manxy Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 The issue is not about RIGHTS. It is just as much about how such things are termed. A civil partnerships is a distinct legal thing separate from marriage. There are the same rights but a different system depending on sexuality. That's where the problem lies. I realise that it won't be everyone's answer, but it is my answer and hope that it is respected as my opinion, whether people agree with it or not. That said and although I'm not keen on gay marriages, I do see the benefit of people living together in a caring and loving way.You can't hope for people to respect your opinion when someone doesn't have a high opinion of them when they disagree. It isn't enough just say you are a traditional person if you want people to respect and understand your opinions. You serve your opinions better when you explain why you are traditional and why being traditional is important to you. Otherwise you come across as if you just pick your opinions out of a hat. Maybe you are right but maybe you are ignorant of something and are wrong. It's no big deal. Just say what you think. At least you'll gain respect of being willing to talk about why you have your opinions. Fair point, but it would definitely bu**er up my family tree if there was such a marriage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Do you honestly think that gay marriages are a more important issue than the economy, pension provision, health, education, planning, town centre regeneration, the role of the LegCo, choice of chief minister and many other issues relevant to most of us? I don't, and neither do most people, therefore it is way down the pecking order for MHKs questions. Less of a 'disregarding response' and more a considered opinion. This is a tough thing. If you are a person who believes that voting has the possibility of being able to make changes to society on all scales of decisionmaking on how society and the economy is ran then I would agree with you. Gay marriage is of little importance as a consideration for voting for an MHK when you believe that your vote can result in the economy of the Isle of Man being improved. Were I such a person, I would consider my options in a utilitarian way and would be more concerned with the matters of higher significance for me and society. Gay marriage would enter into my thinking but would find a place lower in my estimations than the subject of public sector redundancies and service cuts. However, for those who are clued into reality, the vote counts for little to nothing in matters of governmental policy. Your vote isn't going to determine the running of the economy or what will happen with the public sector, for example. Maybe it is better to be realistic and recognise what it could possible achieve. It might actually be wise to vote on single, limited, matters depending on an MHKs opinion on the matter, such as gay marriage, or whether to build some local amenity or fund some small scheme, for example. Though it would seem far better to resort to campaigning for something rather than using something as useless as a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Do you honestly think that gay marriages are a more important issue than the economy, pension provision, health, education, planning, town centre regeneration, the role of the LegCo, choice of chief minister and many other issues relevant to most of us? I don't, and neither do most people, therefore it is way down the pecking order for MHKs questions. Less of a 'disregarding response' and more a considered opinion. This is a tough thing. If you are a person who believes that voting has the possibility of being able to make changes to society on all scales of decisionmaking on how society and the economy is ran then I would agree with you. Gay marriage is of little importance as a consideration for voting for an MHK when you believe that your vote can result in the economy of the Isle of Man being improved. Were I such a person, I would consider my options in a utilitarian way and would be more concerned with the matters of higher significance for me and society. Gay marriage would enter into my thinking but would find a place lower in my estimations than the subject of public sector redundancies and service cuts. However, for those who are clued into reality, the vote counts for little to nothing in matters of governmental policy. Your vote isn't going to determine the running of the economy or what will happen with the public sector, for example. Maybe it is better to be realistic and recognise what it could possible achieve. It might actually be wise to vote on single, limited, matters depending on an MHKs opinion on the matter, such as gay marriage, or whether to build some local amenity or fund some small scheme, for example. Though it would seem far better to resort to campaigning for something rather than using something as useless as a vote. Asking questions of potential MHKs is not just to enable you to decide how to cast your vote. You're right that a solitary vote is not going to influence government policy, but if enough of us question our next MHKs on important issues rather than getting them to promise that they'll clean up the dog turds on our street, then maybe we'll get more of them thinking about important issues when they are in government, rather than tubthumping about local non-issues just to get re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 The public only have any meaningful bearing on small matters. In such a way, voting purely on issues such a dog poo, speed limits, gay marriage, and very local issues would appear to be a more sensible use of a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 In such a way, voting purely on issues such a dog poo, speed limits, gay marriage, and very local issues would appear to be a more sensible use of a vote. And that sums up why the island's politics is like it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquarius Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I suspect that this issue is way down the pecking order for most people regarding what concerns them most about the next government. Not sure I really understand the difference between civil partnerships between same sex couples and 'gay marriage'. There clearly must be one, otherwise nobody would be worried about it. What a very disregarding response! While it may be down the pecking order for you - it may be a very important statement and example for others so they can show the love and commitment to their loved one - maybe a parallel reason which led you to marry?! Do you honestly think that gay marriages are a more important issue than the economy, pension provision, health, education, planning, town centre regeneration, the role of the LegCo, choice of chief minister and many other issues relevant to most of us? I don't, and neither do most people, therefore it is way down the pecking order for MHKs questions. Less of a 'disregarding response' and more a considered opinion. As I said - to SOME, it may be more important than some of the issues you suggest above ie town centre redevelopment. I just thought it was a bit of a sweeping statement from a poster who usually is quite level in response. Just my considered opinion. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starwash.im Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 It's 2011 and we are STILL splitting hairs about how we love each other. And WHO we are. And "what" we are. It's a total joke. Time to move on. And focus on the bigger, salient issues that are holding us all back ... Yoda ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 It's a total joke. I support gay marriage. As long as both women are cute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 This was written by Peter Tatchell: Peter Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, writes: Equality minister Lynne Featherstone has announced that the government's consultation on gay marriage is postponed until March 2012, and that its terms of reference will explicitly exclude same-sex religious marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. It is perplexing that the minister for equality wants to maintain the discriminatory laws that prohibit gay couples from having a religious marriage and heterosexual couples from having a civil partnership. She sounds more like the minister for inequality. Given that the government has no plans to scrap civil partnerships, Featherstone is wrong to rule out in advance any discussion on opening them up to opposite-sex couples. There are many heterosexuals who would like a civil partnership. Denying them this option is unfair - and illegal under human rights law. How can the equality minister support this discrimination? France and the Netherlands have an equivalent to civil partnerships, respectively PACS and registered partnerships. They are open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The vast majority of civil partnerships in these countries are heterosexual ones. They are hugely popular there and would be equally popular here, if the government allowed straight couples to have them. To deny British heterosexuals the option of a civil partnership is profoundly unjust. The government's proposed continuation of the ban on gay religious marriages is another surprise. It is an infringement of religious freedom to dictate to faith organisations that they cannot carry out weddings for same-sex partners, especially since the government has already agreed to lift a similar ban on same-sex religious civil partnerships. Some religions - such as the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism - want to conduct same-sex marriages. The equality minister says they will not be allowed to do so. While no religious body should be forced to perform gay or lesbian marriages, the government should give them the option and let them decide. It is time for legislation to end the legal prohibition on same-sex weddings conducted by faith organisations. The consultation on gay marriage was supposed to begin in June this year. There is no excuse for postponing it until March next year. Why can't it start now? In fact, why do we need any consultation at all? The ban on same-sex marriage is homophobic discrimination and should be repealed immediately. No other government legislation is being subjected to such prolonged consultation. The Scottish government's consultation on marriage equality began earlier this month. Why is the UK government dragging its feet? If Muslim or Jewish people had been banned from marriage, the government would act swiftly to end such discrimination. There would be no long drawn out consultation period. Why the double standards? Ending sexual orientation discrimination in marriage law is the right thing to do and it has majority public support. There is no reason for the government to delay. According to a 2009 Populous opinion poll, 61% of the public believe that lesbian and gay couples should be allowed to get married: http://tinyurl.com/2fxkx48 Despite the government's assurances, there is a serious danger that the delay will prevent marriage equality being passed before the next election. Because the consultation will not begin until March 2012, it is unlikely that legislation will be presented to parliament before mid-2013. Allowing for obstruction by the House of Lords, it is doubtful that it would be passed before late 2014, which is perilously close to the deadline for the next election. If the Prime Minister called an early poll, the legislation would fall. This begs the question: is the consultation fanfare an attempt to take the heat off the government while effectively kicking same-sex marriage into the long grass? Lynne Featherstone's announcement is clearly an attempt to thwart the Equal Love -www.equallove.org.uk - legal case in the European Court of Human Rights, where four gay couples and four heterosexual couples are seeking to overturn sexual orientation discrimination in civil marriage and civil partnership law: http://tinyurl.com/5szeda3 The minister won't succeed. We are confident that the government's decision to retain the prohibition on opposite-sex civil partnerships will be ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. Please think again Lynne Featherstone. · Peter Tatchell is coordinator of the Equal Love campaign: http://equallove.org.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 · Peter Tatchell is coordinator of the Equal Love campaign: http://equallove.org.uk Peter Tatchell is a sound bloke. Don't know anything about his equallove thing but I do know that on two occasions he tried to carry out a citizen's arrest on Robert Mugabe when the French (I think?) invited him over for a state banquet while Zimbabwe was going to hell - got beaten up by Mugabe's thugs while the gendarmes stood around smoking gitanes. A man that stands up for what he believes, which is something you have to respect even if you don't necessarily agree with everything he stands for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 There was a bloke who denied his sexuality in the Bermondsey by election but has since made amends many times over. I wonder if our candidate in the same position will ever do the same? Tatchell hits the note I was trying to make. It is not just about gay marriage but opening up other types of family legal structures to a wider grou of peopkle, and letting us have choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 It's a total joke. I support gay marriage. As long as both women are cute... yeah but in real life they bear little resemblence to the DVD's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 It seems to be the case with the nice-looking straight boys you see in gay porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Just done an interview with Kate Youde of the Independent on Sunday on election issues including LGBT. She has been over for 2 days, interviewed a number of people. Will be in the Independent on Sunday this Sunday. Kate is of course Manx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Whilst I do not personally believe in marriage or civil partnerships as right for me ( I think they are outmoded patriarchal structures of ownership and control) I welcome this step for those who want to have their relationships s recognised and affirmed. I hope the IOM follows suit. Something to raise on the door step with election candidates On these forums, it seems likely that there would be a fair number in favour of progressive legislation in this matter. The reality, however, is that if any candidate was to recommend the legalisation of gay marriage, he/she would certainly lose more votes than would be gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.