Gay Marriage to be Illegal in the Church of England

Time to resurrect this thread as the parliament vote is due today.

It surprises me that this day in age, when being gay is not really a massive issue anymore, that this decision is splitting opinions massively

So what do you think is going to happen as the out come of the vote?
 
It better get through, any idea when we'll know. Anyone voting against it, shouldn't be re-elected.

I think it will, it has big support from all three main parties, with just a few idiots opposed.
 
Last edited:
Link to the BBC article is here

I heard on the news today that approx 100+ Conservative MP's are apposed to the vote, but DC and NC want it and it will more than likely go through, but with so many MP's in the PM's own party apposed to the idea then it will not look good for DC
 
troops said:
Even if you dont agree with gay marriage whats the point, your just classed as homophobic.
Click to expand...

And rightly so.

You are opposing something that doesn't affect you or your life so what other reason is there you would oppose it? It's principally no different to opposing black people getting married and trying to claim you're not racist.
 
troops said:
Even if you dont agree with gay marriage whats the point, your just classed as homophobic.
Click to expand...

But why appose it? What harm does it do you or me, or anyone who is married or not if a gay couple get married in a Church?

Will it do harm to society? I don't think it will. In a time when the numbers of people actually going to Church are declining (I think) I personally think that it would improve the look of the Church

It seems so 'old fashioned' to even be arguing about the subject! Kinda like with the Civil Rights Movement. The thought in my head is love is love (and a human is a human) and if you want to celebrate that and get married then you should have the option to do so - regardless of you and your partners gender (or the colour of you or your partners skin)
 
Moothead2 said:
It all seems pretty asinine to me then. The only difference I can really see between the two is the way the world will see you, something I'd have thought they would have stopped caring about the moment they became openly gay.
Click to expand...

But by that logic you could argue what was the point in allowing black people to sit anywhere they like on the bus or why get rid of seperate water fountains for whites and blacks, afterall they both have water right?

It's the "same but different" defense and it's rubbish, it's basically a tool used by bigots to say "you can have the rights but you are still different than us". Why have 'equal but different' when you can just have 'equal'?

Dereck Lammy has just stood up in the house and made this point brilliantly.
 
Gackt said:
but I don't think it's right to force a religion to amends it's beliefs
Click to expand...


Of course it is if these beliefs are bigoted!
They can believe what they ruddy well like but once they start acting on it in free society that's when it becomes unfair and unacceptable imho

I can't go and open a club and put a sign outside saying: Blacks or gays cannot join!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom