Gwent MPs to take opposing sides on gay marriage vote (From South Wales Argus)

This an annoying non-issue, gays can have civil services already,it is vested interests using the 53rd card in the pack (Equality) to make a mockery of the whole thing to get media brownie points. Try running the country properly first.

I quite agree!

Paul Murphy opposes all forms of homophobia? . . . except for Christian reasons that is.

This is called special pleading. If your doctorine has the strength to overide something you feel so strongly about, then maybe you should stop what it is that makes you pass a discriminatory vote. Why shy away from the label?"As a Christian" you wear it so well.

Arguments stand and fall on their own merit. If you allow Christian dogma to colour your judgement, then you demonstrate an inability to be objective on issues such as this. You also demonstrate that you 'expect' your chosen or inherited religion to enjoy special preference among a mosaic of different citizens, some of which are gay. Some of which have no sky god at all.

This is not freedom of religious expression if one of them gets preference. We also need to be free from religion in making pragmatic decisions on how to go about building a just society.

Morality is built upon our understanding of well being. Being a first world country we are at a big advantage here, and we should be grateful that such a topic can even be discussed. Marriage is a legal contract that both involved parties benefit from, a Church may only 'bless' a marriage it does not 'own' it, and it cannot stipulate that you must bear children, or have a certain sex life. There is only one reason to oppose this bill and it is tradition.

Tradition is the enemy of progress.

The real question here is:
Does the state religion have the right to discriminate against 'tax paying' minorities, even though it is tax exempt by grace of that minority?

If you say yes, then you can't bemoan at any labels you might earn.

P C Neilson wrote:
Paul Murphy opposes all forms of homophobia? . . . except for Christian reasons that is.

This is called special pleading. If your doctorine has the strength to overide something you feel so strongly about, then maybe you should stop what it is that makes you pass a discriminatory vote. Why shy away from the label?"As a Christian" you wear it so well.

Arguments stand and fall on their own merit. If you allow Christian dogma to colour your judgement, then you demonstrate an inability to be objective on issues such as this. You also demonstrate that you 'expect' your chosen or inherited religion to enjoy special preference among a mosaic of different citizens, some of which are gay. Some of which have no sky god at all.

This is not freedom of religious expression if one of them gets preference. We also need to be free from religion in making pragmatic decisions on how to go about building a just society.

Morality is built upon our understanding of well being. Being a first world country we are at a big advantage here, and we should be grateful that such a topic can even be discussed. Marriage is a legal contract that both involved parties benefit from, a Church may only 'bless' a marriage it does not 'own' it, and it cannot stipulate that you must bear children, or have a certain sex life. There is only one reason to oppose this bill and it is tradition.

Tradition is the enemy of progress.

The real question here is:
Does the state religion have the right to discriminate against 'tax paying' minorities, even though it is tax exempt by grace of that minority?

If you say yes, then you can't bemoan at any labels you might earn.

'We also need to be free from religion in making pragmatic decisions on how to go about building a just society.'........Thi
s is a contradiction in terms. How can you be free from ANY religion.......Chris
tian, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim........and build a just society? Your use of the word 'just' presupposes an absolute set of rules somewhere....a yardstick by which to measure the 'justice' of 'society's' decisions. That is called religion. Unless, that is, you have a set of rules tucked away in your drawers somewhere which no-one else has seen. You cannot divorce decisions like this from a person's faith. They go hand in hand. Paul Murphy is therefore being true to himself.

Furthermore, this is my and Paul Murphy's understanding of Christian marriage............
not some fashion item that you can tinker with when you feel the need to alter the good book...........
(Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It's hard to see religion as a 'yardstick' for justice as I sit here watching reports of Catholic Workhouses operating until 1996.

P C Neilson wrote:
Paul Murphy opposes all forms of homophobia? . . . except for Christian reasons that is.

This is called special pleading. If your doctorine has the strength to overide something you feel so strongly about, then maybe you should stop what it is that makes you pass a discriminatory vote. Why shy away from the label?"As a Christian" you wear it so well.

Arguments stand and fall on their own merit. If you allow Christian dogma to colour your judgement, then you demonstrate an inability to be objective on issues such as this. You also demonstrate that you 'expect' your chosen or inherited religion to enjoy special preference among a mosaic of different citizens, some of which are gay. Some of which have no sky god at all.

This is not freedom of religious expression if one of them gets preference. We also need to be free from religion in making pragmatic decisions on how to go about building a just society.

Morality is built upon our understanding of well being. Being a first world country we are at a big advantage here, and we should be grateful that such a topic can even be discussed. Marriage is a legal contract that both involved parties benefit from, a Church may only 'bless' a marriage it does not 'own' it, and it cannot stipulate that you must bear children, or have a certain sex life. There is only one reason to oppose this bill and it is tradition.

Tradition is the enemy of progress.

The real question here is:
Does the state religion have the right to discriminate against 'tax paying' minorities, even though it is tax exempt by grace of that minority?

If you say yes, then you can't bemoan at any labels you might earn.

Brilliant. Finally, a comment on the South Wales Argus that is not utter nonsense and discriminatory. "Tradition is the enemy of progress". Nothing aspplies to this issue more than that. Homophobia has been legislated for in this country so much so that it has made real that which is rooted in prejudice. Marriage is an example of that.
Whoever you are, well-done. You have restored my faith in human beings given all I have read recently in relation to the Islamic sign issue on another post. Thankyou!

Leviticus chapter 18 calls homosexuality an "abomination". Paul Murphy has fought against homophobia and yet his chosen religion is so anti gay. The hypocrisy of religious folk! I'm always amazed that tambourine bashers follow 'this' bit of the bible but not 'that' bit, sort of pick 'n' mix christianity. If the bible isn't good enough 100% of the time, then why bother with it?

I totally side with the Church on this issue. Civil partnersips already exists Should gay couples wish to marry thats fine however;

(1) Can the union be recognised as legal? the actual vows form only a part of the union (2) how long will it be for the Church to be on the receiving end of a case being referred to European appeal courts (& we all know the likely outcome of that one.)

Dai the Milk wrote:

P C Neilson wrote:
Paul Murphy opposes all forms of homophobia? . . . except for Christian reasons that is.

This is called special pleading. If your doctorine has the strength to overide something you feel so strongly about, then maybe you should stop what it is that makes you pass a discriminatory vote. Why shy away from the label?"As a Christian" you wear it so well.

Arguments stand and fall on their own merit. If you allow Christian dogma to colour your judgement, then you demonstrate an inability to be objective on issues such as this. You also demonstrate that you 'expect' your chosen or inherited religion to enjoy special preference among a mosaic of different citizens, some of which are gay. Some of which have no sky god at all.

This is not freedom of religious expression if one of them gets preference. We also need to be free from religion in making pragmatic decisions on how to go about building a just society.

Morality is built upon our understanding of well being. Being a first world country we are at a big advantage here, and we should be grateful that such a topic can even be discussed. Marriage is a legal contract that both involved parties benefit from, a Church may only 'bless' a marriage it does not 'own' it, and it cannot stipulate that you must bear children, or have a certain sex life. There is only one reason to oppose this bill and it is tradition.

Tradition is the enemy of progress.

The real question here is:
Does the state religion have the right to discriminate against 'tax paying' minorities, even though it is tax exempt by grace of that minority?

If you say yes, then you can't bemoan at any labels you might earn.

'We also need to be free from religion in making pragmatic decisions on how to go about building a just society.'........Thi

s is a contradiction in terms. How can you be free from ANY religion.......Chris

tian, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim........and build a just society? Your use of the word 'just' presupposes an absolute set of rules somewhere....a yardstick by which to measure the 'justice' of 'society's' decisions. That is called religion. Unless, that is, you have a set of rules tucked away in your drawers somewhere which no-one else has seen. You cannot divorce decisions like this from a person's faith. They go hand in hand. Paul Murphy is therefore being true to himself.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but religion is not the way to a just society.

I hope that the irony of making such a claim on 'this' thread, is not totally lost on you.

I don't presuppose an absolute set of rules, nor do I make up my own definitions to suit. That's a mainstay of religion.

You just made a whole lot of assumptions, and not a lot of sense.

Limestonecowboy wrote:
I totally side with the Church on this issue. Civil partnersips already exists Should gay couples wish to marry thats fine however;

(1) Can the union be recognised as legal? the actual vows form only a part of the union (2) how long will it be for the Church to be on the receiving end of a case being referred to European appeal courts (& we all know the likely outcome of that one.)

The answer is (1) Yes. Presumably you won't want to watch it for evidence.

and

(2) Doubtful. Europe respects terrorists and the shameful behaviour of the Catholic Church far too much.

Dai the Milk wrote:
Furthermore, this is my and Paul Murphy's understanding of Christian marriage............

not some fashion item that you can tinker with when you feel the need to alter the good book...........
(Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Furthermore, stop using full stops to denote a pause, or some preamble to an epic nugget of truth that you are about to bestow upon me.

' . . . .' (notice the space between each one) is to denote something that is unspoken, but is usually implied. Also don't use bible verses to justify your position, this only demonstrates your inability to reason out your own heartfelt morality. I am an atheist so this kind of appeal to authority is transparent and meaningless to me.

By this measure then I presume that you are OK with racisim, genocide, rape and incest? Let me demonstrate how willing I am to eviscerate you with the 'morals' of your own book.

Have some divinely commanded, un-married, incestuous bible accounts on me.

[Genesis 4:16-17 Cain kills his brother, mates with his sister.

Genesis 20:12-13 Abraham and his sister.

Genesis 11:26-29 Nachor and his niece.

Genesis 19:31-36 Lot and his daughters

Exodus 6:19-20 Amram and his aunt.

II Kings 13:14 Amnon sister rape on Thamar.

Ugly isn't it? So glad none of it's true.

PC Neilson - it goes back to what I wrote earlier about pick n' mix Christianity, you put it so much better. I can't believe adult believers allow their kids to read the Old Testament. Should be 18+.

PC Neilson your counter arguments;

Currently under exsiting law a marriges can be annulled on the grounds a couple may not of consummated their union ( the term defined through case law) please research will find interesting (or may not) the term couple refers to a man & woman so would gay marriage be void?

The law is still in a state of flux on this . In the meantime calm down.

Limestonecowboy wrote:
PC Neilson your counter arguments;

Currently under exsiting law a marriges can be annulled on the grounds a couple may not of consummated their union ( the term defined through case law) please research will find interesting (or may not) the term couple refers to a man & woman so would gay marriage be void?

The law is still in a state of flux on this . In the meantime calm down.

I didn't consider that, seems silly. I'm sure that would have to be updated for the purposes you mention. Would be important in the event of death too I would imagine. Thanks.

I am calm though. Sarcasm is a weakness.

cath 872 wrote:
PC Neilson - it goes back to what I wrote earlier about pick n' mix Christianity, you put it so much better. I can't believe adult believers allow their kids to read the Old Testament. Should be 18+.

Thankfully they don't cath 872, they also leave out little details like 900 year old noah who kept Yahwehs intentions planetary genocide a secret from generations of his neighbours for 150 years while he built an incest boat. You know, just in case the kids call bullspit on it

Pick n' mix is right. Shell fish, mixed fibre clothing, and finding someone attractive, all prohibited by the big man himself. You'd think ignoring direct commands would be a big no-no.

Reform is always slow and unwilling, but I'm glad that they eventually do. No credit is due for dragging feet, that belongs to science, reason, and empathy.

I don't like bible lessons. I read and see enough to know what it means. As history and literature I'm OK with it.

What chance getting the bill past the Lords? Particularly as the Bishops will definitely turn up for that debate.

Weather we like it or not we all live obeying laws of the land, which is based on the Religion of that Country, all laws can be reviewed and updated and more importantly Religion should be to.
People who don't believe in any religion still have to live there lives by the Religion based laws of that Country.
What ever reason MP's have voted for this i am sure will be made news in due course.
Change in laws are slow some times that might be a good thing, because it stops Cultural Marxist spreading there ideology how the world should be....

GogExile wrote:
What chance getting the bill past the Lords? Particularly as the Bishops will definitely turn up for that debate.

Doubtful ! It was an excessive in PR as the church have exemption to it anyway, what a waste of time. The whole thing was a serious drain on addressing real issues, like running the country. But then none of those who voted yesterday are voted for as the governing party of rule,it is a collection of hooray henry's and disgraced labour politicians with a few lib-dems getting what they can before the get obliterated in the next election. Billy Smart has serious opposition....

This is a progressive social reform whose time has come, it's right in principle and public opinion seems to agree.

It does make me smile to hear arguments against gay marriage based on religion from people who rarely or never step foot inside a Church.

The fact that more Mp's from the Tory party voted against the bill rather than for it shows that 'call me Dave's' efforts to modernise and detoxify the Conservative brand has largely failed.

Am I the only one who noticed that Wayne David MP was the only one who took representations from constituents as part of his deliberations?

The others seem to have decided what they would do, then justify it to consituents afterwards.

Representative democracy huh!

P C Neilson wrote:

Dai the Milk wrote:
Furthermore, this is my and Paul Murphy's understanding of Christian marriage............


not some fashion item that you can tinker with when you feel the need to alter the good book...........
(Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Furthermore, stop using full stops to denote a pause, or some preamble to an epic nugget of truth that you are about to bestow upon me.

' . . . .' (notice the space between each one) is to denote something that is unspoken, but is usually implied. Also don't use bible verses to justify your position, this only demonstrates your inability to reason out your own heartfelt morality. I am an atheist so this kind of appeal to authority is transparent and meaningless to me.

By this measure then I presume that you are OK with racisim, genocide, rape and incest? Let me demonstrate how willing I am to eviscerate you with the 'morals' of your own book.

Have some divinely commanded, un-married, incestuous bible accounts on me.

This is pick and mix of the highest order from the atheistic point of view. Are you seriously suggesting each and every individual should 'reason out his or her own heartfelt morality'? That is ridiculous. Also, if you don't believe it's true, why do you get so worked up about it?

Please don't lecture me either on my style of English.........I am not a pedant but since you want to assume the role of teacher......concent
rate on your own use of the language.

position (+ a full stop) This only.....

'transparent' ??? Transparent and meaningless are contradictory, like your original article. A better choice would be unfathomable or inscrutable.

racisim?? Do you mean racism?

divinely-commanded not divinely commanded

can't wait to see some of these weddings, they're gonna be FABULOUS!!!

If you put 2 Rams in a field how could they pro-create and produce a family ?

Independentvoter wrote:
If you put 2 Rams in a field how could they pro-create and produce a family ?

they couldn't, but it's been proven that homosexuality occurs just as often in the animal kingdom, as it does amongst humans.

nice try, but you're just highlighting your own ignorance

no one seems to have thought about the real results of gay marriage. I'll warn you in advance that some of you will be shocked to the core:

http://www.thefoundi
st.com/wp-content/up
loads/2011/10/for_th
e_foundist.jpg

Brilliant result and one that should have happened decades ago. Anyone who opposes this is indeed a bigot and to lie that they do so on religious grounds is just a cowardly excuse.

Disappointed that (nominally) Labour MP Paul Murphy voted against the marriage bill. If he isn't a closet right-winger who just joined the Labour Party out of opportunism as he calculated that he'd be more likely to get elected and stay in an easy job for life in South Wales, I'd guess that he's the sort of left-winger who only applies his socialist principles to certain groups that he favours in society. In fact, he's probably just another part-time socialist, a hanger-on surplus to the requirements of real revolution - you just ain't needed anymore, 'Comrade':)

Now how about a law which guarantees legal protection for freedom of gender identity expression and also a widening of the Equal Pay Act to make it illegal to pay LGBTQ workers less than their straight and/or cisgendered colleagues for doing exactly the same jobs?

Gareth wrote:
no one seems to have thought about the real results of gay marriage. I'll warn you in advance that some of you will be shocked to the core:

http://www.thefoundi

st.com/wp-content/up

loads/2011/10/for_th

e_foundist.jpg

Quite shocking Gareth,lol.

Howie' wrote:

Gareth wrote:
no one seems to have thought about the real results of gay marriage. I'll warn you in advance that some of you will be shocked to the core:

http://www.thefoundi


st.com/wp-content/up


loads/2011/10/for_th


e_foundist.jpg

Quite shocking Gareth,lol.

i think it'll shock some people Howie!

I love subjects like these. It's one of those that people seek out to be shocked at. It has all the characteristics:

1) will have nothing to do with their own lives, understanding, experience or interests.

2) is an opportunity to tell other people how they should live their lives even though that way of life won't affect them in any way

3) has had a lot of comments on

4) is an subject that a quick google search and some cut-n-paste can make professors of even the most challenged.

Superb!

I have no feelings either way regarding Gay marriage, BUT i AM annoyed that time was taken on THIS subject when the country is in the toilet!!!
NOT the most pressing issue I would think... Abuse of the elderly, youth unemployme,nt, surely MORE vital that gays getting married.....

Dai the Milk wrote:

P C Neilson wrote:

Dai the Milk wrote:
Furthermore, this is my and Paul Murphy's understanding of Christian marriage............



not some fashion item that you can tinker with when you feel the need to alter the good book...........
(Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Furthermore, stop using full stops to denote a pause, or some preamble to an epic nugget of truth that you are about to bestow upon me.

' . . . .' (notice the space between each one) is to denote something that is unspoken, but is usually implied. Also don't use bible verses to justify your position, this only demonstrates your inability to reason out your own heartfelt morality. I am an atheist so this kind of appeal to authority is transparent and meaningless to me.

By this measure then I presume that you are OK with racisim, genocide, rape and incest? Let me demonstrate how willing I am to eviscerate you with the 'morals' of your own book.

Have some divinely commanded, un-married, incestuous bible accounts on me.

This is pick and mix of the highest order from the atheistic point of view. Are you seriously suggesting each and every individual should 'reason out his or her own heartfelt morality'? That is ridiculous. Also, if you don't believe it's true, why do you get so worked up about it?

Please don't lecture me either on my style of English.........I am not a pedant but since you want to assume the role of teacher......concent

rate on your own use of the language.

position (+ a full stop) This only.....

'transparent' ??? Transparent and meaningless are contradictory, like your original article. A better choice would be unfathomable or inscrutable.

racisim?? Do you mean racism?

divinely-commanded not divinely commanded

@ Dai the Milk. Not very original, you have just reflected what I have already said. Get your own material. You got me on a typo, but you are wrong on everything else.

Do I really have to explain myself? I thought it was pretty clear.

I find appeals to authority 'transparent' and I find your appeal to authority (quotes from the bible) 'meaningless' (because I think it's all woo-woo).

Do try to keep up dear boy.

What is picking and mixing from the atheistic view exactly? As far as I know there isn't one, except not believing in sky gods. That is all.

I'm not only suggesting that we should reason out our own heartfelt morality, I am 'telling' you that we do it all the time! Even Christians (though they are taught to suppress it and not to take credit for it).

It is hardly surprising that you think I take the role of teacher (which I decline) when concepts such as this are news to you.

This is one subject that you and I will never agree on, and it is a good example of what I meant by your earlier post being ironic.

If you think that the only reason we can be moral or just to one another, is because it says so in an old book, then maybe 'you' had better stick with religion.

Ask yourself this. Why is it that the religious do things in front of an all seeing, all knowing, judgmental god, that they would not dare do in front of another human being?

This one is easy, I have already given you the answer in this post.
When the answer finally dawns on you, you will also understand why non believers find claims of 'holier than tho' quite laughable and hypocritical.

I promise not to criticise your prose, if you stop telling me that the bible is moral.

The country is 'in the toilet' because of stupid, liberal decisions like this. First we destroyed marriage, then we took away corporal punishment, now we try to redefine what marriage is. The world's gone bonkers. Glad I've exited the country to be honest. It's a complete mess.....largely down to the the loony left.

Gareth wrote:

Howie' wrote:

Gareth wrote:
no one seems to have thought about the real results of gay marriage. I'll warn you in advance that some of you will be shocked to the core:

http://www.thefoundi



st.com/wp-content/up



loads/2011/10/for_th



e_foundist.jpg

Quite shocking Gareth,lol.

i think it'll shock some people Howie!

I love subjects like these. It's one of those that people seek out to be shocked at. It has all the characteristics:

1) will have nothing to do with their own lives, understanding, experience or interests.

2) is an opportunity to tell other people how they should live their lives even though that way of life won't affect them in any way

3) has had a lot of comments on

4) is an subject that a quick google search and some cut-n-paste can make professors of even the most challenged.

Superb!

'It's one of those that people seek out to be shocked at'.

Very apt.

Thats the phrase I was looking for and couldn't articulate for the illuminated religious sign in Kensington Place. Yep, perfect description of all those that were offended by a sign they will never see or a change in the law that will never affect them. Wonder how many of the 'shocked' knew about the latest change in the legal definition of marriage in (I think) 1981 when it was made illegal for a husband to rape his wife.

Actually I pass this sign very day. As for a law change the issue was about how equality can work negatively, NOT, positively. Of course live and let live is the stat opt out of those who couldn't care less about rights really so long as it doesn't affect them,same old.

The 'Vote' was undemocratic, taken by an unelected government who failed to consult rank and file voters, hoping for kudos and a vote. So dubious on those grounds, the other area was more a problem, do we prioritise 'rights and equalities',who has that priority ?

Does the individual or sector with a strongly held belief have a right to practice and hold that belief, or, do other areas have a right to ignore it and going to those belief areas and insist the law accommodates them ?

GIven the issue is about definitions of marriage not the legal process,I think the Gay vote intrinsically wrong. The church is about men and women and children and family (Simplistically), Those who still believe in that and use church beliefs have every right to state NO the gays cannot just change the definition of that belief, as gays were given civil rights to 'marriage' as they see it, the whole thing is handled badly,and one man's right is another discriminations, so equality is always going to be an actual myth given that fact,not everyone has the same view, unlike posters here who declare we are ALL in favour of Gay marriage without providing any shred of real proof,show me where the UK population has been asked.

Posters say it doesn't affect you what is your point ? To that I say people starve to death in Africa every hour, that doesn't directly affect me, but it doesn't stop me thinking that is an awful situation. Many have issues they need to address and feel comfortable with, homosexuality is not a situation many do feel comfortable with, that is the reality, they are not homophobic, the term now is not a threat any more either, so people who do not feel happy with the situation should be able to say so, and, now do.

Basically people agree because they are scared not to.

Mervyn,

The death of anyone because of terrible distribution of wealth is absolutely an issue. Its an ongoing issue that does affect us all indirectly.

But gay people getting married is just gay people getting married. It affects no one but themselves. No one dies. No one steals a job off you. No one creams money from your pockets. No one does anything to you, or anyone else, at all.

If gay marriage makes you feel that awful, then surely it's easier to turn down any offers to go to a gay wedding. The alternative is to spend your time angry and frustrated.

If you abhor the act of homosexuality, then don't partake.

If you hate hoosexuals, then spend no time with them.

If you support Newport County, but hate Cardiff City, then don't go to see Cardiff City games or spend time with their fans.

Should it really be any more difficult than that?

Imagine me picking on something you did - something that affected no one but yourself. Then I'd get all shocked and angry (for some reason) then spent my time online trying to convince others that my opinion on your actions was really important.

I can imagine that your answer would be something along the lines of: that i know nothing about you; that what you were doing was always important to you, and I only cared now because it was in the news; that it has nothing to do with me, didn't affect me; and to get a life you saddo.

Am I close?

I don't do name calling. The issue is NOT about gay partnerships, it never was. The issue was about an unelected elite voting their way, they were allowed an 'conscience' vote we were not. I suggest had an referendum took place the answers might be different. That is why Gays never asked for one.

Gays may have a right to live as they want, they do not have a right to put their lifestyle decisions onto others, or an unelected government of known failures, to say we have to agree. I think this is where the differences are, I reject homophobic jibes in any form, don't accept those at all. Gays name-call more than anyone. They do it to kill off debate. As one poster suggested the church issue is mum/dad/marriage/chi
ldren. Marriage came via the church, you can't make up alternatives to suit whatever.

OK Mum and dad are not co-existing any more just a fleeting visit to create a child etc, but for those with a real belief and in a church they must have a right to a refusal. Even hetero's have civil marriages because they may not want a church blessing. It is about defending the right of the true followers I suppose. Hetero's who do that probably respect others more than gays do.

i would have thought that MPS in a poor run down county like Gwent would have better things on their plate then stupid gay marriage

Mervyn James wrote:
I don't do name calling. The issue is NOT about gay partnerships, it never was. The issue was about an unelected elite voting their way, they were allowed an 'conscience' vote we were not. I suggest had an referendum took place the answers might be different. That is why Gays never asked for one.

Gays may have a right to live as they want, they do not have a right to put their lifestyle decisions onto others, or an unelected government of known failures, to say we have to agree. I think this is where the differences are, I reject homophobic jibes in any form, don't accept those at all. Gays name-call more than anyone. They do it to kill off debate. As one poster suggested the church issue is mum/dad/marriage/chi

ldren. Marriage came via the church, you can't make up alternatives to suit whatever.

OK Mum and dad are not co-existing any more just a fleeting visit to create a child etc, but for those with a real belief and in a church they must have a right to a refusal. Even hetero's have civil marriages because they may not want a church blessing. It is about defending the right of the true followers I suppose. Hetero's who do that probably respect others more than gays do.

Nice post Merv.

Hands up: I misunderstood your earlier posting, but now understand your argument. (I apologise for grouping you with the minority-bashing for the sake if it brigade.)

Let's turn this on its head: forget the question of trying to change the church, why do you think someone would want to follow a religion (and get married in its church) whose fundamental doctrine rejects you?

The word of the bible cannot be reinterpreted - unless you are Henry VIII of course - and many have pointed to scripture that notes homosexuality as a sin. So why would anyone follow a religion that tells them from the outset that they are damned?

Mind you, I think we're all pretty much in trouble if the more eyebrow-raising sins in Deuteronomy are to be believed...

Presumably all the people against gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is about the possibility of raising children are ALSO firmly against heterosexual couples that are infertile through age, or any other reason, from marrying?

Dear 67 yr old Mrs X, having lost her 1st husband a decade ago, is making a mockery of marriage by becoming Mrs Y with a new love, yes?

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the right of Reverend A to refuse to marry them if it's against his beliefs, but surely Reverend B should be legally permitted to conduct the ceremony if he feels it's OK?

With so many MP's having a vested personal interest, how could the voting represent the view of the general public ?
The religious argument is humbug ,already the church has cast aside one of its basic teachings on the subject, welcoming this minority grouping into its hierarchy. I am surprised that up to now not one of the homo sexual community
have proclaimed that because the apostles were all male and Judas kissed Jesus in the garden they were
all of the homo sexual persuasion .

Dear God, if you hate the gays, please stop making so many of them, we're really confused down here. Many thanks, humans.