast majority of us, who are neither gay nor particularly religious, it is really hard to see what all the fuss is about.

If anything, personallly, I'm supportive of gay marriage, though I don't see what they're getting from this that they don't get from a civil partnership.

My only issues with the story are

a - the government has other things to be concentrating on right now

and

b - I can foresee a clash between the rights of the religious whose beliefs make them oppose gay marriage (such as the Muslim Council of Britain) and gays who want to get married. Which minority's rights will count for most, and how much time, money and effort be spent finding out?

Having been married for 20 years with two kids and also having three homosexual friends I can honestly say I am a definite neutral.
What ever makes you happy I say..

If this is a question of morality we could delve long and deep into the parlimentary history books.

Many married M.P's from all three parties have treated the institute of marriage as a conevinet cover for a more hedonistic, shag-fest life style. Mr Prescott, Paddy Pants Down, John Major, Edwina Curry, Speedy Hume to name but a few... Let him without sin cast the first stone and all.

Seems their thoughts on marriage are rather questionable.

I'm more disturb by the unconventional marriage currently puddling around Westminster as the Coalition Government.

Now that should be banned..!

"A bigot is a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.” Cambridge Dictionary online."
Now - is this definition quoted to be applied to those who support gay marriage or those against gay marriage?

pronstar wrote:

Lew Smoralz wrote:

Ralph123 wrote:

WhatGracieDid wrote:
If the bill is passed, the civil same-sex marriage would be able to take place and those religions that wish to perform same-sex marriages would be able to do so if their governing body opted in. The Church of England (and Church of Wales) are expressly forbidden by the quadruple lock (which they asked for) from taking part.

The bill also provides protections against those who do not wish to perform ceremonies if they personally do not want to and protections for teachers.

Well that sounds utterly reasonable, I'm sold!!

Reading press releases on this topic from the various political parties it is interesting to see the UKIP position, which is that where the Bill purports to protect the individuals and religious institutions, it is their fear that via legal interference, quite the reverse is true.

The issue is not the clean-cut black and white debate that is being portrayed in the media. It raises a variety of challenging questions ranging from the definitions of consummation of marriage to adultery, which will lead to a Gordian knot of legal implications and difficulties likely to wind up in a court in Strasbourg to which British law is fully subservient and over which Britain bears no control.

UKIP believes the Bill is rather cynically being used as a popularity boost and a distraction from other issues, when in fact there is far more at stake than meets the eye.

So the UKIP bigots are with the Tory bigots on this one. No real surprise there from the party that also cynically attempts to boost its popularity at every opportunity.

Checked the MCB's views on this, Pronstar?

“Children will be confused over the issues because it is only natural for a husband and wife to love their children following their marriage, and children their parents.”

Is this guy for real?

If children are "confused", then maybe their parents should explain it to them, and that way they won't grow up to be bigoted estate agents who talk complete nonsense and tell other people how to run their lives?

Omicron makes a very sound point - it seems either side of this debate is entitled to call the other bigots!!!

Applepicker wrote:
This guy is an ESTATE AGENT !! Since when have they been known for their virtue and high morals ??

Presumably Worcestershire's LGBT community will now be thinking very carefully about where they spend their pink pounds when buying and selling property ??

The proposed legislation is to allow gay people to marry. The only likely outcome of this is,er,let's think about it, oh yes... some gay people might get married. That's it... the world won't implode !!

As they say... some people are gay. Get over it.

Not just LGBT people, Applepicker. I'm straight but AG will not get my business in the future. He's a bigot and I'm not rewarding that with my hard-earned.

Ha ha idiotic...

Does 2 people being the same sex mean they can't love one another and stay in a monogamous relationship as required by marriage?
Do they lack any morals that straight people might have?

What a load of stone age rubbish...your kids will be worrying about you rather than you worrying about them. Nearly every comment against gay marriage starts with "when I was a lad" or similar including those from our MPs.... Mirror and modernisation need methinks...

How many of you have been watching/listening to this all day as I have?

This affects my life! This affects real people and your words do hurt us!

Lew Smoralz wrote:

pronstar wrote:

Lew Smoralz wrote:

Ralph123 wrote:

WhatGracieDid wrote:
If the bill is passed, the civil same-sex marriage would be able to take place and those religions that wish to perform same-sex marriages would be able to do so if their governing body opted in. The Church of England (and Church of Wales) are expressly forbidden by the quadruple lock (which they asked for) from taking part.

The bill also provides protections against those who do not wish to perform ceremonies if they personally do not want to and protections for teachers.

Well that sounds utterly reasonable, I'm sold!!

Reading press releases on this topic from the various political parties it is interesting to see the UKIP position, which is that where the Bill purports to protect the individuals and religious institutions, it is their fear that via legal interference, quite the reverse is true.

The issue is not the clean-cut black and white debate that is being portrayed in the media. It raises a variety of challenging questions ranging from the definitions of consummation of marriage to adultery, which will lead to a Gordian knot of legal implications and difficulties likely to wind up in a court in Strasbourg to which British law is fully subservient and over which Britain bears no control.

UKIP believes the Bill is rather cynically being used as a popularity boost and a distraction from other issues, when in fact there is far more at stake than meets the eye.

So the UKIP bigots are with the Tory bigots on this one. No real surprise there from the party that also cynically attempts to boost its popularity at every opportunity.

“A bigot is a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.” Cambridge Dictionary online.

Again, quoting from the press release “UKIP are not in any way opposed to civil partnerships. Indeed they are the only party to believe that transferable married tax allowance should be made available to couples in civil partnerships and that they should be on an equal footing with traditional marriages. We are more than happy for people who wish to define themselves within society as “married” to do so, however we wholly disagree with the intrusion of the Government on a religious institution's definition of the term marriage, whatever that religion may be.”

I did not include that section in my previous post as I thought that everyone was already aware that UKIP supports same-sex partnerships, and believes in personal freedoms for all. So, thanks for the opportunity to enlighten any strong, unreasonable beliefs about UKIP.

The point UKIP made here is that the government must not interfere by either trying to redefine marriage for religions, or create a situation where courts will attempt to do that. As British Courts are subservient to Strasbourg, it is probable that someone will involve that court when a mosque/temple/church

/chapel refuses to marry them.

The result of a Strasbourg law ruling is not something that this Kingdom has control over, so the religion involved may find that they are convicted of breaking the law. It is not in the power of Cameron to control the actions of the Strasbourg courts, so he cannot honestly make any claims about protecting religions from criminal prosecution.

Bigot, homophobe, Tory.

You're, sorry, they're all the same.

So, the vote in the Commons has gone in favour of legalising gay marriage. Not the final hurdle, not by a long chalk as the bill now goes to the House of Lords.

I think justice has been served: any couple regardless of sexual orientation can now make the ultimate commitment to each other

WhatGracieDid wrote:
How many of you have been watching/listening to this all day as I have?

This affects my life! This affects real people and your words do hurt us!

I have. It doesn't really affect me. I'm just nosey, and didn't really want to do any work today.

It looks as if its going to go the right way, so I shall offer an early congratulations to you.

Ignore their words, they're just words. In real life they probably have nothing much to say.

Andrew Grant should be congratulated. He is someone who recognises the concerns of the majority together with the importance of traditional values and the need for a cohesive society. It is a pity that the party leadership at a national level and Robin Walker do not reflect the desires of the majority rather than the "trendy" minority. Your own WN survey fails to endorse yesterdays parliamentary vote.

Whoohoo! There was much celebration in my household last night and we look forward to moving forward with our wedding plans.

Thank you Robin Walker for taking the time to listen to my letters and do the right thing, to vote for us within the LGBT community to finally have equal rights, because at the end of the day separate rights still isn't equal rights!

What has been puzzling observers for months is what prompted the Prime Minister to pick this uncalled-for fight with many people in his own party and the country at large when the legislation was not even in his election manifesto? It has also been unclear why the same debate is being had simultaneously in other countries such as France, where opposition is also growing. Now we know the answer.

It transpires that an EU report to be voted through the EU Parliament this November dictates all marriages and civil contracts conducted in any EU country become legally binding in all member states. It means that member states will have to grant 'all social benefits and other legal effects' such as legal recognition, tax breaks and benefit entitlements to a married couple, even if such a marriage doesn't exist in their own legal system.

It's no surprise that Cameron has kept quiet about this, even at the expense of cohesion in his own party. It was all about doing what Brussels ordered him to do!

Cameron has forced lifetime Conservatives, like Andrew Grant, to rebel. I expect more defections to UKIP in the forthcoming months, at both national and local levels.

I think the word "bigot" in this particular debate should only really be applied to those that support gay marriage as the majority of those that support it are unwilling to accept the fact that those against are entitled to an opinion without having the word "bigot" or "homophobe" rammed down their throats.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion / view.
When the value of decisions such as being nationally witnessed, has been turned into a political Punch & Judy stunt, I am astonished that the communities involved don't feel even more undervalued by the so-called-politician
s.
For those who have to rely only on a piece of paper to bond a partnership shows that there are unanswered questions to be addressed.
You will discover It's about friendship / love & loyalty, not a scrap of paper.

I’m slightly confused about what might be ‘the UKIP position’. Can someone point me in the right direction without entailing any embarrassment?

Peter WR5 wrote:
I’m slightly confused about what might be ‘the UKIP position’. Can someone point me in the right direction without entailing any embarrassment?

http://www.ukip.org/
content/latest-news/
2928-ukip-statement-
on-the-same-sex-marr
iage-bill

That is the press release that I have been quoting from.

I am not at all embarrassed about voting for UKIP in the forthcoming May Council elections, and I don't think I'll be alone.

Peter WR5 wrote:
I’m slightly confused about what might be ‘the UKIP position’. Can someone point me in the right direction without entailing any embarrassment?

Not sure - I think it involves a fantasy about coming from behind, especially when things are hard. It would seem that UKIP's only female MEP is uncomfortable with this position and is going to break it off with Farage. If you want to see the UKIP position in action go here: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=0M4hExU-t
fg

Karl Hunderson wrote:

Peter WR5 wrote:
I’m slightly confused about what might be ‘the UKIP position’. Can someone point me in the right direction without entailing any embarrassment?

Not sure - I think it involves a fantasy about coming from behind, especially when things are hard. It would seem that UKIP's only female MEP is uncomfortable with this position and is going to break it off with Farage. If you want to see the UKIP position in action go here: http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=0M4hExU-t

fg

Second year humour, but marginally better than your normal offerings!

WhatGracieDid wrote:
Whoohoo! There was much celebration in my household last night and we look forward to moving forward with our wedding plans.

Thank you Robin Walker for taking the time to listen to my letters and do the right thing, to vote for us within the LGBT community to finally have equal rights, because at the end of the day separate rights still isn't equal rights!

You are quite wrong to suggest that there will be equality. LGBT individuals have the option of a Civil Partnership and potentially a marriage. The vast majority of individuals, heterosexuals, have only the option of marriage - they do not have the option to choose a Civil Partnership. There is no equality, the minority "LGBT community" have more choices than the wider community when it comes to recognition of a relationship.

Omicron wrote:
I think the word "bigot" in this particular debate should only really be applied to those that support gay marriage as the majority of those that support it are unwilling to accept the fact that those against are entitled to an opinion without having the word "bigot" or "homophobe" rammed down their throats.

I have no problem with you not agreeing whatsoever with ensuring that all UK citizens are treated equally and have equal rights under the law.

I don't want you to stop following whichever deity you believe in, and I certainly don't need you to celebrate my marriage to my partner. But why would you want to stop me being happy?

Emotional misunderstanding sometimes clouds the issue. I don't see anyone denying others happiness
But sadly when issues such as this are debated , just like when meat eaters pass comments even on Vegans or Vegetarians the outcry resonates as vilification or as if the wish to Nail people to the Cathedral gates. This is not the case, but the case that all of us are entitled to an opinion, even though on many issues, spoken thoughts are being denied in case civil liberties or someone is offended.
I recall the early days of color prejudice when people were pilloried for expressing views, and a dear Black friend of mine said that you won't find many Black people if any (excluding Michael Jackson) who are ashamed of being black.
So we are what we are just celebrate this.

Andrew Grant is a disgrace of a local political figure and a bigot. A loving caring family home is all that should be required to tie the knot. Times change and people need to keep up,not stay locked in history for ever.

gaillewisbraznell wrote:
Andrew Grant is a disgrace of a local political figure and a bigot. A loving caring family home is all that should be required to tie the knot. Times change and people need to keep up,not stay locked in history for ever.

Many people hold strong religious beliefs, and until recently those were the beliefs of a vast major majority of the population of the UK. Also, Mr Grant is still in the majority, both in the country and in Worcester.

The Evening News poll showed that even in this day and age, 52% are against and only 44% for this new act. So who is in the minority? You say people should "keep up". Keep up with what? Changes forced on the majority by a vociferous minority?

Cameron has made a grave mistake. He cannot guarantee that faith organisations will not be dragged into the Strasbourg court.

In the process, he has alienated the majority of his own party, by pursuing this unnecessary act.

This will run and run...

Mental note to self, avoid Andrew Grants...

BrownSauce wrote:

gaillewisbraznell wrote:
Andrew Grant is a disgrace of a local political figure and a bigot. A loving caring family home is all that should be required to tie the knot. Times change and people need to keep up,not stay locked in history for ever.

Many people hold strong religious beliefs, and until recently those were the beliefs of a vast major majority of the population of the UK. Also, Mr Grant is still in the majority, both in the country and in Worcester.

The Evening News poll showed that even in this day and age, 52% are against and only 44% for this new act. So who is in the minority? You say people should "keep up". Keep up with what? Changes forced on the majority by a vociferous minority?

Cameron has made a grave mistake. He cannot guarantee that faith organisations will not be dragged into the Strasbourg court.

In the process, he has alienated the majority of his own party, by pursuing this unnecessary act.

This will run and run...

In a previous e-poll run by the Worcester News, the majority were in favour of equal marriage.

There have been angry, loud, and strident voices on both sides of this debate - as evidenced by Peter Luff's mailbox as well as some of the mailboxes discussed during the debate in the Commons on Tuesday.

If the Tories wish to remain in power then they need to evolve just as our society is changing, the modernisers in the party have realised this.

An earlier commenter remarked that they recalled the dark days of the seventies and early eighties when racial discrimination abounded, as do I - merely because of a difference in skin colour. I also recall numerous occasions when friends of mine were victims of "gay bashing" attacks - merely for being attracted to someone of the same sex.

In a paper discussing "hate" crime throughout the UK, ACPO revealed that in the West Mercia region 2,000 offences occurred between 2009 and 2010 including over 150 crimes where either sexual orientation or gender role were identified as the cause. Although that equates to just 2.5% of the national total, that is still far too many.

The further we go, as a nation, to accepting that same-sex couples exist, that they love, and that their relationships add as much value to society as heterosexual relationships then the better off we will all be.

I realise this might sound like sophistry but, if a civil partnership is equal to marriage, then why not just call it marriage. Calling marriage another name just highlights the inequality of 21st century same-sex relationships. Renaming marriage as civil partnerships devalues the loving relationships of all those that have been able to marry.

As for the Strasbourg court, three Human Rights lawyers wrote to The Times saying:

Given the importance which the Court places on the right to freedom of conscience and religion under Article 9 of the Convention, it is simply inconceivable that the Court would require a faith group to conduct same-sex marriages in breach of its own doctrines.

Cameron may have alienated a number of people within the Conservative party, but he and all those who voted Aye on Tuesday have made life a lot brighter for a lot more people.

Bravo to Robyn's post, says everything that needs to be said.

RobynN_WR wrote:

BrownSauce wrote:

gaillewisbraznell wrote:
Andrew Grant is a disgrace of a local political figure and a bigot. A loving caring family home is all that should be required to tie the knot. Times change and people need to keep up,not stay locked in history for ever.

Many people hold strong religious beliefs, and until recently those were the beliefs of a vast major majority of the population of the UK. Also, Mr Grant is still in the majority, both in the country and in Worcester.

The Evening News poll showed that even in this day and age, 52% are against and only 44% for this new act. So who is in the minority? You say people should "keep up". Keep up with what? Changes forced on the majority by a vociferous minority?

Cameron has made a grave mistake. He cannot guarantee that faith organisations will not be dragged into the Strasbourg court.

In the process, he has alienated the majority of his own party, by pursuing this unnecessary act.

This will run and run...

In a previous e-poll run by the Worcester News, the majority were in favour of equal marriage.

There have been angry, loud, and strident voices on both sides of this debate - as evidenced by Peter Luff's mailbox as well as some of the mailboxes discussed during the debate in the Commons on Tuesday.

If the Tories wish to remain in power then they need to evolve just as our society is changing, the modernisers in the party have realised this.

An earlier commenter remarked that they recalled the dark days of the seventies and early eighties when racial discrimination abounded, as do I - merely because of a difference in skin colour. I also recall numerous occasions when friends of mine were victims of "gay bashing" attacks - merely for being attracted to someone of the same sex.

In a paper discussing "hate" crime throughout the UK, ACPO revealed that in the West Mercia region 2,000 offences occurred between 2009 and 2010 including over 150 crimes where either sexual orientation or gender role were identified as the cause. Although that equates to just 2.5% of the national total, that is still far too many.

The further we go, as a nation, to accepting that same-sex couples exist, that they love, and that their relationships add as much value to society as heterosexual relationships then the better off we will all be.

I realise this might sound like sophistry but, if a civil partnership is equal to marriage, then why not just call it marriage. Calling marriage another name just highlights the inequality of 21st century same-sex relationships. Renaming marriage as civil partnerships devalues the loving relationships of all those that have been able to marry.

As for the Strasbourg court, three Human Rights lawyers wrote to The Times saying:

Given the importance which the Court places on the right to freedom of conscience and religion under Article 9 of the Convention, it is simply inconceivable that the Court would require a faith group to conduct same-sex marriages in breach of its own doctrines.

Cameron may have alienated a number of people within the Conservative party, but he and all those who voted Aye on Tuesday have made life a lot brighter for a lot more people.

Cool, I didn't realise you could do multiple quotes like that.

That is cool.

Now I'm going to attempt it too this is either going to be amazing or an absolute disaster.

I am a quote.

Did it work??

pronstar wrote:

RobynN_WR wrote:

BrownSauce wrote:

gaillewisbraznell wrote:
Andrew Grant is a disgrace of a local political figure and a bigot. A loving caring family home is all that should be required to tie the knot. Times change and people need to keep up,not stay locked in history for ever.

Many people hold strong religious beliefs, and until recently those were the beliefs of a vast major majority of the population of the UK. Also, Mr Grant is still in the majority, both in the country and in Worcester.

The Evening News poll showed that even in this day and age, 52% are against and only 44% for this new act. So who is in the minority? You say people should "keep up". Keep up with what? Changes forced on the majority by a vociferous minority?

Cameron has made a grave mistake. He cannot guarantee that faith organisations will not be dragged into the Strasbourg court.

In the process, he has alienated the majority of his own party, by pursuing this unnecessary act.

This will run and run...

In a previous e-poll run by the Worcester News, the majority were in favour of equal marriage.

There have been angry, loud, and strident voices on both sides of this debate - as evidenced by Peter Luff's mailbox as well as some of the mailboxes discussed during the debate in the Commons on Tuesday.

If the Tories wish to remain in power then they need to evolve just as our society is changing, the modernisers in the party have realised this.

An earlier commenter remarked that they recalled the dark days of the seventies and early eighties when racial discrimination abounded, as do I - merely because of a difference in skin colour. I also recall numerous occasions when friends of mine were victims of "gay bashing" attacks - merely for being attracted to someone of the same sex.

In a paper discussing "hate" crime throughout the UK, ACPO revealed that in the West Mercia region 2,000 offences occurred between 2009 and 2010 including over 150 crimes where either sexual orientation or gender role were identified as the cause. Although that equates to just 2.5% of the national total, that is still far too many.

The further we go, as a nation, to accepting that same-sex couples exist, that they love, and that their relationships add as much value to society as heterosexual relationships then the better off we will all be.

I realise this might sound like sophistry but, if a civil partnership is equal to marriage, then why not just call it marriage. Calling marriage another name just highlights the inequality of 21st century same-sex relationships. Renaming marriage as civil partnerships devalues the loving relationships of all those that have been able to marry.

As for the Strasbourg court, three Human Rights lawyers wrote to The Times saying:

Given the importance which the Court places on the right to freedom of conscience and religion under Article 9 of the Convention, it is simply inconceivable that the Court would require a faith group to conduct same-sex marriages in breach of its own doctrines.

Cameron may have alienated a number of people within the Conservative party, but he and all those who voted Aye on Tuesday have made life a lot brighter for a lot more people.

Cool, I didn't realise you could do multiple quotes like that.

Did it work??

No

pronstar wrote:

pronstar wrote:

RobynN_WR wrote:

BrownSauce wrote:

gaillewisbraznell wrote:
Andrew Grant is a disgrace of a local political figure and a bigot. A loving caring family home is all that should be required to tie the knot. Times change and people need to keep up,not stay locked in history for ever.

Many people hold strong religious beliefs, and until recently those were the beliefs of a vast major majority of the population of the UK. Also, Mr Grant is still in the majority, both in the country and in Worcester.

The Evening News poll showed that even in this day and age, 52% are against and only 44% for this new act. So who is in the minority? You say people should "keep up". Keep up with what? Changes forced on the majority by a vociferous minority?

Cameron has made a grave mistake. He cannot guarantee that faith organisations will not be dragged into the Strasbourg court.

In the process, he has alienated the majority of his own party, by pursuing this unnecessary act.

This will run and run...

In a previous e-poll run by the Worcester News, the majority were in favour of equal marriage.

There have been angry, loud, and strident voices on both sides of this debate - as evidenced by Peter Luff's mailbox as well as some of the mailboxes discussed during the debate in the Commons on Tuesday.

If the Tories wish to remain in power then they need to evolve just as our society is changing, the modernisers in the party have realised this.

An earlier commenter remarked that they recalled the dark days of the seventies and early eighties when racial discrimination abounded, as do I - merely because of a difference in skin colour. I also recall numerous occasions when friends of mine were victims of "gay bashing" attacks - merely for being attracted to someone of the same sex.

In a paper discussing "hate" crime throughout the UK, ACPO revealed that in the West Mercia region 2,000 offences occurred between 2009 and 2010 including over 150 crimes where either sexual orientation or gender role were identified as the cause. Although that equates to just 2.5% of the national total, that is still far too many.

The further we go, as a nation, to accepting that same-sex couples exist, that they love, and that their relationships add as much value to society as heterosexual relationships then the better off we will all be.

I realise this might sound like sophistry but, if a civil partnership is equal to marriage, then why not just call it marriage. Calling marriage another name just highlights the inequality of 21st century same-sex relationships. Renaming marriage as civil partnerships devalues the loving relationships of all those that have been able to marry.

As for the Strasbourg court, three Human Rights lawyers wrote to The Times saying:

Given the importance which the Court places on the right to freedom of conscience and religion under Article 9 of the Convention, it is simply inconceivable that the Court would require a faith group to conduct same-sex marriages in breach of its own doctrines.

Cameron may have alienated a number of people within the Conservative party, but he and all those who voted Aye on Tuesday have made life a lot brighter for a lot more people.

Cool, I didn't realise you could do multiple quotes like that.

Did it work??

No

I am a quote.

better?

better?

Yeah but it seems to still want to include the full original quote like I have a feeling this will do.