What's the PM's game ?

[Oojamaflip]

This is where it all starts to get deeper and very complicated. It's not as easy as just saying 'make the two things equal'. There is a sense in which they can never be 'equal' because they are totally different concepts, and it's like saying something equally bizarre as for example 'eggs are equal to cakes'. We can change the labels, but to do so doesn't change the 'content', iyswim.

Our English laws are developed out of and have their foundation in Christianity. This becomes increasingly difficult in an increasingly secular world's eye view. So, for example, the 'Law' may or may not get rid of the concept of adultery, but for many adultery is a sin and it cannot be airbrushed out in that way.

It's very interesting to observe how all this is being played out.

[Aggers]

This discussion is getting round to the question of religion again.

My view is that religious beliefs are only one aspect of the matter.

Even if we were a heathen country, the idea of a man marrying a man is ludicrous and against all laws of nature.
It's more silly than a man marrying a female of another animal species. That's why I think the PM is certifiable.

[Oojamaflip]

. . . against all laws of nature.

In nature there is no such thing as 'marriage'.

However, it's worth pointing out that same-gender sexual activity takes place in other animals too, not just humans.

[cromwell]

The more I think about this, the more complicated it gets.

In this country there used to be by design, several different sources of power. The Church, the Crown, the aristocracy and Parliament. Increasingly power has been removed from the landed aristocracy with death duties, and the Church is imo deliberately under attack and has been for some years. The long term aim being the centralisation of power with the House of Commons; which to me is not a happy thought given the character of a lot of those who infest the place.

Same sex marriage is part of the attack on the Church and part of the expansion of uman rites. What is the next barricade to be stormed? Is there one? If not I'm sure one can be erected so that it can be stormed. How about "my gay partner and I want to have "our" children. So we want a woman's womb implanted into his body...." etc etc. Some other thing will be found, without any doubt, for the proponents of "equality" to object to.

I'm with Aggers as far as the marriage aspect goes. Sir Neutron Bomb and his partner are in the papers today with their "perfect family". If people want to buy into a fantasy world they can go ahead, I suppose.

[Oojamaflip]

Everyone wants their 'rights' and everyone sees everything as being their 'right'. (Slight exaggeration, but just for the sake of illustration). So a child born a male wants the right to have gender re-assignment, and vice versa, and then live in a same-sex relationship, as is their right. A woman well over the age of menopause wants the right to have a child and demands the medical intervention to allow it. A person wants the right to appear airbrushed and "perfectly" formed so demands the silicone and the fillers and the surgery to achieve it. So many unwanted and unloved children in the world, and yet same sex couples not able to have children in the natural sense, want the right to have babies, so pay 'expenses' to others to bring yet more life into this already over populated world. We have the right to not accept the hand which has been dealt to us, so twist and turn and jump through hoops of our own making in order to get our 'rights'. It's our right to have the material goods of our neighbours so we borrow, beg and steal to get them. We want the right to blame all others when things go wrong so we breed a compensation culture. We don't have enough money to give people the drugs to help sustain life, but we can spend gazillions on sporting events because it's our right. It's our right to not have to face up to responsibilities and consequences. We do not always recognise what we want is not necessarily what we need. We take God out the the equation, yet blame Him when all goes wrong.

Reg and Dave will make super dads, I'm sure. At least they won't be over stressed and over tired to cope with their little ones. The boys will not need a thing materially, and will lead very privileged and pampered lives. They will be loved and adored. But they won't have a mummy.

Reg and Dave make a super couple and if they want to marry then why not? They're not hurting anyone, and it's great that they have an enduring love for each other. Love should be celebrated. But don't object to the fact that the union is against God's blueprint for marriage. Then again, so what? If God is out of the equation who cares about His blueprint?

It is what it is, and we reap what we sow, each according to our own.

[Osc]

My eldest brother was gay and lived with his partner for almost 20 years. I loved his partner like another brother and never had any problem with them being gay. However...........I have never been able to settle in my mind how I would have felt if they had wanted to get married and have children by whatever means - I would not have had any problem with a civil partnership, but no matter how much I loved them both, I think I would have felt uncomfortable if they had decided to have a family. My brother loved his nieces and nephew, not sure how his partner got on with his, but actually I can't imagine that they would ever have tried to adopt or have a child by surrogate. He has been dead for 20 years, and his partner for 18, and I'm sure they would be bemused at the demands made by gay people now.

[Workingman]

Reading some of the more measured comments on the BBC, Telegraph and Independent sites there is a feeling, even among Secularists, Atheists and some gays, that this is a step too far and unnecessary. It might even have pushed back some of the gains made by the majority of gays regarding acceptance and equality.

Formulating policy based on the tub thumping of a vociferous minority, whatever the cause, is not the way to go. That is what this appears to be.

[Oojamaflip]

My eldest brother was gay and lived with his partner for almost 20 years. I loved his partner like another brother and never had any problem with them being gay. However...........I have never been able to settle in my mind how I would have felt if they had wanted to get married and have children by whatever means - I would not have had any problem with a civil partnership, but no matter how much I loved them both, I think I would have felt uncomfortable if they had decided to have a family. My brother loved his nieces and nephew, not sure how his partner got on with his, but actually I can't imagine that they would ever have tried to adopt or have a child by surrogate. He has been dead for 20 years, and his partner for 18, and I'm sure they would be bemused at the demands made by gay people now.

Do you know what Osc, you would have continued to love them anyway, and had they had a child, you would have loved your niece/nephew and been delighted for them.

[Oojamaflip]

Formulating policy based on the tub thumping of a vociferous minority, whatever the cause, is not the way to go. That is what this appears to be.

There's more to this. It's a further move towards secularisation and a removing of any connection between church and state. I think that's what underpins it all.

[Workingman]

Ooj, you probably know that I am not religious in the slightest, and that I would not mind the separation of Church from State, even though I do recognise that our culture and laws are largely based on Christian beliefs.However, I do agree that this looks like an underhand way of achieving separation. That is wrong, imo.

Let's have the debate and accept the outcome, but no way should such a constitutional move be done through the back door based on the introduction of divisive laws.