British Conservatism

[ScottishJohn]

it cements a conception of marriage as nothing more than a contract, a legal relationship to divide property.

I don't think that is the case, and it certainly is not an answer to the question. IF marriage has been reduced to this status then it was by introducing ANY legal and tax incentives in the first place, and then withholding them from certain types of marriage.

As far as I am concerned marriage means very different things to different people. I got married in a church because both my wife and myself as Christians wanted very much to have God at the center of our marriage from the get go. Some of our very good friends got married in a registry office because they do not share our faith, and did not see the point in involving something they did not believe in in their marriage ceremony, and I respect that more than those who make promises in the presence of a God they do not believe in. I am not trying to say that our kind of wedding was better, but it WAS better for US - it was the only kind of wedding that would do, and for our friends the same applies for them - their wedding was exactly what they wanted.

We as Christians have no 'right' to the concept of marriage. It exists within other belief systems and other cultures, there are secular marriages. The Christian marriage which I hold so dearly is under no threat whatsoever by any of these other forms of marriage, because each is distinct and different. As far as I am concerned homosexuality is not what God intended for us, but for those who have no interest in God, it does me no harm if they wish to make an act of commitment to one another. Also if the government reward that act of commitment in heterosexual marriage, (and they do not just reward Christian marriages, but also Secular, Islamic, Jewish etc etc etc), then it makes no sense to me to discriminate againt homosexual marriages. If however they were to withdraw all reward then perhaps THAT would be the fairest solution.

 

[Huguenot]

no... what cjwinnit meant was that a gay man can get married... to a woman! so therefore, our rights are equal

Ahhh...my mistake

 

[StormeTorque]

it cements a conception of marriage as nothing more than a contract, a legal relationship to divide property.

So the identification of the love and committment of two individuals is merely a contract? I fail to see how it isn't “just a contract” if a man and woman married, but is if two gay people married.

the Lords is not there to represent society, it is there to preserve liberty, uphold the constitution and provide reflection. but, given the p.c. era in which we live, and the utterly shocking state of our education system, I would not expect you to know that.

So, just say that if homosexuality was illegal and slavery was legal, and the house of commons voted to change these laws. The house of lords voted against these changes. Would you support their decision? Why or why not?



Remember, the house of commons was democratically elected, whilst the house of lords was not. Yes, the house of lords do provide a way for the bills to be modified and discussed in the commons if they are blocked, but at the end of the day, if the commons votes on something which is repeatedly blocked by the lords, then it should only be necessary that the bill is passed. Hence the parliament act.



Besides, out of the 714 members of the house of lords, why is it that only 126 are women and 24 are of ethnic minorities? Only seven percent are actual “experts”. So much for appointment being the best way to ensure that the lords is composed of people of high expertise.

lol... this is exactly why Section 28 was necessary.



and there was nothing in the law that did not mean that homosexuality could not be treated in a neutral manner. of course, neutral is not good enough... it has to encourage and support it.

Wrong. Here is the actual text:



2A. — (1) A local authority shall not—

(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;

(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

So the schools were forbidden to teach children that gay relationships were every bit as natural as straight ones. In fact, many people, including a great number of teachers, believe that section 28 actually did a lot more harm than good.



From http://www.gayyouthuk.org.uk/features/index.phtml?feature_id=1

3. There is currently an epidemic of homophobic bullying in our schools. There can be no question that the existence of clause 28 has significantly contributed to that epidemic, and that most teachers consider that it hinders them in their attempts to stamp out this bullying, as the following independent survey results show:

* "Section 28 helps bullies, study shows by John Carvel and Michael White in The Guardian, 7th. February, 2000, page 5. "Section 28, the controversial legislation banning the promotion of homosexuality, has encouraged the spread of homophobic bullying according to independent research published today."

* "... a study by the institution of education at London university has found the clause created 'an atmosphere of confusion and fear' that was discouraging staff from intervening to stop an epidemic of homophobic abuse in school playgrounds and corridors."

* "The problem was explored in in-depth confidential interviews with teachers."

* "Four in five teachers wanted further clarification of section 28 and 56% said its continuing existence made it difficult to meet the needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils." from Southbank University

* 48 per cent of young people experienced violence, 61 per cent harassment and 90 per cent had been verbally abused because of their sexuality.

* 24 per cent of young lesbians and gay men had been attacked by fellow students, 44 per cent had been harassed and 79 per cent had been verbally abused by fellow students.

* 50 per cent of the violent attacks on young lesbians and gay men involved other students and 40 per cent took place in school. From Stonewall survey, 1996.

and btw - homosexual relationships do not fit within the boundaries of normality. it is a deviant sexual practice. I know that certain political groups want to abuse the English language to such a degree where a practice of between 1-6% of people is termed normal, but it is not. it is an overwhelming, significant minority. it is therefore deviant from the norm.

People over six and a half feet are deviant from the norm too. And yes, people cannot help being gay, just as they cannot help being tall. Being gay is not a personal preference, but a natural sexual orientation. You can't remove people's "gayness." Besides, even if it is only a minority, this doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same rights as straight people. Its perfectly natural, and is not detrimental to society, so why not?

the schools are there to educate children. not to try to make them feel happy or normal. I despise the politicisation of the education system. teachers are there to educate, they are not social workers.

And so they should educate that homosexual relationships are as natural as heterosexual ones. Teachers also have a right to stop bullying in school over sexual orientation.

and I am sure the taking heroin can provide a great deal of happiness, doesn't mean the state should be encouraging it.

Drug abuse kills thousands, and costs the country billions in revenue. Homosexual relationships have no detrimental effect whatsoever.

you have got it the wrong way around. you are the one advocating change. therefore it is incumbent upon you to prove that it doesn't. you can not put the genie back in the bottle. so show me evidence that homosexuality and homosexual relations do not affect society in the long-run.

In America, the “evil liberal” states of the north east have the lowest divorce rate, whilst the conservative states of the Bible Belt have the highest. Is there any evidence to show that the more conservative the law is, the more stable society is? No, quite the contrary.

So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20041128

you highly doubt? you are willing to conduct a massive, irriversible social experiment because... you highly doubt that there would be bad effects? that is exceptionally cavalier.

Would you have abolished slavery? After all, this was a massive, irreversible social experiment. There was no indication that this would not have a detrimental impact on society, what with all that productivity lost.

the law is a blunt tool. it can not be responsive to every single case. please don't be silly.

Well, you suggested that one of the arguments against gay marriage was that gay people could not reproduce…

why should the stability of gay families be in the interests of the state? the reason the state grants privileges to marriage is to encourage it. because it is in the interests of the state.

Why would gay marriages not be in the interests of the state then? After all, married gay people could adopt children, and give then a loving upbringing, taking them away from the orphanages that do absolutely nothing to help a child grow emotionally and socially. And please don’t say that gay parents will turn their adopted child gay. You can’t turn somebody gay. Homosexuality is perfectly natural and a part of somebody’s identity. It isn’t an illness that can somehow be cured.

why not get rid of divorce?

Considering the amount of domestic abuse rampart in this country, I highly doubt that a woman (or man) would want to remain married to the person who abused them.

they have been introduced for a matter of years. give it some time.

Okay, but any detriment seems to be non existent, even at this early state. I bet they said the same thing when homosexuality was legalised back in the sixties. Look at how there are far fewer divorces, teen pregnancies etc in liberal European nations than there are in more conservative countries.

why do incestuous couples and polygamous relationships damage society?

Actually, if all parties are in full agreement, then there is no reason, other than religious reasons, why polygamy should remain illegal. Incest is also legal, but can cause a lot of pain to people and break up families.

again, you are the one pushing for change. there is no evidence that a majority of the population want homosexual relationships to be legally recognised. you have to prove that there is!

The majority of the population wanted foxhunting to be banned too. Why did you not respect the government’s decision in that case? As for any public opposition to homosexuality, I don’t doubt that there is still a lot of it, but it is mostly due to misconceptions regarding homosexuality. Something like a quarter to a third of people, according to some polls, still think homosexuality is “always wrong”. Why? Personal and religious convictions. Give it another decade and, going by the current trend, any opposition to gay marriages, and homosexuality in general, will have all but disappeared.



Anyhow, trends are changing regarding the adoption of children by gay couples.

However, a MORI survey carried out in September this year for the British Association for Adoption & Fostering (BAAF) shows that more than two in five people (44%) in the UK now believe the law should be changed so that gay and lesbian couples in stable and long-term relationships should be allowed to adopt a child together.

Just over a third (36%) of those surveyed disagree that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt jointly and one in five (20%) is undecided. Women and younger people are most likely to support same sex adoption and the most likely to oppose are white men over 55 years old.

http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/baaf.shtml



Whilst I don’t doubt the validity of polls that show the majority of people are against gay marriage, adoption of children etc, attitudes are changing and it is only a matter of time until homosexual relationships become just as accepted as heterosexual ones. In these matters, the UK (and most other countries) are becoming increasingly liberal.

 

[Huguenot]

So the identification of the love and committment of two individuals is merely a contract? I fail to see how it isn't “just a contract” if a man and woman married, but is if two gay people married.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

A God who calls homosexuality an abomination is hardly pro-gay 'marriage' when marriage was instituted by God to be between one man and one woman.

 

[artybloke]

A God who calls homosexuality an abomination is hardly pro-gay 'marriage' when marriage was instituted by God to be between one man and one woman.

The word "to-evah" (translated as "abomination") is also used to say that it is an abomination to eat prawns and wear mixed-fibre clothes. The context is ritual impurity and pagan temple prostitution.

But never let a fact get in the way of a prejudice, eh? Typical conservative policy...

 

[Nice Dream]

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11)

Don't let yourselves be deceived by todays politically correct society. God does not condone homosexuality. Regarding the age limit for sex i'd have to agree that it should be raised to 18 for both. God does not condone heterosexual sexual relationships outside marriage either.

Marriage is between a man and a woman and is an entirely different issue. God created Eve from the rib of Adam so they become one body. It is symbolic to the marriage between Jesus and the church. The man made in Gods image represents Jesus, and the woman respresents the church. Marriage is symbolic of God's commitment and love to the church not towards himself as a male/male marriage would represent. The marriage between the Lord Jesus and the church is the baptism of the Holy Spirit over the church so the when the church commits their life to Christ they become one spirit.

But never let the truth get in the way of politically correct 'modernization' and unjustified 'equality', eh? Typical liberal policy...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Wrong. Here is the actual text:



2A. — (1) A local authority shall not—

(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;

(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

So the schools were forbidden to teach children that gay relationships were every bit as natural as straight ones. In fact, many people, including a great number of teachers, believe that section 28 actually did a lot more harm than good.

Just jumping in as an observer - of course I'm not UK/GB but instead U.S., BUT...
I don't see this part as true as you put it. As I read it, it say the opposite in that the government will not teach that homosexual relationship is 'pretend' relationship. Am I missing the context/meaning there?
It seems that the article is trying to maintain a neutral "don't promote, don't condemn" position.
Or did I just miss something?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The government does whatever the Bilderbergers tell them to do.

Who are the Bilderbergers? How do they have so much power over the government? How do you know that they do?