Same-sex marriage bill opposed by MP (From York Press)

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.

Spot on divded!

"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.

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!!

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.

"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

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!

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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

Oh I see. thanks.

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!

Re: discrimination.

Religion is a belief.
Sexuality is not.

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?

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 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.

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.

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!)

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

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.

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)

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.

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?'

No you could sit on the fence and get splinters in yer a**e.

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