world

British lawmakers approve gay marriage in historic vote

46 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

Good on Britain. Let people be happy, and let those who wish to take or keep happiness from others be unhappy for a change (or as they usually are).

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Just 127 of Cameron’s 303 Conservatives voted in favor of the plans, with 136 voting against and 40 more either formally abstaining or not voting.

I wouldn't have expected anything else from the conservatives (which most probably includes married men who don't want to expose their own 'double lives'). Those against have given every excuse in the book to justify their decisions, the biggest excuse being gay marriage would lead to an end of 'family life'. I'll tell you what is ruining 'family life':

People (mostly straight) who have babies willy-nilly when they're not married or in a stable relationship (in Japan's case - getting pregnant, having a shot-gun wedding, giving birth and then filing for divorce), unmarried fathers who want nothing to do with their children, and who depend on the government for subsidies to raise the children. Or people who marry and divorce several times over like there's no tomorrow.

When people can't find any more excuses, they come up with crazy fear-mongering ideas like polygamy. Sorry, but Mormonism and Islam are hardly part of the gay community. Instead of blaming a select minority for society's problems and making them a scapegoat, how about laying the blame on the people who are causing them - why not make it illegal for straight people to get divorced? Having your cake and eat it? You know what they say, if you don't approve of gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person.

I find that the ones who object the loudest are the ones with the worst skeletons in the closet. It's the hypocrisy that I hate the most.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

A victory for the gay spies who tried to destroy the British government in the service of Stalin 50 years ago.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

Landslide vote but it looks like the Church of England will vote against it.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

If the Bill passes the House of Lords, Britain will join Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden in allowing same sex marriage. Its about 45 years since the Gay Liberation Front was started.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Happy days.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Well about bloody time, I should say, old boy! Really happy for my country today, and I don't often get to say that.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Europe seems to be evolving, France too has approved it last week.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Good news and about time.

I've found the majority of those against gay marriage, homosexuality, etc. are Christian, and they are against these things primarily because 'the Bible says so.' - which is not really a mature argument by any stretch.

The anti-gay marriage rationale in many developed countries is a joke. In NZ, the US, and other countries, the divorce rate is hovering around 50%. That means 50% of straight couples can't even hold their own marriages together, and many of those same people want to deny the same right to gay couples.

Amazing hypocrisy.

People in heterosexual relationships need a better track record - in general - before they start trying to dictate who should/shouldn't be allowed to get married, IMO.

Another baseless argument the anti-gay crowd like to throw around is that 'gay marriage is a 'threat' to traditional marriage.'

All I'd say to that is: How??? Gay couples aren't typically violent people, so there's no physical threat. Only a small fraction of people are gay, so there's no threat that the species will die off because there's too many gay people.

And if there's a gay couple living >right next door< to a straight, anti-gay couple, is the gay couple any kind of 'threat'? Of course not - unless the anti-gay couple pile abuse on the gay couple.

No, the only 'threat' (at least to my mind) is the icky-factor: the thought of gay sex, an activity that gay couples participate in for possibly 1/4 of a percent of their lives (if that!) The rest of the time they are just like the rest of us - go to work, have hobbies, are our fellow Human Beings, etc.

Personally, if I'm going to treat my fellow human beings with dignity and respect (as I would hope to be treated) there is no way I can be against gay marriage.

One more point - it's looking increasingly likely that some day soon, scientists are going to determine that homesexuality is a genetic trait and not necessarily completely driven by personal choice.

If/when this discovery is made, the entire Christian anti-gay argument is going to be blown out of the water.

Why? Well, who created genes? God (the Christian one if one is ore-disposed to believing that). Which would mean that the Christian god created the genes triggering homosexuality, AND was behind the Bible, which is clearly states homosexuality is a 'sin.'

Which, as you can imagine, would put the Christian god in a bit of a bind....

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Why? Well, who created genes? God (the Christian one if one is ore-disposed to believing that). Which would mean that the Christian god created the genes triggering homosexuality, AND was behind the Bible, which is clearly states homosexuality is a 'sin.'

Compared to real challenges like evidence for the age of the universe, this one is a fairly easy one to get out of. You could just say maybe God is choosing those people, by giving them the gay genes, with a chance to show, more than normal people without gay genes, just how much they love him by getting married to a woman and ignoring their natural impulses all their lives. Of course if God created everything he also created this kind of twisted logic, i.e. why did God give me gay genes if he didn't want me to be gay, as an extra test of faith. Or you could say that God initially created man without any gay genes but gave him free will. Then something we did against God's commandments caused a mutation creating gay genes so its the fault of our ancestors.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

that's why European countries was cursed because of there stupid new policies,,

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

I would be curious to hear a bit more about your arguments Choco. In which way is it stupid ?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

One more point - it's looking increasingly likely that some day soon, scientists are going to determine that homesexuality is a genetic trait and not necessarily completely driven by personal choice.

If/when this discovery is made, the entire Christian anti-gay argument is going to be blown out of the water.

Ironically, it could also make the entire Christian theory of creation valid and totally discredit the theory of evolution. Evolution is all about the passing along of desirable genes and getting rid of the useless and worthless ones. A gay gene is an evolutionary dead end and if evolution is to be believed it soon it should be out of the gene pool entirely because if it stays in and does become a dominate gene in the human species we would soon become extinct.

Of course, I'm not being serious here but you can't deny that a gay gene from a purely scientific point is really pretty worthless when it actually comes to moving evolution along in the human species.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Or it could be a stroke of evolutionary genius? Same sex couples that can't reproduce adopt a child and look after it? Of course, now with in vitro and surrogates its a different story....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

sailwind, "Of course, I'm not being serious here but you can't deny that a gay gene from a purely scientific point is really pretty worthless when it actually comes to moving evolution along in the human species." Not definitively, we could imagine that it can lead to a same sex reproduction ability, hermaphroditic or asexual reproduction ... It could be even more efficient.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They can call it marriage, but, of course it isn't, as marriage is between a man and a woman.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Sail - "but you can't deny that a gay gene from a purely scientific point is really pretty worthless when it actually comes to moving evolution along in the human species."

It's probably worth pointing out that you could say the same about certain American conservatives, especially the ones who continue to deny climate change.

They help create their own evolutionary dead end, too.

Moving on, what - exactly - is going to make the entire Christian theory of creation valid?

Nothing - zip - has been found in the archaeological record to back up a single shred of any of it. But .....but....but....the Bible says it's so, right?

Well, all I ask is that if you (or anyone) decides to believe in the key tenets in the Bible, then you may as well go the whole hog and believe in reincarnation and karma too because there's no evidence for any of that either. :-)

I enjoy a bit of fantasy too but I'm not prepared to stake my life on it. :-)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

A step towards truely respecting human rights.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Serrano - "They can call it marriage, but, of course it isn't, as marriage is between a man and a woman.'

Only if you really want to stop other people who may not be exactly like you from enjoying some of the same joys of life.

No wonder Christians are being persecuted. Their Bible has and still us creating so much hatred, bitterness and division.

Ironically, Jesus - apparently - said "love your neighbor", but the Christians can only do that if their neighbor is Christian, straight, and speaks the same language.

If otherwise, those neighbors are probably out of luck!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Sushi

Don't write us all off as "the Christians". I'm a Christian, and I think this is brilliant news. God loves gays! : )

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@choco

"... there stupid new policies."

Says it all, really.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Ironically, it could also make the entire Christian theory of creation valid and totally discredit the theory of evolution."

You're getting more far out there with old age.

The theory of evolution applies to every living thing not just God fearing conservatives.

I've always thought homosexuality was a perfectly natural answer from mother nature to chronic over-population from the species that do the most damage to the planet...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I read the Catholic Church is also against this legislation. Of course they have a strong platform on which to stand when it comes to matters of sexual conduct. I just hope the voices of unelected clergymen in the Lords will be drowned out. A few bottles of Glenfiddich should do the trick.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

and in 10/20 years people would wonder why people were against? Change is hard but thank god woman are allowed to vote and black people are equals to white... seems a given today but it was probably not back then UK and France government should stay strong on equality for all and let the people from stoneage complaining, they will need to get used to it

0 ( +1 / -1 )

God (the Christian one) could always issue a new version of the Bible, updated for the 21st century.

Surely that's not too big an ask for the creator of the universe?

Anyway, people and attitudes are changing. God (the Christian one) - being all knowing - must by definition have foreseen this and is clearly letting it happen. And it wouldn't be happening if he didn't approve or allow it, right?

It's ok to disapprove of something. But actively acting in a way that tries to prevent or block something (ie:through voting) is a different kettle of fish altogether, especially when you have no tangible proof that the 'god' you believe in even exists.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Well said by the way Pukey.

It's worth saying that most gays don't actually want to get married, they prefer to enjoy their lifestyle. I guess it's another case of wanting something, in this case marriage, just because you can't have it.

I've got nothing against people in general making lifelong commitments, in fact it is admirable - I feel however that marriage has become an outmoded concept in this day and age, certainly in my (30-40) age bracket. Nearly everybody around me is either divorced or having an affair. Perhaps society has evolved so that people aren't equipped to deal with a lifelong commitment anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some of the opponents of this new law are part of a church (Catholic) that - in the 21st century - STILL does not allow women to become ordained priests.

That should tell the pundits everything.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It s never the right time to do the wrong thing. The disease is spreading.. governments pushing for open gay marriage, gays in military; apologize if you say anything negative about homosexuals; but you can say anything negative and vicious about others; what a sick world and it s going down fast. Why would governments even be taking their time to vote on such a ridiculous thing when their economies are crashing..and problems exploding. WHO is pushing this agenda? Keep your sex your life to yourself

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Now Elton John can get married again in his jolly olde England. And instead of knighting him, the queen can make him queen for the day! Soon the world will look all the same, MacDonalds, Walmart, groceries, clothes and equal in having no morals.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Wealth is built in families. It is doubtful to me that this resolution will make families stronger -but ultimately the people will decide their own fate.

I find it bizarre that some of these "gay marriage" people are attacking Mormons when obviously after this resolution you might as well have group or open marriage.

Too many hormones added to the food/water supply it seems and a media that tends to promote a "gay agenda"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

-a sort of proven population control that should help with UN Agenda 21

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Landslide vote but it looks like the Church of England will vote against it.

While they still have the status of the being the country's official religion, thankfully their opinion is barely worth registering. As a sign of how out of touch they are, the two big topics of debate for the Church in recent years have been whether gay marriage is acceptable (no) and whether women bishops are acceptable (no).

The women bishops debate is of particular interest when you consider that it is explicitly illegal for employers to discriminate against people on grounds of their sex, yet the Church of England, having belatedly accepted women ministers, continues to reject the idea of allowing women to become bishops. It is not in breach of employment laws because it is not officially regarded as an "employer". But out of touch? Christ yes.

You have women CEOs, police officers, members of parliament, lawyers, broadcasters, educators, academics, athletes, scientists, pilots, astronauts - in fact it would be hard to find one area of endeavour where women are excluded. There is no question whatsoever of their capability to serve as bishops.

Then listen to one of the BBC's religious affairs programmes, and on any given week, you have a good chance of hearing a church representative tying themselves in knots trying to rationalize why women shouldn't be bishops. It's weird, weird stuff, let me tell you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In his article in the Observer on Monday, February 4, 2013, Javed Jaghai appealed to the public to "stop demonising gays". While we should not treat persons as inferior and unacceptable, it is wisdom - and in some cases, a matter of survival - to perceive certain behaviours as such.

Source: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130206/letters/letters1.html

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I want to see the reactions of people for all the gay rights stuff. When there is a 50 year old man is taking a 14 year old boy or older boy as his bride, of course with parental consent. When this is condoned in the world as a right, well society as it has been known for a very long time will be completely gone.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@bokuwamo

When there is a 50 year old man is taking a 14 year old boy or older boy as his bride,

14-year-olds aren't allowed to marry.......

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Why are some so against this gay marriage lark. It;s not compulsary you know! How does it hurt anyone if two people on love want to marry?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Kids can get married with parental consent, in America each state has an age allowed. Of course this used to be a man and a young girl or the other way around.

Having the laws of nature, reproducing, a male and a female having intercourse, human, animal whatever. Redefined to mean a male and male having intercourse legally doesn't hurt society, because their in love. There is a multitude of things that hurt people who believe in having morals and self worth.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

It's not surprising the C of E and the Roman Catholic Church are against same-sex marriage, the Bible is not exactly ambiguous on the subject. According to Leviticus, as I recall, it's punishable by death.

But then, the Bible is what you make it. You can mix and match as you like. There's not a lot of consistency in it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The church of England and the British government will both approve of gay marriage?

Theologians have a lot of knowledge about the bible and put a lot of effort into their work. Scientists who specialize in the theory of evolution have made equal efforts in their fields. Both have contributed to their fields of study by putting forward truths and fiction of their fields.

The inconsistencies that are the most popular or well known are the ones discussed by people who don't know much about either, but not knowing doesn't keep them from having their opinions.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

their in love.

There appears to be a pattern here with the antis.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A few years down the road younger folk will be surprised to hear this was even controversial.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So many Conservatives seem to oppose the gay marriage bill. One wonders if there will be a mass migration to UKIP, who have stated their opposition to it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Amazing that a person's sexual preference can become a right in any country. The gene thing has not been proven by science to be a fact. And that is a very small amount of gay people in the world. So when a child molester can say they have a gene that makes them act on their sexual preference, they won't be charged with a crime, right? They have a right to choice because of a gene? If there ever is a gene thing proven.

With a very small amount of the population 100% homosexual, how the gay thing gets pushed into law in countries could only be understood by the people who think being pro-gay is a vote getter, fashionable, stylish or wrongly understood as a right for people who think that their sexual preference makes them entitled to preferential treatment under the laws.

People who are not homosexuals and do not care for the gay life style have rights to, the right not to have their children exposed to abnormal behavior and be told it is normal. The right to have organizations that have application rules and not be called names like homophobic or that they are against freedom of choice because they simply don't care for it.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

the right not to have their children exposed to abnormal behavior and be told it is normal

Ahh this narrow path is old but this is how I get from A to B and then back to A. Do not pass development nor question the values handed down centuries ago in the interests of stability.

What makes you think hetereosexuals are normal? Opposite sex? Yuck. Dirty.

I assume you tell your kids that a man and woman divorcing is normal.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Usual statements how people oppose to gays are narrow minded and don't see the bright future of Sodom and Gomorrah or the destruction of Roman from within. This was also handed down through the centuries. Divorce is a normal ending to marriage. I believe gays couple break up also. Maybe the special gene that they carry prevents break ups?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

**@ Eppee,, AND EVERYONE sorry for late reply...

i will elaborate it for you why i say that so,,, I am a christian,, and as a christian I am against same sex marriage,, because truly it is a sinful thing to GOD, back in the Bible Sodom and Gomora were punished because of that kind of sin,,, i would say that it was "stupid"because they said that they are "christian" country, but they allow it(Europe) its so very embarrass. i said that it was CURSED because all of the sins have their responding punishment,, if you see it now,, Europe and america is now in a certain chaos,,(economically) because of there policies,, allowing same sex marriage, and other policies which is against in the HOLY SCRIPTURE,,, there's nothing in this world more than to be HAPPY but we should use also our CONSCIENCE if that happiness is truly a happiness bring back to our CREATOR or just their own happiness(so called LUST). Everyone should be happy, everyone has their own rights its possible,, i' m not against of that RIGHT but I'm just worrying of the CONSEQUENCES cause by that new policy. maybe MANY will get embarrass because of that statement that i post last time,, and I APOLOGIZE in that case,, my intention is clean,and i really worried only of what will it bring, not just only to them but to everyone of us,, some people will not believing it because they are not CHRISTIANS but if you do so,,, you will also think it again.... thanks so much everyone, thanks JT.. GOD BLESS US ALL**

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

i will elaborate it for you why i say that so,,, I am a christian,, and as a christian I am against same sex marriage

I'm against God, but I still believe in allowing Christians to practise their religion. Within certain rigidly defined limits.

You should consider extending the same openminded tolerance to gays.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites