Fair enough fella

 

Can we possibly take seriously the utterings of someone fixated with his (and apparently everyone else's) 'manrod'.

 

Hey don't give me that, I'm against manrod remember, it's you that's all for it.

 

Well, the lawyers'll be happy anyhow - where there's gay marriage, there's bound to be gay divorce too, sooner or later

 

60% of Conservatives voted against their own party..... lol

Nice to see Cameron is bringing his party together.... the Tories seem to enjoy self flagellation

 

Well it was a free vote, wish there were more.

 

Absolutely nothing at all.

They just want more

 

100% AGREE - in my eyes *every* vote should be free from whipping to the party line

 

Is this the same 60% who are anti-Europe, or is there now 60% anti-Europe and 60% anti-gay marriage (with 20% against both)? They obviously want to lose the next election.

 

Although under normal circumstances a divided party is not viewed positively by the public, perhaps on the two issues you have mentioned the effect may be less than expected as the views of the public appear misrepresented to me in both instances.

As far as the in/out Europe debate goes we are told that a referendum would currently result in an 'out' vote. The impression I get indicates that 'in' is more likely and that Cameron's renegotiation is the right approach to give the public the encouragement that they are making the right decision when the time comes. After all, the 'in' option is the lower risk option and for the most part people are risk-averse.
As far as the gay marriage debate goes we are told that the majority are for this issue, whereas this seems totally at odds with what I perceive and more than half of Conservative M.Ps seem to agree. It appears that the pro gay marriage side are happy to count the 'don't cares/ not bothereds' as votes for rather than abstentions. I would suggest the majority of the 'don't cares/ not bothereds' are infact uncomfortable with gay marriage but too spineless to stand up and be counted, worried they will become pariahs in our enlightened society ( there is a hint of sarcasm from me here). After all the choice seems very black and white (unlike Europe), why would you not be either for or against?

 

Probably becuase marriages don't last long these days, whoever is involved

 

Rather than being spineless and vehemently against it as you summise maybe they just genuinely don't know how they feel about it or feel it is such a non-issue they can't be bothered to have an opinion on it.

As for over half the Tory MPs being against it you will forgive me if I refuse to count that as a real world measure of the situation given that most MPs, especially Tories, are so detached form the real world they wouldn't know it if it hit them on the head not to mention the fact that many seem to be living in the past... I expect they would all like their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen too!

 

I *really* can't see this getting through the House of Lords TBH.

Mostly they are all ancient, and I would have thought, dead set against anything so blasephemous (in their eyes), so where does it go from there?

 

Why must you always twist and/or exaggerate everything to suit the argument you are promoting (this is a rhetorical question of course, as I'll probably come out of the closet before you respond directly to anything).

I said UNCOMFORTABLE, not VEHEMENTLY AGAINST.
You suggest 'maybe they just genuinely don't know how they feel about it'. Why not, are they dithering idiots? It's simple, surely?
You suggest that maybe they 'feel it is such a non-issue they can't be bothered to have an opinion on it'. Why not, are they dithering idiots? How much time does one need to devote to this for an opinion to arise? This is exactly the cop-out I was refering to.

Please don't count any individual who falls into either of the two categories above as a 'yes' vote.

 

It's still discrimination. Thats'a the point. Why does it have to have a different service? A different set of rules?

Well the current set of Tory policies aren;t working, are they? Perhaps a break will be as a good as a rest!


More seriosuly though, why on earth do you think that this has, in anyway, detracted from other government departments working on their respective responsibilities?

For example, could you clarify what work do you think has not been done on economic recovery as a result of this vote?
Because the "Nasty" tory party of old are unelectable.

The Tory party have not showered themselves in Glory on this one. Its like Section 28 again, and a load of front line MPs have desperately tried to exaplain themselves as to why they voted against getting rid of it. Theresa May was on Radio 4 last night saying how "she had changed her mind on the issue and would vote differently today"

However, its clear there remains a significant section of the party that beleive that Gays should be treated unequally, and its going to cost them with the electorate.

 

It's perfectly feasibleto be ambivilent about an issue.
They aren't a no, either. They simply don't care if two people want to get married.

 

THe parliament act if it gets rejected three times by the lords. Its how the age of consent got lowered by Labour for Gay people. Although It will be interesting to see if Cameron blinks on that one.

However, Maria Miller refused to rule out using it last night if it came to it.

 

Haha, just like Europe then. -that would put most of the electorate in the position of being 'blithering idiots'

 

In your opinion. What really matters is how many who vote at the general election either openly or secretly object to gay marriage, or appreciate the honesty of yesterday's vote, or don't feel the gay issue as important as others that they and the Conservatives agree on.

 

You said they were too spineless to stand up and be counted.... am I wrong in assuming this means you think they are against the idea? No I'm not so quit the semantics!

Simple for you maybe, not so simple for others. You seem unable to grasp that not everyone forms an opinion on something easily (unlike you who seems to have one on everything). Maybe they don't feel comfortable with it (due to decades of society treating gays as somehow 'different' and 'not normal' and ridiculing them for it amongst other things) yet on the other side maybe they feel they shouldn't be opposing it as what real harm can it do. Alternatively maybe they want to support it, but feel (usually down to bloody religon) that they shouldn't ... if it was so easy why is there so much debate sort of thing... people can struggle with conflicts in their reasoning and in these cases often choose to sit on the fence. It does not make them 'dithering idots'!

No, they just see it as a non-issue yet all the discussion and debate over it makes them wonder what the issue really is? Are they missing the point? No as there shouldn't be a debate... gay marriage in a modern progressive society is a no-brainer. get it into law and move on!

Yet you were happy to count them as a no vote.... (the spineless comment), but that's you all over!

Anyway thankfully the vote got passed so intelligence and common sense won the day rather than deep rooted bigotry!

 

I have already said in a previous post that the gay marriage issue is a simple 'yes' or 'no' scenario, entirely UNLIKE the Europe in/out referendum where far more consideration is required.

So no, it isn't 'just like Europe'
You are falling foul of 'F1-itis'.

 

No, I count them as an abstention.

 

As you are the only one holding this view maybe we are right and you are falling foul of... well I won't be rude!

 

So why haven't you voted on this poll then?

 

As an aside, gays are currently 'different' and 'not normal' (BBC excepted).

 

This is exactly the type of ignoramus attitude which is destroying civilization.

Changing the definition of Marriage will have HUGE repercussions for EVERYONE. Perhaps the effects won't be felt immediately, but know that there could be negative ramifications and repercussions if our current definition of Marriage is redefined to what they are proposing.

If you actually have an iota of intelligence, why don't you read into the facts yourselves and make a decision based upon the truth of the matter, instead of posting moronic, ignorant statements containing absolute non-sense.

http://c4m.org.uk/marriage-minutes/

 

Because the wording of the poll is childish and idiotic.

It needs re-wording rather like the Scottish Independence referendum, so as to remove obvious bias.

 

But you know what it means? Come on, it's a simple yes or no answer you keep telling us yet somewhat hypocritically not one you seem willing to give Maybe you are a 'dithering idiot'

 

Homosexuals already have the same rights via Civil Partnerships as Married Couples. This issue is not about giving homosexuals rights, it's about changing the current definition of marriage for everyone else, which is out of order.

If you really want to know more on the topic, C4M have a very strong case on keeping the current definition of marriage.

See http://c4m.org.uk/marriage-minutes/

 

Went to the website, saw this:

No thanks!