UK Parliament votes 400 – 175 for same sex marriage

February 6th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The United Kingdom Parliament has voted 400 to 175 in favour of . The exact breakdown by party is not know but it looks like Conservative MPs were roughly equally for and against.

The vote proportion is quite similar to NZ. We had the first reading pass by a 2:1 majority and National split almost 50/50 with 30 in favour and 29 against.

Some quotes:

In a lengthy Commons debate, which saw impassioned speeches for and against the bill, Margot James warned her parliamentary colleagues of the dangers of standing on the wrong side of history.

The MP for Stourbridge, who is gay, told the Commons: “I believe my party should never flinch from the requirement that we must continue this progression, otherwise we may end up like the Republican party who lost an election last year that they could have won were it not for their socially conservative agenda.”

James was a successful entrepreneur before she entered Parliament.

Sir Roger Gale, the MP for North Thanet, accused the prime minister of an “Orwellian” attempt to redefine marriage. “It is not possible to redefine marriage,” he said.

“Marriage is the union between a man and a woman – has been historically, remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory, Orwellian almost, for any government of any political persuasion to seek to come along and try to rewrite the political lexicon.

Historically interracial marriage was banned also. Historically it was illegal to be gay, so of course there is no tradition of gay marriage.

Nick Herbert, the former police minister who is in a civil partnership, mocked opponents of the bill. “Are the marriages of millions of straight people about to be threatened because a few thousand gay people are permitted to join? What will they say: ‘Darling our marriage is over, Sir Elton John has just got engaged to David Furnish’.”

Heh.

The vote details are sill sketchy, but it looks like the breakdown is:

  • Conservatives – 126 for, 134 against, 5 abstain
  • Labour – 217 for
  • Lib Dems – 44 for, 4 against, 7 no vote
  • Plaid Cymru – 3 for
  • Greens – 1 for
  • Democratic Unionists – 8 against

 

Tags:

61 Responses to “UK Parliament votes 400 – 175 for same sex marriage”

  1. kowtow (8,175 comments) says:

    At least Britain still has an upper house ,so some balance exists there.

    Cameron, no different to Blair. Another priveliged prick out of touch with reality.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    Hell yeah, so we should emulate the UK, and allow the Progressives to run NZ the way they run the UK.

    Had a look at the UK lately?

    You must be fucking blind Mr. Farrar.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (8,175 comments) says:

    “The wrong side of history”

    That’s a term being bandied about to rationalise this nonsense.

    We are on the wrong side of history. A history that will be determined by demographics.

    While westerners have few children, and now ‘marriages” that cannot produce children (all in the name of lifestyle /human rights) the Muslim hordes that have ,for a thousand years,been resisted will very soon prevail.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Graeme Edgeler (3,280 comments) says:

    The UK Parliament?

    Did they hold a joint session? Has that ever happened before? I know the Australian Constitution provides for it, and that it has happened there once :-)

    [DPF: Yes the House of Commons - you are right]

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    How are you going to stop progressives reddy
    We only outnumber your merry band of conservonutters by 20 to one.
    Or are you back to the fascist ism : You must be free or we will shoot you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Andrei (2,545 comments) says:

    Probably one of the craziest moments in history, as the once Great Britain slides further toward financial insolvancy, its sovereignty under threat from the gnomes of Brussels and its native population being rapidly replaced by people whose origins are in South Asia and West Africa the matter to occupy the ruling elites is providing a pseudo marriage for effete middle class “gays”.

    This is not the England of Nelson, the Duke of Wellington, or Churchill and that’s for sure

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    The activists (like Herbert Marcuse) who engineered the sexual revolution have a lot to answer for. As a part of the 60s counter-culture revolution, the sexual revolutionaries have done all they could to remake society in their own sordid image. And sadly they have basically succeeded. The levels of sexual insanity are at an all time high. But scarier yet, there seems to be no end in sight to this perversion and degeneracy. Everywhere we look we see more bitter fruit from the 60s sex revolution – destruction of well established social institutions, family breakdown, substance abuse, abortion, teenage promiscuity, crime, welfare addiction the list goes on and on.

    That’s what I find so exhausting and exasperating about trying to explain such matters to liberals. There is a nefarious agenda at play here and it’s not going to abate once Rupert & Tarquin are allowed to abuse each-others flaccid rectums with a marriage license hanging above the bed. In short, liberalism is a deconstruction project. The citadels of our culture need to be torn down so a brave new world can be built out of the rubble.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Equality—-

    theres an article in a UK magazine by a male writer who bemoans “Equality”

    he was amused to get his notification that it was time for him to go get his cervical smear test…

    We’re all equal.!!!

    Bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    UK Parliamentarians have obviously taken leave of their senses!!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    And it’s not really “equality” either. Since in this version of the Bill, adultery laws will apply only to male / female marriages, not to homosexuals. No doubt the Muzzies & the Sihks will demand an opt out clause too by the time this is all done and dusted. It’s ludicrous, we now have Governments drafting asymmetrical laws that elevate certain groups above the other.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268689/Concept-adultery-abolished-law-grounds-divorce-wake-Government-s-plans-gay-marriage.html#axzz2K3yekDNr

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. bc (1,365 comments) says:

    kowtow @ 10.14am

    There are plenty of heterosexual marrriages that can’t produce children.
    And there are plenty of homosexual partnerships (marriages soon, no doubt to kowtow’s disgust) that can produce children.

    So a big fail on the biology excuse there.

    Also I didn’t realise that the sole purpose of getting married was to produce children. All those happily married heterosexuals that have no intention of having children better be informed that they don’t have proper marriages!!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Scott (1,765 comments) says:

    Very similar situation to New Zealand with a conservative Prime minister leading the charge to redefine marriage to allow gay marriage. As is pointed out in British newspapers this was not part of the platform that the conservatives were voted in on and there is no mandate from the electorate for such a change.
    It has split the Conservative party with more MPs voting against it than for it on the Conservative side.

    Here in New Zealand the same scenario applies. This has never been part of National’s manifesto but has passed its first reading because of the prime minister’s support. Even the bill’s supporters such as Kevin Hague have admitted it does not enjoy the support of the majority of New Zealanders and would lose in a referendum.

    But this huge change, this fundamental redefinition of the cornerstone of family life is passing through parliament solely because of the support of the media and it’s liberal backers who often have never been married and care little for marriage themselves.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. wreck1080 (3,866 comments) says:

    Now UK gays can also complain about their mother-in-laws.

    Joke i saw somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    This is not the England of Nelson

    “Kiss me, Hardy” ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Simon Lyall (101 comments) says:

    Sir Roger Gale from wikipedia:

    “Roger Gale has been married three times, firstly to Wendy Dawn Bowman in 1964, whom he divorced in 1967, in 1971 he married Susan Linda Sampson and they had a daughter – they too divorced in 1980. Later the same year he married Susan Gabrielle Marks”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Fletch (6,251 comments) says:

    The MP for Stourbridge, who is gay, told the Commons: “I believe my party should never flinch from the requirement that we must continue this progression, otherwise we may end up like the Republican party who lost an election last year that they could have won were it not for their socially conservative agenda.”

    Oh, so the issue for her is of winning and losing in Parliament? Nothing to do with morals or what is good for the country. Or is that just the fear she is trying to implant in her colleagues so that they would vote for the bill?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    “Very similar situation to New Zealand with a conservative Prime minister”

    Key is a Progressive. Like far too many of the National party. It is today a group thoroughly infiltrated by liberals who should be in Labour and cannot think or speak in the manner of a Conservative.

    It is a party that has completely betrayed its heritage and those within it today do not even understand that heritage. It is why they cannot speak about it, why they cannot articulate what the party is about or what it stands for.

    There is not an idea discussed in parliament that doesn’t have its roots in Progressivism.

    There is not an idea coming from National that isn’t basically an “improvement” upon a concept first brought to the table by the left.

    National are bereft of initiative. No policies. No courage. No heart. No ideas. Losers and compromisers who have long forgotten what made NZ a great country.

    Here’s all you need to do if you want to see NZ continue down the Progressive spiral of destruction.

    Vote for National.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    “Akaroa 10:34 am UK Parliamentarians have obviously taken leave of their senses!”

    Completely agree. Makes me ashamed to call myself British.
    The cause is of course lost for NZ as well. But the good news is, that it’s only for a short time.

    With all the new gay freedoms come responsibilities, responsibilities that gay (men at least) cannot by their very makeup meet. And within years or decades at most, gay men will have driven the rest of us nuts with their exorbitant ways. So gay men will again be put back in their place, for hundreds of years, till the next cycle begins, when the next lot again refuse to learn the lessons of history, as we are doing now.

    Yes, it is fashionable right now to hug a gay man to show how in tune with fashion we are. But we will tire of it sooner rather than later. Mark my words.

    Enjoy it while you can, gay men. It is you, who will ensure that this mis-named equality is short-lived.

    People who support this direction, were not watching the lead story on all TV news editions last night, about the child-molesting pornography ring. Or they were watching, but blindly refuse to connect the dots.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Jim (407 comments) says:

    “And there are plenty of homosexual partnerships (marriages soon, no doubt to kowtow’s disgust) that can produce children.

    So a big fail on the biology excuse there.”

    I’m no expert, but I’ve never heard how a mixture of semen and poo can produce children, or even a vigourous vaginal fisting.

    Care to enlighten me on the biology of same-sex partnerships producing children?

    [and for the record I'm indifferent to the marriage debate - but my curiosity on the biology is strong]

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. James Stephenson (2,139 comments) says:

    “Kiss me, Hardy” ;)

    One of history’s great mis-quotes. What Nelson actually said was “kismet”, which as we all know means destiny or fate.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Fletch (6,251 comments) says:

    And there are plenty of homosexual partnerships (marriages soon, no doubt to kowtow’s disgust) that can produce children.

    No there aren’t. Not one. Not ever.

    To produce children still requires what a homosexual relationship will never have, but requires to reproduce – a man and a woman (a man and a woman being the basis of marriage and from whom children normally spring).

    And it does not matter (as we have said again and again) whether heterosexual couples can or cannot produce children, or whether they want to or not. The fact is, that they can in practice. It’s like going to a petrol station and there being no gas – just because there isn’t any gas there doesn’t mean there won’t be in the future – that is one of its main functions. But a gas station will NEVER have red wine flowing out of the pump, because that is not it’s function or purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. pedrogarcia (52 comments) says:

    “responsibilities that gay (men at least) cannot by their very makeup meet”. Tropicana can you please explain what responsibilities I can’t meet? I’m in a long term, committed relationship, I work hard at my full time job, I pay my mortgage, care for my pets and garden, give to charity and look out for my neighbours, friends and family. What am I doing wrong? And what is this place you want me to be put back in?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Sofia (851 comments) says:

    No adultery? – only Nine Commandments …

    Plans to allow same-sex couples to marry in Britain could pave the way for the concept of adultery to be abolished in law, experts have said.
    Under the Government’s draft Bill only infidelity between a man and a woman constitutes adultery.

    So while the law would give same-sex couples the right to wed, they would not be able to divorce their partner on the basis of adultery if their spouse went on to be unfaithful – unless they cheated with somebody of the opposite sex.

    It also states that a straight person who discovered their husband or wife had a lover of the same-sex could not accuse their unfaithful partner of adultery in a divorce court.
    Lawyers and MPs have argued that the distinction over adultery – which arose after Government legal experts failed to agree on what constitutes sex between same-sex couples – would cause confusion.

    They warned it would create inequality between heterosexual and homosexual married couples who found themselves in the divorce courts, and said it would likely result in adultery being abolished altogether as a grounds for divorce.

    The lawyers who drafted the Government’s Bill managed to swerve the contentious question of what constitutes sex between homosexual couples by adding a clause which states that only ‘conduct’ between a married person and a person of the opposite sex would constitute adultery.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268689/Concept-adultery-abolished-law-grounds-divorce-wake-Government-s-plans-gay-marriage.html#axzz2K3yekDNr

    No adultery? – only Nine Commandments …
    This may define a little more clearly the choice some people are making

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Lucia Maria (2,277 comments) says:

    This is a massive win for the left. The split in the Conservative Party in the UK shows how damaging this issue was, and the Conservatives will now look like a joke to their constituency. If the National Party here in NZ follows, then the left will have won here as well, with National governing in name only. The left has always hated the natural family and sought to destroy it’s power, and this same-sex marriage debacle is yet another step in it’s destruction, and if they cause their competition to self-destruct themselves, then they win twice.

    Who really governs if a leftist bill can be passed when the left is not in power?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Michael (903 comments) says:

    And in other news, most of us don’t give a flying fart as it doesn’t change anything for us. Except maybe our gay friends will have more stylish weddings than ours…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (23,429 comments) says:

    The split in the Conservative Party in the UK shows how damaging this issue was, and the Conservatives will now look like a joke to their constituency.

    It wasn’t a split, it was an unwhipped conscience vote so each MP voted as an individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. James Stephenson (2,139 comments) says:

    so each MP voted as an individual.

    Apart from those voting to ingratiate themselve with “Cast Iron” Dave.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Fletch (6,251 comments) says:

    As far as the 10 Commandments, that probably won’t change anything for gays in any case, as their relationships are more often than not characterized by infidelity. And neither couple minds because it’s part of the lifestyle.
    Only another reason why gay “marriage” cannot be overlaid on top of traditional marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    pedrogarcia at 11:12 am said: “responsibilities that gay (men at least) cannot by their very makeup meet”.

    You are the less-commonly occurring of the various types of gay men. The loud mouth hedonists, and the paedophiles will do the damage on behalf of all of you, and you will be doing everything to foster, rather than restrain your own kind (gays). Same as Maori. Just as Maori don’t look after their own rougher elements, neither will gay men. And the rest of us will once again, tend to lump you all together as a collective. (Again, as society tends to do with Maori). You chose not to comment on the lead item on all of last nights TV news editions. the gay pornography ring. What collective responsibility will you personally for example, be taking for this public perception of your collective gay proclivity? Ignore it? Like you just did in ignoring this unfortunate part of my comment. Pretend it is not part of the gay makeup?

    But look, I won’t debate you further. I’m sick to death of the bullshit propaganda. You have all your smarmy arguments, and I’ve heard them all before a hundred times. They are never addressed at what I say. They are always just pushing a general barrow. My points are made and that’s it. Enjoy your days in the sun while they last.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Jacob Cohen (46 comments) says:

    Re – Nine Commandments?
    Of all the screeds of comment on this issue, the possibility that adultery may be dropped as a grounds of divorce is the first concrete example I have seen that recognising gay marriage ‘equality’ could in any way undermine traditional marriage, and apparently arose after UK Government legal experts failed to agree on what constitutes sex between same-sex couples – ironic

    What of the US currency catch-line “In God We Trust”
    “Trust God Only 90%”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    This is a massive win for the left.

    Actually it’s a win for the right: for those who treat people as individuals rather than playing your group and identity politics game and indulging in coercive social-engineering.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Harriet (4,777 comments) says:

    I think that the better part of John Keys Marriage is the development of his children into adults.

    DPF I understand, thinks it’s something else, maybe the label, maybe love between only the husband and wife but not the children, or maybe it’s forplay[cuunilingus & fellatio] before the act of sex, or dare I say, sodomy afterwards.

    But it’s clear it’s not the children that are the better part of John Keys marriage in DPF’s opinion!

    See? He won’t say! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    JK is the White OBAMA. 2nd term, both have come out swinging our gay brothers and sisters. So what if the degenerate English of today have done what they have done. Where in the rules of life says if one country does it so should we?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. toms (301 comments) says:

    “…This is not the England of Nelson, the Duke of Wellington, or Churchill…”

    Of course, Nelson was around in the era the phrase “rum, sodomy and lash” was coined for, Wellington was surrounded by gay blades in more ways than one, and I suggest you read up on the eye poppingly “degenerate” lives of many of Churchill’s upper-class Edwardian contemporaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Tom Barker (136 comments) says:

    Wasn’t it Churchill who coined (which means “first deployed”) the phrase “rum, sodomy and the lash”? This is the England of Churchill, all right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Jacob Cohen (46 comments) says:

    Azeraph – on Harawira Day it may be appropriate to re-write a bit of history, hence maybe you try “JK is the White OBAMA. 2nd term, both have come out swinging our gay brothers and sisters.”

    However it was Obama who acted first, then our krap-zealous media did “Ask John Key’s reaction to that”, and he indicated he had no great reservations however it was not a priority, but that was a rainbow flag waved in the face of Louisa Wall who produced what is of course a Labour bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Wasn’t it Churchill who coined…

    Possibly not – http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed

    Interesting to see that his grandson, Nicholas Soames was in the ayes lobby on this vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. gump (1,617 comments) says:

    This is fantastic news for the world and all who live within it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. bc (1,365 comments) says:

    Hmmm, strange that Jim & Fletch (not a gay couple!) haven’t heard of sperm donations and surrogate mothers. Yet Jim based on his 11:07am post, seems very schooled on extreme sexual practices.

    Using the argument that gay couples can’t get married because they can’t have children is not valid. Not to mention that if you use that argument, infertile hetrosexual couples couldn’t get married either.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. loonybonkersmad (27 comments) says:

    Here’s a thought … political conservatism is dead.

    All we have now is varying degrees of progressiveness. The left and liberals have therefore won; forever.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Andrei (2,545 comments) says:

    The left and liberals have therefore won; forever.

    No not forever – these silly sausages will have about twenty years to relish the fact they can get married to a same sex partner, though few actually will before they find out that while they were blissfully indulging in hedonistic sodomy other people were raising children and those children now grown are voters with votes that are counted and who will have an entirely different set of values along a great disdain for hedonistic sodomites.

    And by then it will be too late as the calls to prayer echo ever more loudly from the mosques minarettes

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    Jacob Cohen (15) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Same crap that the media asked Obama two years ago and he was non committal just like JK was when he made that comment, you want proof look it up. I watched it live on tv then. What do you think he’s going to do? Have you ever watched all of JK’s media events with Obama? It’s like he’s reached the board he’s always wanted a seat on. One black one white, it sure looks the same to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    loonybonkersmad at 1:26 pm … political conservatism is dead … forever.

    Yes and yes, but certainly not forever. There is light at the end of the tunnel. And common sense will prevail over fashion most of the time. We just happen to be at a point in history, when common sense is not fashionable. Remember “cool to be a fool”? Well, those cool fools are now adults (well sort of adults).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    FFS Andrie

    Woman can be homos.

    That you focus solely on bum sex betrays you thoughts.

    Exceptions for most of the conservative arguments give them no legs to stand on, breeding is not a required part of marriage. Neither is the way you have sex. They can give no coherent reason why we should continue to deny people this simple acknowledgement as a couple

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Harriet (4,777 comments) says:

    Andrei# “…..while they were blissfully indulging in hedonistic sodomy other people were raising children and those children now grown are voters with votes that are counted and who will have an entirely different set of values along a great disdain for hedonistic sodomites….”

    Tropicana# “……We just happen to be at a point in history, when common sense is not fashionable….”

    Common sense is now becoming the counter culture of our youth as we are now starting to witness the rise of anti-abortion positions.

    ‘Safe, legal, and rare’ is now being shouted by youth in the western universities.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Harriet (4,777 comments) says:

    “….Neither is the way you have sex….”

    There is only one way to have sex – with two complimentry sexual organs – cunnilingus and fellatio are known as FOREPLAY – and backsides as we know, are NOT sexual organs.

    ‘Anal sex’ and ‘oral sex’ is just gaystapo propaganda – as before all social change first comes the change in language!

    Any GP will explain that to you Griff! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    Yes Harriet when the missis sucks my dick its not sex. .. . Would it be gay to have computer sex with you? EEEWWWWW
    As pointed out people who can not have “sex” by your choice of definition are presently recognized as married.
    The exception disproves your theory that having intercourse is a pre request for marriage.
    having gays married does not change the true meaning of marriage to anyone but homophobic bigots.
    It will involve the very small minority of people that are homosexual many of whom reject your values so would not marry if it was available. To allow more people to get married only reinforces the institution of marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Jim (407 comments) says:

    “Hmmm, strange that Jim & Fletch (not a gay couple!) haven’t heard of sperm donations and surrogate mothers”

    Of course I have, but then that would not be a same sex couple producing a child. Forgive me but that’s what I assumed the biology was all about.

    “Yet Jim based on his 11:07am post, seems very schooled on extreme sexual practices.”

    Extreme? At least you did not say deviant. Which side of this debate are you on?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. gump (1,617 comments) says:

    @Harriet

    I can assure you that there are many, many more ways to have sex than the one way that you know about.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Scott (1,765 comments) says:

    We appreciate the biology lesson gump. However marriage is not about libertine adults exploring the bizarre edge of sexual liberation. It is about mum and dad and the kids.
    Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. It is a sexual relationship involving sexual intercourse in a permanent, committed covenant where each person promises to be faithful to the other. The expectation is that they will look after each other and any progeny that will naturally come along as a consequence of the union. Gay relationships are not marriage because they are not between a man and a woman, they do not involve sexual intercourse, they cannot naturally produce children and according to the British legislation are not even expected to be monogamous. Under the legislation adultery will not be grounds for divorce for homosexual couples.
    So it is not marriage in any meaningful sense. Our parliament should follow the example of our Australian neighbours and reject this legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    (Re Tom Barker at 1158 and Redders at 1205.)

    Reminds me of the old saying about the Royal Navy.

    For the Officers its ‘Wine, Women and Song’.

    For the Lower Deck its ‘Rum, Bum and Gramaphone records”

    Can’t attribute (attach blame for!!) that to any person. Just apocryphal is all!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. SPC (5,573 comments) says:

    Scott, where did you get the idea that the British legislation has different marriage arrangements for different couples – I suspect your source is not reliable and your spreading their disinformation is not helpful.

    1. The old biblical ideal for marriage was an extra virgin wife for a polygamist.
    2. The latter biblical ideal was a virgin husband and virgin bride and a marriage that could not end in a divorce and re-marriage so was supposed to last for life.

    Today few couples are virgins, one third to one half the marriages will end in divorce. Second marriages and merged families are common place and so are ex wives on the DPB. Many couples breed before they marry and some never do. Many heterosexual couples practice open marriages, some are swingers, some have long term polyamorous relationships. Some are involved in sex work while married.

    It is uncommon for fault divorce to exist in most modern democracies – we have no fault practice and it is a 2 year separation that leads to a divorce being granted. So what you say about UK law seems quite suspect.

    The public support the proposed change to New Zealand law, so why should Oz decide this for us. ACT, NSW and Queensland allow civil unions or for same sex partnerships to be registered. They followed our lead. Just as they did on votes for women.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC (5,573 comments) says:

    PS Marriage is commitment between a couple that a society recognises. It requires no commitment to breed children. Thus even old people can marry.

    It is good for parents of same sex couple partners to be able to have married parents of their grandchildren. I am waiting for the time when the next step comes into play, the inevitable practice of sperm donation from the brothers of same sex women partners so they can breed the grandchildren of their parents within these marriages. Then comes the method by which same sex male partners have grandchildren of their parents – probably their sisters donating eggs to a paid surrogate birth mother. Thus in the end family building on the same basis as heterosexual couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. MrLimerick (10 comments) says:

    SPC – This kind of thing is probably more common already than many people think. My good friends are a Civil Unionised lesbian couple. One of them has a sister who desperately wants a child, but she and her husband have permanently seperated and they were having fertility problems anyway. Her sister’s partner’s brother is a gay man who has been childless up til now and has been asked to be the donor father! Although various comentators will probably see this as ushering in the ruination of Western Civilisation, any child born to them will be the product of two linkages joining these two families together, which actually strengthens society in my book!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Chuck Bird (4,833 comments) says:

    I hear on this mornings news of major problems in Britain’s health system resulting in many deaths. They seem to have similar priorities to New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Can I point out, straight married men, you really shouldn’t be commenting on the sexual practices of us gays and lesbians until you accept that in Biblical terms your acts have consequences too. I speak of the Commandment Thou shalt not commit adultery, and the many instances where it is written, when a married man looks at another woman with lust in his heart, he commits adultery, and he should sever his right hand and remove his right eye. Those married men reading this (particularly who believe us gays should somehow be punished for our actions), have you ever looked at a woman not your wife and thought or said “Nice legs”? “Nice breasts?” Watched porn? Had/having an affair?

    To those of you shaking your head, “Oh no, not me, never”, remember, Thou shalt not lie is another Commandment. Even if you lie to others, God knows you’re lying.

    How about you go get your hand and eye removed, then come back to us gays, tell us the Bible says we are sinners – at least then you can’t be accused by me of being a hypocrite!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Lucia Maria (2,277 comments) says:

    Howdarethey,

    You are misunderstanding the full meaning of those passages in the Bible to insist that any man who commits adultery should sever his right hand and remove his eye. What Our Lord means is that if you have so little control over yourself that your body causes you to sin, then you should remove the parts that make you do so rather than spend an eternity in Hell. It’s not a punishment for the acts, it’s a remedy to prevent further acts. That goes for you as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria

    And yet, what straight married man doesn’t continue to sin throughout their lives? With pornography, prostitution and adultery so common, you can’t tell me that anything less than a significant proportion of married men alive today should have long since recognised they are out of control, and acted accordingly in maiming their bodies.

    I am a sinner also, but not because of my homosexuality. As a person, I find myself being jealous/covetous/unforgiving, to name just 3 of the myriad of ways I fail. God is love. To me it would be ridiculous and sad for married men to impose a Biblical penalty on themselves for their sins.

    Could it be, the challenge of the Bible is not to give us rules to interpret about how to punish ourselves for our sins, but to challenge us to each acknowledge we sin just like everyone else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Lucia Maria (2,277 comments) says:

    Howdarethey,

    Many of those married men who are out of control don’t follow the Bible. The biggest proportion of Christians are Catholics, and we believe that Our Lord gave us remedies for sin that don’t include maiming. These are Confession and the Eucharist, whereby every sinner is transformed over time to more easily resist the gravest sins, and then even mild sins. So, yes, a Biblical penalty would be ridiculous when more effective remedies are available.

    I agree that you are not a sinner because of your homosexuality (it is a very heavy cross to carry) however, it is necessary for you as well to take heed of those admonitions that Our Lord gives men with regards to sin in the heart. For you, if would be just as much a sin to look lustfully at another man as it is for a man to look lustfully at a woman. And the remedy is also the same – Jesus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria

    You are quite right about many married men not following the Bible. I think this goes a long way to explain the popularity of pornography and other forms of treating women as objects of lust.

    There has been lots of interesting research done on the role of our brain’s chemicals in controlling the process of falling in love, and maintaining monogamy. One of the findings is that male and female brains release different chemicals during the sexual act, and during the process by which we fall in love. In females, as orgasm is approached the brain releases ever higher levels of a chemical called oxytocin. Oxytocin is known as a bonding chemical – when present in high levels, the person will experience a powerful desire to befriend and keep as a mate the person present when the oxytocin is released. The brains of women also release very high amounts of oxytocin during the process of child birth. In men, oxytocin is also released during sex, but the most influential thing is rises in the release of testosterone.

    Dopamine is another influential chemical in our brains during the mating process. Dopamine has been called the chemical of desire – it is responsible for helping motivate ourselves to seek out the things we want, and ignore the things we don’t. It assists us to subconsciously access memories, and plays a role in motivating muscles to do whatever it physically takes to attain a particular item we perceive we desire.

    During the early days of a heterosexual relationship, the brain of a female shows a slow but steady rise in levels of dopamine, as the woman becomes increasingly confident she has picked a good quality mate. This process will occur during the first few sexual encounters. As long as the first dozen or so sexual encounters between the women and her new mate are successful, the woman will feel increasingly strong feelings of attachment.

    The process is very different for men (both heterosexual and homosexual, we’re all the same in this regard). Whereas the first, second and third sexual encounters with a new partner might induce huge feelings of attraction (dopamine high, testosterone, oxytocin, the whole bit), by the time the relationship has developed to the point where sex has been had a dozen times or more, dopamine levels will have dropped right back. You have to conclude this is for historic reasons, ergo the well-known belief that male brains are oriented to hunt and women to nurture.

    So, women experience more attraction as they fall in love, but men’s interest falls. The answer of course is to have people fall in love, so the man has the maturity/inclination/whatever to look beyond the sex and learn to love the women’s personality. For maximum longterm satisfaction in a relationship, it might also make sense for the female/wife to indulge their partner’s desires (if any) to role-play and to experiment with different sexual practices, games and so on. This doesn’t mean other people are involved, just that the two people are working to induce satisfaction in each other.

    With regard to the gay marriage argument, this research tells me that people, gay or straight, are all the same. I think gay marriage is ridiculous. We gays don’t need to get married in a church to cement our unions, since the Church as an institution has vilified us. We have our rights through the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001. What we do need is the right to feel accepted, and the church doesn’t accept us. Priests and church men have committed some of the most disgusting and evil acts through history, and continue to do so. My view is that lots of priests are going to end up in Hell for what they have done to children and others in their care. I’m ashamed of the people who rule our churches, and my soul is too good for them.

    I’m keen on finding a partner. I know God is with me in this quest. I know that if/when I do fall in love, my prayers to God that I be a good partner to my mate will be heard. Like I say, we’re all the same, we want the same things and our brains are set up to get them, gay or straight. If at some stage I want to celebrate my relationship, I’ll have a party with prayers of thanksgiving, not a wedding.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ChardonnayGuy (1,197 comments) says:

    Thanks for the breakdown, anyway, David. Should’ve guessed the wingnuts’d be out in force on this one. And it’s a shame that British Tory infighting is underway once more on this issue. Isn’t it enough for the troglodyte Tories against marriage equality that they kept the centre-right out of power for thirteen years and this can only increase Ed Miliband and Labour’s poll lead? Isn’t it enough that the Tories don’t have a governing majority because of their electorally destructive antics during that decade and the election campaign in 2010?

    Apparently not. The Tories don’t deserve a leader of the calibre of David Cameron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.