Same-sex marriage bill opposed by MP Anne McIntosh

York Press: MP Anne McIntosh MP Anne McIntosh

GOVERNMENT plans to legalise same-sex marriage have been opposed by one of North Yorkshire’s MPs.

The proposals were published in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill last week, but Thirsk and Malton MP Anne McIntosh said she did not believe the legislation was “appropriate at this time” because they were not included in the Conservative manifesto at the last General Election.

The Tory MP, who has received more than 300 letters and emails from constituents on the issue, said: “The Government’s attention should now be focused on reviving the economy and fulfilling our commitment made at the last election of implementing the married couples’ tax allowance.

“My understanding of marriage is very clear. It is the union of a man and a woman, for their comfort, safety and sustenance, and for the upbringing of children. Civil partnerships ensure there is no discrimination, and in my view, marriage is special and should be respected and celebrated as such.”

Miss McIntosh said it was “wrong to discriminate against homosexuals” but said: “I believe it is equally wrong to discriminate against those with strong religious beliefs, and I will be not be supporting the proposals in the Bill.”

The Bill will receive its Second Reading next Tuesday, with a free vote being held.

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:33am Wed 30 Jan 13

divided says...

There's a lot of other things that weren't in the Conservative manifesto which get pushed through. Also there's a lot of things that WERE in it that have been completely ignored. No surprises really, what do you expect from a bunch of liars and cheats. It's not benefiting her or her retirement fund so she isn't interested, the same as the rest of them.
There's a lot of other things that weren't in the Conservative manifesto which get pushed through. Also there's a lot of things that WERE in it that have been completely ignored. No surprises really, what do you expect from a bunch of liars and cheats. It's not benefiting her or her retirement fund so she isn't interested, the same as the rest of them. divided

8:58am Wed 30 Jan 13

Alpha Kenny Thing says...

Spot on divded!
Spot on divded! Alpha Kenny Thing

9:02am Wed 30 Jan 13

Matt_S says...

"I believe it is equally wrong to discriminate against those with strong religious beliefs"

By opposing the bill she's discriminating against those religious groups who are happy to allow gay marriage. Why not give them the freedom to decide for themselves? Oh right, because she's a Tory and so supports a smaller state; except when it concerns issues of personal freedom.
"I believe it is equally wrong to discriminate against those with strong religious beliefs" By opposing the bill she's discriminating against those religious groups who are happy to allow gay marriage. Why not give them the freedom to decide for themselves? Oh right, because she's a Tory and so supports a smaller state; except when it concerns issues of personal freedom. Matt_S

9:04am Wed 30 Jan 13

Expat Stella says...

So it's wrong to discriminate against anyone but equally wrong to discriminate against another group of people who wish to discriminate against those people on 'religious' grounds? Well thanks for clearing that one up Anne!!
So it's wrong to discriminate against anyone but equally wrong to discriminate against another group of people who wish to discriminate against those people on 'religious' grounds? Well thanks for clearing that one up Anne!! Expat Stella

9:20am Wed 30 Jan 13

Clueless71 says...

I am a heterosexual married man. I am not pro or anti gay. How on earth could the fact that two people, that love each other and want to marry possibly effect anyone else's life. It is these dated views from narrow minded people that tend to rule this country. It is also these people that are killing the church and the reason I cannot bring myself to enter one.
I am a heterosexual married man. I am not pro or anti gay. How on earth could the fact that two people, that love each other and want to marry possibly effect anyone else's life. It is these dated views from narrow minded people that tend to rule this country. It is also these people that are killing the church and the reason I cannot bring myself to enter one. Clueless71

9:20am Wed 30 Jan 13

Omega Point says...

"Anne McIntosh said she did not believe the legislation was “appropriate at this time” "

Implying that there may be a good time.

"“My understanding of marriage is very clear. It is the union of a man and a woman,"

Implying a firm no to same-sex marriage in principle, suggesting no time is appropriate.

Make your mind up
"Anne McIntosh said she did not believe the legislation was “appropriate at this time” " Implying that there may be a good time. "“My understanding of marriage is very clear. It is the union of a man and a woman," Implying a firm no to same-sex marriage in principle, suggesting no time is appropriate. Make your mind up Omega Point

9:32am Wed 30 Jan 13

Guy Fawkes says...

I wonder if sonja crisp will be making sure that the muslim population she is trying to build up in York will be tolerant to homosexuals and the mosque will welcoming for gay marriage to be performed.


What, you mean they won't be allowed to set up a Chop Chop Square outside Harkers? That's against their 'ewman rights, that is!
[quote]I wonder if sonja crisp will be making sure that the muslim population she is trying to build up in York will be tolerant to homosexuals and the mosque will welcoming for gay marriage to be performed.[/quote] What, you mean they won't be allowed to set up a Chop Chop Square outside Harkers? That's against their 'ewman rights, that is! Guy Fawkes

9:34am Wed 30 Jan 13

ReginaldBiscuit says...

Fundamentally here, the issue here surely should be, do you want a lifetime of being stuck with someone be they the same or opposite gender? Everyone has the potential to bat for 'England' or 'Australia' anyway. Put straight men or women in prison or away from the opposite sex for a while and some of them will turn anyway because there aren't many apes who can go long lengths of time without making the beast with two backs. Much like anything in life, opposition to groups or individuals is based on either religious intolerance, general intolerance or fear and in some cases, fear of what some individuals wouldn't like to admit.

We're all here for but a mere jazz-spec in the length of the universe. Human-beings, apes, a doomed race, whatever you want to call them are here for a tiny time less you believe a creationist pathway. Who created God anyway and why would you want to live forever if your life has been bad? Debate for another time I am afraid.

This really shouldn't be an issue. If gay people want to get married, let them. There's far more worrying problems in the world like the gradual decline into a human based entropy that we are currently seeing with the breakdown of the world's financial systems and the rocketing population of the earth without the resources to live a life with. I really wish politicians would get hot and bothered about real issues but most of them are bought and many of them are stupid. So they make cake about topics like this instead of doing something really useful. Oh well.
Fundamentally here, the issue here surely should be, do you want a lifetime of being stuck with someone be they the same or opposite gender? Everyone has the potential to bat for 'England' or 'Australia' anyway. Put straight men or women in prison or away from the opposite sex for a while and some of them will turn anyway because there aren't many apes who can go long lengths of time without making the beast with two backs. Much like anything in life, opposition to groups or individuals is based on either religious intolerance, general intolerance or fear and in some cases, fear of what some individuals wouldn't like to admit. We're all here for but a mere jazz-spec in the length of the universe. Human-beings, apes, a doomed race, whatever you want to call them are here for a tiny time less you believe a creationist pathway. Who created God anyway and why would you want to live forever if your life has been bad? Debate for another time I am afraid. This really shouldn't be an issue. If gay people want to get married, let them. There's far more worrying problems in the world like the gradual decline into a human based entropy that we are currently seeing with the breakdown of the world's financial systems and the rocketing population of the earth without the resources to live a life with. I really wish politicians would get hot and bothered about real issues but most of them are bought and many of them are stupid. So they make cake about topics like this instead of doing something really useful. Oh well. ReginaldBiscuit

9:46am Wed 30 Jan 13

yorkborn66 says...

Anne McIntosh says:

The Government’s attention should now be focused on reviving the economy and fulfilling our commitment made at the last election of implementing the married couples’ tax allowance.

Good idea Anne, so when is the Government going to start this then? Lets face it the government has made a complete hash up to now.

Whilst you may be acting on behalf of a very small percentage of your constituents, The majority of them will be more worried about Jobs, housing, endless Government cuts and possibly again flooding.
I have no political affiliation with any party.

Live and let live I say.
Anne McIntosh says: The Government’s attention should now be focused on reviving the economy and fulfilling our commitment made at the last election of implementing the married couples’ tax allowance. Good idea Anne, so when is the Government going to start this then? Lets face it the government has made a complete hash up to now. Whilst you may be acting on behalf of a very small percentage of your constituents, The majority of them will be more worried about Jobs, housing, endless Government cuts and possibly again flooding. I have no political affiliation with any party. Live and let live I say. yorkborn66

10:03am Wed 30 Jan 13

jadestars says...

Clueless71 wrote:
I am a heterosexual married man. I am not pro or anti gay. How on earth could the fact that two people, that love each other and want to marry possibly effect anyone else's life. It is these dated views from narrow minded people that tend to rule this country. It is also these people that are killing the church and the reason I cannot bring myself to enter one.
very well said ... Narrow minds, bread by religion, religion that disallows gays to marry in their church but allows the likes of Jimmy Savile and other revolting scum. Its all screwed up!
[quote][p][bold]Clueless71[/bold] wrote: I am a heterosexual married man. I am not pro or anti gay. How on earth could the fact that two people, that love each other and want to marry possibly effect anyone else's life. It is these dated views from narrow minded people that tend to rule this country. It is also these people that are killing the church and the reason I cannot bring myself to enter one.[/p][/quote]very well said ... Narrow minds, bread by religion, religion that disallows gays to marry in their church but allows the likes of Jimmy Savile and other revolting scum. Its all screwed up! jadestars

10:23am Wed 30 Jan 13

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Cluless71 wrote: "It is also these people that are killing the church and the reason I cannot bring myself to enter one." ROTFLMAO
Cluless71 wrote: "It is also these people that are killing the church and the reason I cannot bring myself to enter one." ROTFLMAO Garrowby Turnoff

10:29am Wed 30 Jan 13

nick clogg says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
I wonder if sonja crisp will be making sure that the muslim population she is trying to build up in York will be tolerant to homosexuals and the mosque will welcoming for gay marriage to be performed.


What, you mean they won't be allowed to set up a Chop Chop Square outside Harkers? That's against their 'ewman rights, that is!
No they'd be at the ELC in new street
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]I wonder if sonja crisp will be making sure that the muslim population she is trying to build up in York will be tolerant to homosexuals and the mosque will welcoming for gay marriage to be performed.[/quote] What, you mean they won't be allowed to set up a Chop Chop Square outside Harkers? That's against their 'ewman rights, that is![/p][/quote]No they'd be at the ELC in new street nick clogg

10:53am Wed 30 Jan 13

dodgydavereturns says...

MISS McIntosh????

Surely as a 'MISS' she is as qualified to discuss the rights and wrongs of marriage, as Joseph Friztl is on the qualities of bringing up grandchildren?

Or maybe she's a bitter 'comfortable shoes' wearer.

If two people want to get married, then let them. Who are any of us to judge?
I think we have more to worry about than whether 2 men, 2 women, a man and a woman or one man and his dog want to tie the knot!
MISS McIntosh???? Surely as a 'MISS' she is as qualified to discuss the rights and wrongs of marriage, as Joseph Friztl is on the qualities of bringing up grandchildren? Or maybe she's a bitter 'comfortable shoes' wearer. If two people want to get married, then let them. Who are any of us to judge? I think we have more to worry about than whether 2 men, 2 women, a man and a woman or one man and his dog want to tie the knot! dodgydavereturns

10:59am Wed 30 Jan 13

Firedrake says...

ROTFLMAO - sorry; I need enlightening, assuming it stands for something which is printable in a family newspaper!
ROTFLMAO - sorry; I need enlightening, assuming it stands for something which is printable in a family newspaper! Firedrake

11:03am Wed 30 Jan 13

Guy Fawkes says...

Or maybe she's a bitter 'comfortable shoes' wearer.


In that case she should be backing the bill, so that she can tie the knot with Tracey Simpson-Laing and ride off into the sunset. They we could marry off Alexander and Galloway, too.
[quote]Or maybe she's a bitter 'comfortable shoes' wearer.[/quote] In that case she should be backing the bill, so that she can tie the knot with Tracey Simpson-Laing and ride off into the sunset. They we could marry off Alexander and Galloway, too. Guy Fawkes

11:13am Wed 30 Jan 13

dsom73 says...

McIntosh is a spiteful old witch with no mandate to rule - she does not represent me or any of her constituents.

Her constituency had it's borders altered to push out Labour and LibDem voters who were threatening to club together and tactical her out. The vote was suspended until 4 weeks after everyone elses due to an unlikely having an episode of death, so we didn't get a vote until 3 weeks AFTER the coalition seized power.

Nobody bothered voting because there was absolutely no point. As such, she was voted in last time by a very tiny fraction of her constituents.

I'm stocking up on guillotine grease in preperation for the revolution, just to make sure her blade goes through first time.
McIntosh is a spiteful old witch with no mandate to rule - she does not represent me or any of her constituents. Her constituency had it's borders altered to push out Labour and LibDem voters who were threatening to club together and tactical her out. The vote was suspended until 4 weeks after everyone elses due to an unlikely having an episode of death, so we didn't get a vote until 3 weeks AFTER the coalition seized power. Nobody bothered voting because there was absolutely no point. As such, she was voted in last time by a very tiny fraction of her constituents. I'm stocking up on guillotine grease in preperation for the revolution, just to make sure her blade goes through first time. dsom73

11:19am Wed 30 Jan 13

yorkiemum says...

Firedrake wrote:
ROTFLMAO - sorry; I need enlightening, assuming it stands for something which is printable in a family newspaper!
Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A*** Off
[quote][p][bold]Firedrake[/bold] wrote: ROTFLMAO - sorry; I need enlightening, assuming it stands for something which is printable in a family newspaper![/p][/quote]Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A*** Off yorkiemum

11:48am Wed 30 Jan 13

Firedrake says...

Oh I see. thanks.
Oh I see. thanks. Firedrake

12:14pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Clueless71 says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Cluless71 wrote: "It is also these people that are killing the church and the reason I cannot bring myself to enter one." ROTFLMAO
Very constructive I'm sure!
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: Cluless71 wrote: "It is also these people that are killing the church and the reason I cannot bring myself to enter one." ROTFLMAO[/p][/quote]Very constructive I'm sure! Clueless71

12:50pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Re: discrimination.

Religion is a belief.
Sexuality is not.
Re: discrimination. Religion is a belief. Sexuality is not. Buzz Light-year

12:51pm Wed 30 Jan 13

nasrudin says...

Anne, you just sound confused, bigoted and out of touch.

"Civil partnerships ensure there is no discrimination, and in my view, marriage is special and should be respected and celebrated as such"

How can you say that "there is no discrimination" if one is considered "special" and one isn't? You've just confirmed that there is discrimination in the same sentence as denying it.

Perhaps, rather than continue discriminating, you might want to review your "clear understanding of what marriage is", to something like this:

"It is the union of two adults, for their comfort, safety and sustenance, and for the upbringing of children"

You may also wish to consider how you would feel if it was a particular ethnic group which could not get married, but instead had to have a "civil partnership"?

What other arbitrary historical restrictions might we have considered to be discriminatory, which may have altered your perspective?

People over the age of 50? Or MPs? Or people called Anne?
Anne, you just sound confused, bigoted and out of touch. "Civil partnerships ensure there is no discrimination, and in my view, marriage is special and should be respected and celebrated as such" How can you say that "there is no discrimination" if one is considered "special" and one isn't? You've just confirmed that there is discrimination in the same sentence as denying it. Perhaps, rather than continue discriminating, you might want to review your "clear understanding of what marriage is", to something like this: "It is the union of two adults, for their comfort, safety and sustenance, and for the upbringing of children" You may also wish to consider how you would feel if it was a particular ethnic group which could not get married, but instead had to have a "civil partnership"? What other arbitrary historical restrictions might we have considered to be discriminatory, which may have altered your perspective? People over the age of 50? Or MPs? Or people called Anne? nasrudin

1:06pm Wed 30 Jan 13

invisibleman says...

I am neither for or against gay couples living together/civil partnership, but I do think that getting married in a religious bulding should be a matter for the people of that religion - I do not think it is a matter for political debate. I am however against same sex couples adopting children. My opinion - biggoted or not.
I am neither for or against gay couples living together/civil partnership, but I do think that getting married in a religious bulding should be a matter for the people of that religion - I do not think it is a matter for political debate. I am however against same sex couples adopting children. My opinion - biggoted or not. invisibleman

1:34pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Matt_S says...

invisibleman wrote:
I am neither for or against gay couples living together/civil partnership, but I do think that getting married in a religious bulding should be a matter for the people of that religion - I do not think it is a matter for political debate. I am however against same sex couples adopting children. My opinion - biggoted or not.
But at the moment religious ceremonies *aren't* a matter for the people of that religion, because religious groups in favour of same-sex marriage aren't allowed to perform them.

*Why* don't you think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt? Don't say that's your opinion. Your opinion is worthless unless you back it up with some reasoning and evidence.
[quote][p][bold]invisibleman[/bold] wrote: I am neither for or against gay couples living together/civil partnership, but I do think that getting married in a religious bulding should be a matter for the people of that religion - I do not think it is a matter for political debate. I am however against same sex couples adopting children. My opinion - biggoted or not.[/p][/quote]But at the moment religious ceremonies *aren't* a matter for the people of that religion, because religious groups in favour of same-sex marriage aren't allowed to perform them. *Why* don't you think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt? Don't say that's your opinion. Your opinion is worthless unless you back it up with some reasoning and evidence. Matt_S

3:29pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Guy Fawkes says...

Her constituency had it's borders altered to push out Labour and LibDem voters who were threatening to club together and tactical her out.


Labour were in power when the borders were last changed, so why would they do that? In reality, the constitutency borders were changed as part of a standard process that the Boundary Commission does before every general election, to reflect changes in the population distribution and to try to ensure the number of voters in each constitutency are as evenly distributed as possible.

*Why* don't you think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt? Don't say that's your opinion. Your opinion is worthless unless you back it up with some reasoning and evidence.


There is an overwhelming mass of evidence to suggest the life chances of children are highest when they are brought up by a heterosexual, married couple. Sometimes this can't happen (as was the case with me - my father was killed in the Falklands and I was brought up by my mother from age 10), but it's absolutely insane - and effectively a form of child abuse - to facilitate and encourage it to happen. Children brought up in other ways - by hetereosexual unmarried couples, by gay couples and by single parents - are likely to end up with lower educational qualifications, they'll earn less, they'll be less likely to form stable relationships and families themselves, more likely to have chronic health problems and more likely to commit crimes than their counterparts brought up by married, heterosexual parents (both biological and foster).

Therefore, providing council flats and benefits to unmarried women who deliberately set out to become single parents, allowing gay couples to adopt and not providing any incentives to marriage in the tax system is a victory for leftie, PC propaganda and a defeat for common sense and evidence.
[quote]Her constituency had it's borders altered to push out Labour and LibDem voters who were threatening to club together and tactical her out.[/quote] Labour were in power when the borders were last changed, so why would they do that? In reality, the constitutency borders were changed as part of a standard process that the Boundary Commission does before every general election, to reflect changes in the population distribution and to try to ensure the number of voters in each constitutency are as evenly distributed as possible. [quote]*Why* don't you think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt? Don't say that's your opinion. Your opinion is worthless unless you back it up with some reasoning and evidence.[/quote] There is an overwhelming mass of evidence to suggest the life chances of children are highest when they are brought up by a heterosexual, married couple. Sometimes this can't happen (as was the case with me - my father was killed in the Falklands and I was brought up by my mother from age 10), but it's absolutely insane - and effectively a form of child abuse - to facilitate and encourage it to happen. Children brought up in other ways - by hetereosexual unmarried couples, by gay couples and by single parents - are likely to end up with lower educational qualifications, they'll earn less, they'll be less likely to form stable relationships and families themselves, more likely to have chronic health problems and more likely to commit crimes than their counterparts brought up by married, heterosexual parents (both biological and foster). Therefore, providing council flats and benefits to unmarried women who deliberately set out to become single parents, allowing gay couples to adopt and not providing any incentives to marriage in the tax system is a victory for leftie, PC propaganda and a defeat for common sense and evidence. Guy Fawkes

4:17pm Wed 30 Jan 13

dodgydavereturns says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
Her constituency had it's borders altered to push out Labour and LibDem voters who were threatening to club together and tactical her out.
Labour were in power when the borders were last changed, so why would they do that? In reality, the constitutency borders were changed as part of a standard process that the Boundary Commission does before every general election, to reflect changes in the population distribution and to try to ensure the number of voters in each constitutency are as evenly distributed as possible.
*Why* don't you think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt? Don't say that's your opinion. Your opinion is worthless unless you back it up with some reasoning and evidence.
There is an overwhelming mass of evidence to suggest the life chances of children are highest when they are brought up by a heterosexual, married couple. Sometimes this can't happen (as was the case with me - my father was killed in the Falklands and I was brought up by my mother from age 10), but it's absolutely insane - and effectively a form of child abuse - to facilitate and encourage it to happen. Children brought up in other ways - by hetereosexual unmarried couples, by gay couples and by single parents - are likely to end up with lower educational qualifications, they'll earn less, they'll be less likely to form stable relationships and families themselves, more likely to have chronic health problems and more likely to commit crimes than their counterparts brought up by married, heterosexual parents (both biological and foster). Therefore, providing council flats and benefits to unmarried women who deliberately set out to become single parents, allowing gay couples to adopt and not providing any incentives to marriage in the tax system is a victory for leftie, PC propaganda and a defeat for common sense and evidence.
WOW and your upbringing made you and open minded and tolerant humab being didn't it?

Where on earth do you get your 'facts' from? The Daily Mail & Mein Kampf?

I think you need to think about the quality of the data you are using for your analysis!

Let's face it, statistcs can prove anything if you want to, they can even prove that 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape!...(Think about it properly before you make a complaint about that statement!)
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]Her constituency had it's borders altered to push out Labour and LibDem voters who were threatening to club together and tactical her out.[/quote] Labour were in power when the borders were last changed, so why would they do that? In reality, the constitutency borders were changed as part of a standard process that the Boundary Commission does before every general election, to reflect changes in the population distribution and to try to ensure the number of voters in each constitutency are as evenly distributed as possible. [quote]*Why* don't you think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt? Don't say that's your opinion. Your opinion is worthless unless you back it up with some reasoning and evidence.[/quote] There is an overwhelming mass of evidence to suggest the life chances of children are highest when they are brought up by a heterosexual, married couple. Sometimes this can't happen (as was the case with me - my father was killed in the Falklands and I was brought up by my mother from age 10), but it's absolutely insane - and effectively a form of child abuse - to facilitate and encourage it to happen. Children brought up in other ways - by hetereosexual unmarried couples, by gay couples and by single parents - are likely to end up with lower educational qualifications, they'll earn less, they'll be less likely to form stable relationships and families themselves, more likely to have chronic health problems and more likely to commit crimes than their counterparts brought up by married, heterosexual parents (both biological and foster). Therefore, providing council flats and benefits to unmarried women who deliberately set out to become single parents, allowing gay couples to adopt and not providing any incentives to marriage in the tax system is a victory for leftie, PC propaganda and a defeat for common sense and evidence.[/p][/quote]WOW and your upbringing made you and open minded and tolerant humab being didn't it? Where on earth do you get your 'facts' from? The Daily Mail & Mein Kampf? I think you need to think about the quality of the data you are using for your analysis! Let's face it, statistcs can prove anything if you want to, they can even prove that 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape!...(Think about it properly before you make a complaint about that statement!) dodgydavereturns

4:35pm Wed 30 Jan 13

desmond tiblets says...

I think this is great news.Its totally unacceptable that two people of the same sex can get married.shame on them
I think this is great news.Its totally unacceptable that two people of the same sex can get married.shame on them desmond tiblets

5:37pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Anne is entitled to vote as she sees fit, and her reasons for opposing this are valid.

Remember, it's not her decision alone, that will decide this.
Anne is entitled to vote as she sees fit, and her reasons for opposing this are valid. Remember, it's not her decision alone, that will decide this. Scarlet Pimpernel

6:41pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Matt_S says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
Her constituency had it's borders altered to push out Labour and LibDem voters who were threatening to club together and tactical her out.


Labour were in power when the borders were last changed, so why would they do that? In reality, the constitutency borders were changed as part of a standard process that the Boundary Commission does before every general election, to reflect changes in the population distribution and to try to ensure the number of voters in each constitutency are as evenly distributed as possible.

*Why* don't you think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt? Don't say that's your opinion. Your opinion is worthless unless you back it up with some reasoning and evidence.


There is an overwhelming mass of evidence to suggest the life chances of children are highest when they are brought up by a heterosexual, married couple. Sometimes this can't happen (as was the case with me - my father was killed in the Falklands and I was brought up by my mother from age 10), but it's absolutely insane - and effectively a form of child abuse - to facilitate and encourage it to happen. Children brought up in other ways - by hetereosexual unmarried couples, by gay couples and by single parents - are likely to end up with lower educational qualifications, they'll earn less, they'll be less likely to form stable relationships and families themselves, more likely to have chronic health problems and more likely to commit crimes than their counterparts brought up by married, heterosexual parents (both biological and foster).

Therefore, providing council flats and benefits to unmarried women who deliberately set out to become single parents, allowing gay couples to adopt and not providing any incentives to marriage in the tax system is a victory for leftie, PC propaganda and a defeat for common sense and evidence.
Care to provide any of this evidence that children brought up by gay couples will be worse off?

Because psychological associations around the world say there is no evidence that children of gay couples are worse off.

See the Canadian Psychological Association:
http://www.cpa.ca/cp
asite/userfiles/Docu
ments/advocacy/brief
.pdf

The American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/a
bout/policy/parentin
g.aspx

The Australian Psychological Society:
http://www.psycholog
y.org.au/assets/file
s/lgbt-families-lit-
review.pdf
(see the second paragraph of the 'Overview' for a summary of their position)
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]Her constituency had it's borders altered to push out Labour and LibDem voters who were threatening to club together and tactical her out.[/quote] Labour were in power when the borders were last changed, so why would they do that? In reality, the constitutency borders were changed as part of a standard process that the Boundary Commission does before every general election, to reflect changes in the population distribution and to try to ensure the number of voters in each constitutency are as evenly distributed as possible. [quote]*Why* don't you think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt? Don't say that's your opinion. Your opinion is worthless unless you back it up with some reasoning and evidence.[/quote] There is an overwhelming mass of evidence to suggest the life chances of children are highest when they are brought up by a heterosexual, married couple. Sometimes this can't happen (as was the case with me - my father was killed in the Falklands and I was brought up by my mother from age 10), but it's absolutely insane - and effectively a form of child abuse - to facilitate and encourage it to happen. Children brought up in other ways - by hetereosexual unmarried couples, by gay couples and by single parents - are likely to end up with lower educational qualifications, they'll earn less, they'll be less likely to form stable relationships and families themselves, more likely to have chronic health problems and more likely to commit crimes than their counterparts brought up by married, heterosexual parents (both biological and foster). Therefore, providing council flats and benefits to unmarried women who deliberately set out to become single parents, allowing gay couples to adopt and not providing any incentives to marriage in the tax system is a victory for leftie, PC propaganda and a defeat for common sense and evidence.[/p][/quote]Care to provide any of this evidence that children brought up by gay couples will be worse off? Because psychological associations around the world say there is no evidence that children of gay couples are worse off. See the Canadian Psychological Association: http://www.cpa.ca/cp asite/userfiles/Docu ments/advocacy/brief .pdf The American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/a bout/policy/parentin g.aspx The Australian Psychological Society: http://www.psycholog y.org.au/assets/file s/lgbt-families-lit- review.pdf (see the second paragraph of the 'Overview' for a summary of their position) Matt_S

7:24pm Wed 30 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

jadestars wrote:
Clueless71 wrote:
I am a heterosexual married man. I am not pro or anti gay. How on earth could the fact that two people, that love each other and want to marry possibly effect anyone else's life. It is these dated views from narrow minded people that tend to rule this country. It is also these people that are killing the church and the reason I cannot bring myself to enter one.
very well said ... Narrow minds, bread by religion, religion that disallows gays to marry in their church but allows the likes of Jimmy Savile and other revolting scum. Its all screwed up!
Fully agree with both comments.

Let's not forget, she supports the reintroduction of setting a pack of dogs onto foxes, hares, deer, otters, mink. I usually find that those with no empathy for non human animals also have no empathy for humans.
[quote][p][bold]jadestars[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clueless71[/bold] wrote: I am a heterosexual married man. I am not pro or anti gay. How on earth could the fact that two people, that love each other and want to marry possibly effect anyone else's life. It is these dated views from narrow minded people that tend to rule this country. It is also these people that are killing the church and the reason I cannot bring myself to enter one.[/p][/quote]very well said ... Narrow minds, bread by religion, religion that disallows gays to marry in their church but allows the likes of Jimmy Savile and other revolting scum. Its all screwed up![/p][/quote]Fully agree with both comments. Let's not forget, she supports the reintroduction of setting a pack of dogs onto foxes, hares, deer, otters, mink. I usually find that those with no empathy for non human animals also have no empathy for humans. twotonethomas

7:35pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Wanderer in Canada says...

Do you have to be on one side or the other in this debate? I hope not.

In my terms of reference marriage means a religious ceremony combining the legal (civil) union of two people with a statement of faith to the local community or more specifically the congregation or similar group, whereas the civil ceremony is the legally based contract of union on its own.

In order to be fair to all people equally the legal union has to be available to everyone who is able to understand the nature of the contract they are entering in to. Civil unions between any couple, irrespective of sexual preference, and motivation (love, family development, tax avoidance etc.) should be protected by the laws of the land for everyone – equally.

Marriage ceremonies however are a culturally driven celebration under the control of groups of like-minded people. In order to allow democratic processes and the right of individuals to select their groups of preferences you shouldn’t legislate for equal controls in such an environment. This would be unfair, as you are forcing those with faith based rules to comply with those that don’t correspond to their beliefs. As religious groups develop over time and their beliefs evolve they may become more aligned with mainstream thinking, but you shouldn’t legislate for that. You also have to ask yourself (as a same sex couple) would you want to be associated with a group who didn’t support one of your major life decisions?
Do you have to be on one side or the other in this debate? I hope not. In my terms of reference marriage means a religious ceremony combining the legal (civil) union of two people with a statement of faith to the local community or more specifically the congregation or similar group, whereas the civil ceremony is the legally based contract of union on its own. In order to be fair to all people equally the legal union has to be available to everyone who is able to understand the nature of the contract they are entering in to. Civil unions between any couple, irrespective of sexual preference, and motivation (love, family development, tax avoidance etc.) should be protected by the laws of the land for everyone – equally. Marriage ceremonies however are a culturally driven celebration under the control of groups of like-minded people. In order to allow democratic processes and the right of individuals to select their groups of preferences you shouldn’t legislate for equal controls in such an environment. This would be unfair, as you are forcing those with faith based rules to comply with those that don’t correspond to their beliefs. As religious groups develop over time and their beliefs evolve they may become more aligned with mainstream thinking, but you shouldn’t legislate for that. You also have to ask yourself (as a same sex couple) would you want to be associated with a group who didn’t support one of your major life decisions? Wanderer in Canada

7:49pm Wed 30 Jan 13

twotonethomas says...

'Do you have to be on one side or the other in this debate?'

No you could sit on the fence and get splinters in yer a**e.
'Do you have to be on one side or the other in this debate?' No you could sit on the fence and get splinters in yer a**e. twotonethomas

2:56pm Fri 1 Feb 13

jorvik says...

I wonder if the growing muslim population in York will be welcoming to the gays and will be offering to perform gay marriage in their new mega mosque on hull rd
I wonder if the growing muslim population in York will be welcoming to the gays and will be offering to perform gay marriage in their new mega mosque on hull rd jorvik

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree