Can someone find out where the methodology of this survey is published?
It was Comres who were tasked by a Catholic organisation and formulated some statistics that were misleading and then used by the C4M to deceive.
Could this be the same?
The full data is here http://www.fagburn.com/2012/04/daily-telegraph.html
Less than a quarter of MPs replied…
The questions and full results are here
Thanks – its telling that the poll has been funded by C4M.
Given Comres were involved in the poll which has led to concerns about C4M issuing misleading advertising, it does make me wonder if there is some homophobic bias inherent in Comres …
Same polling organisation, different bunch of bigots (in name at least) directing them.
Surely it can’t be long before this poll is discredited as well?
Much harder to misrepresent a poll of MPS however if anyone can do that, C4M can. It seems to me there is some free spending going on by donors with big pockets.
Only 37 of Tories think it bound to fail Lib Dems are full square behind it. Expect fiery debates. Urge your MP to consider this ‘of significant importance’.
Please guys – more letter writing to MPs please.
I prefer the link on the C4EM website which already sets out a draft letter to be set to your MP. At least it gives a starter point to what to write. Actually I’ve just sent the whole link to my MP and asked him to sign the petition as well. Has the C4EM website been updated, I don’t remember it having so much info on it.
Hasnt come across that on the C4EM website – its great and I would encourage more people to use it to write to their MPs
Well, my MP was really helpful. Funny thing, I could throw a paper aeroplane to his snail mail address from where I live. I think I’ll encourage him to pay me a personal visit to discuss the issue.
Thank you for your email.
To enable me to communicate properly with you and also to ensure that you are one of my constituents, I would be grateful if you would forward your full address, including your postcode.
Member of Parliament for Preston
Tel: 01772 883575
Fax: 01772 887188
And yet only 20 MPs have signed the C4M petition, that around’s 3% of the commons I think.
Can’t we hit back with this and actually come out with a list of MPs who support equal marriage.
I’ve read loads of blogs from MPs who support the govt and yet they never get reported on PN. We always get the same negative reports from the same old homophic MPs. Shouldn’t we playing up the supporters a bit more!!!
But if they made sure all 20 were part of their survey group that might have a disproportionate impact on the results ….
How many MPs have signed the C4EM petition?
Well I don’t know about the C4EM petition but the following politicians are all supporters of the Equal Love campaign:
John Cruddas MP
Don Foster MP
Chloe Smith MP
Caroline Lucas MP
Michael Cashman MEP
Glenis Willmott MEP
David Martin MEP
Arlene McCarthy MEP
Richard Howitt MEP
Mary Honeyball MEP
Stephen Hughes MEP
Linda McAvan MEP
Claude Moraes MEP
Brian Simpson MEP
Peter Skinner MEP
Catherine Stihler MEP
Derek Vaughan MEP
Jean Lambert MEP
Sir Graham Watson MEP
Keith Taylor MEP
Is there a link to the actual questions asked and how the survey sample was selected?
Was initially disappointed at reading this but I’m not going to put much credence ino it until I see the underlying findings.
Full results here:
What does C4M stand for anyway? Closets 4 Men?
Even allowing for dodgy methodology that is still a clear majority.
Think about what would happen if it failed. It would make David Cameron look foolish and weak as he has stuck his neck out on this one. He can’t afford that.
Also it would destabilise the coalition as this is something the LibDems really want to get through and if they think it has been derailed by the Tories there will be some very unhappy people. The Tories need to keep the LibDems happy in order to keep them in the coalition because without them the government would collapse, the Tories would loose power and we would head for an early election in which Labour would increase their share of power and bring marriage equality back to the agenda.
It’s got to happen because the government will not want to face the consequences of it not happening. And if it doesn’t happen under this government it will not go away.
I doubt CM’s polls are accurate but even if this was to be true, it shouldn’t matter because same sex marriage should be legal regardless of the opinion of MPs because there’s obviously nothing wrong with same sex marriage and there is freedom of religion there in the UK
I just don’t understand why 44% of MPs think it would fail when all 3 major parties support it and only a few MPs are openly against it.The headline doesn’t make any sense to me. They obviously have a clear majority.
Surely if the govt pulls its finger out and writes a bill for equal civil marriage then whether CPs have the same rights as marriage or whether it’s a priority is irrelevant. That’s not what they’re voting on. CPs will still exist and so will all the other govt’s policies.
If it’s so irrelevant to the general public then just do it!! why waste more of everybody’s time. Stonewall has already said it’s a low cost, simple change. They’ve already written a draft bill for the govt.
Only around 1 in 10 people are supposed to be gay so obviously it’s not a huge issue for the majority of a MPs constituents. No LGBT issue would be!! It’s a daft thing to ask an MP.
Just a minute, both labour and the LibDems have it as party policy. The Tories do not though. Cameron and several leading tories have said they will support the policy, but this is in their roles as members of the coalition cabinet. A consultation on gay marriage was in the coalition agreement at the insistence of the LibDems. So the conservatives themselves do not have a party policy either for or against gay marriage and in fact Cameron has said he will insist on a free vote. All the evidence, and this particular poll, suggests that a narrow majority of Tory MPs will vote against the policy but this will not actually matter as a majority of labour and the LibDems will. Note also, that quite a few of those expressing negative sentiment will actually abstain. It is notable that the sponsors did not ask MPs directly how they would vote in a division on this issue. To my mind, that is very telling.
It is not labour party policy.
Actually, it is. It was not in the manifesto (unlike the LibDems) but since the election both Ed Milliband and Yvette Cooper (the responsible shadow minister) have stated clearly that it is now Labour Party policy. This has been endorsed at the national conference. I’m starting to get sick of pointing this out to people.
At what date was this endorsed as certainly during the Autumn conference it was still not endorsed by the Conference, and I’ve heard no update since then.
Actually, having checked there was not actually a conference vote in the main hall. But it was debated in side meetings and Yvette cooper has been clear that it is labour policy: http://lgbtlabour.org.uk/yvette-cooper—changing-the-law-to-support-gay-marriage-is-the-
I’ve no doubt that it’s “policy” in the Shadow Cabinet, but it’s thus no more party policy than it is Tory party policy then? It’s good they are supportive, but as Ben Bradshaw’s unhelpful comments show recently I think it’s important Labour members continue to pursue getting this officially stamped as party policy ASAP before the issue comes up for a vote.
I would like it to be official policy of all parties.
However, whether or not it is party policy of the Conservatives has not preventing them beginning the consultation and making it crystal clear what the leaderships intentions are.
Equally, whether or not it is official policy of Labour – Milliband and Cooper have been reasonably clear – particularly Millibands words “Civil Partnerships are not good enough”
Let’s be clear: the conservatives have NOT instigated this consultation. It may look like quibbling, but it is the coalition cabinet at the behest of its lib dem members who gained this as one of their policies in the coalition agreement. And from what I hear, a sizeable part of the Tory backbenchers is up in arms about it.
“all the evidence”..”suggests that a narrow majority of Tory MPs will vote against”…..What evidence? And what MPs are expressing “negative sentiment “? As far as I’ve seen it’s the usual hanful.
I don’t know where the figures come from for this poll and it’s says 41% of Tories thought it would not succeed not 59% of Tory MPs will vote against. It doesn’t explain why they think that and why it just didn’t simply ask how would they vote on the issue.
There is no evidence that the majority of Tories would want to undermine Cameron and their party.
Labour don’t have an official policy. They say they would support it and that’s what the Tories have said. There will probably be a free vote for all parties.
The struggle will be in the HoL surely not the commons.
This poll does for a start. But a simple examination of the voting habits of Tory MPs who retained their seats at the last election (as opposed to the new entrants) shows that the lions share of those have always voted for the homophobic side of every division (even when the Tory leadership supported civil partnerships). Look I do believe Cameron and some of the front bench are enlightened on this issue, as are many of the new entrants and one or two of the old guard, but it is frankly absurd to believe the smoke and mirrors that the Tory party have really changed on a Shiboleth issue like this overnight.
Though I do agree the struggle will be in the HoL. The Tories have never been able to fully control their Lords and with the bishops and many of the cross benches they will vote trenchantly against any progay policy.
The commons will likely have a majority in favour. But if they do not use the parliament act, the bill may fall by being repeatedly rejected by the Lords.
Although the same has been said of the Lords re other gay (and non gay) issues that are perceived as contentious and the Lords often reacts favourably (in terms of final vote, if not in the entire content of speeches) when the Commons has given a clear mandate that they support the proposals.
The lords did not do any such thing over the age of consent and clause 28 – largely because in both cases there was a vitriolic campaign from the churches. All the other gay bills, including civil partnerships, there was no religious campaign and the public oposition was almost non-existant. I would have said there was a very vocal religious campaign against equal marriage coupled with a strong minority of vocal public opposition. So, on that basis, I would not be surprised if the lords refuse to buckle and just block this repeatedly.
What about the concerted campaign in the Lords (coordinated by the Christian Institute) against sex education proposals of which Lady Massey said: “Never in my time in this House have I known such a sinister and vicious campaign that has sought to misinform others. Noble Lords will have received hundreds if not thousands of letters, sent to your lordships taking up your time and energy and I find this deeply regrettable. Lady Walmsley added that: “The Christian Institute recently sent out a letter in which they claimed that I would be laying an amendment to make PSHE compulsory. As your lordships can see, this is not true. They also claimed in a subsequent letter that my fictional amendment and Lady Massey‘s amendment would force schools to teach five-year-olds about sex. Also not true. There have been wicked insinuations that we would want to do something that would harm children and their innocence. … So we had a so-called Christian organisation telling lies and being
both uncharitable and cruel.”
The issue was not prevented despite a high profile, manipulative religious campaign that was full of deceit.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds subsequently apologised for the behaviour of the Christian Institute during the debate on Lady Massey’s amendment. Bishop Packer said: “While I have no responsibility for the Christian Institute, I want to apologise for any errors or false accusations made in the name of Christianity. I also want to affirm, as clearly as I possibly can, the enormous contributions made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Walmsley, to the interests of children in successive debates within this House. I am grateful for all that they have done in the cause of children here.”
The Institute itself did not respond or issue any kind of apology.
I hope the Lords will act to support equal marriage, although if need be the parliament act should be used.
No, you’re slighlty incorrect, what this tells us is what MPs think about what other MPs will do. It gives no indication about what those MPs who took part will actually vote.
Confidence seems high of success in Wales however amongst its MPs and Plaid Cynru support marriage equality according to its website, so hopefully a few more votes there.
Correct. There will be a good few who take the same view as me that without the parliament act, I cannot see this getting past the Lords.
‘…I just don’t understand why 44% of MPs think it would fail when all 3 major parties support it and only a few MPs are openly against it…’
there is a 3 party free vote on this issue in place and that means no consequences for mps voting against it
ComRes describes itself as a communications organisation set up to fill a gap in the market. ie it is in the business of getting it’s Client’s message across and not scientific polling. The client in this case is C4M.
Obvously the tactic is to try and spread alarm and despondency amongst the Tory ranks.
But there’s no explanantion of how they selected the Tory (& other) MP’s they questioned (if they did question any) or how many or how many simply refused to talk to them. It seems rather implausible to me that many Tory MP’s would be willing to discuss the propsects of a failure of a flagship prime-ministerial policy with a set of spin doctors from the opponents.
I don’t believe it for a minute but it shows how dirty a campaign they are willing to run (no surprise) and I fully agree we must re-double our efforts to get the positive story across.
The methodology explanation on the ComRes website is (at best) skant.
I think it will fail; if you look at Cameron’s language, you will see that he is breaking the ‘bad news’ gently.
I think that the part of the problem here is twofold:
1, There is strong religious opposition to this and they are well organised.
2, The ordinary person does not care-and, frankly, why should they? As far as they are concerned, civil partnerships are the same as marriage and it seems to them that the gay marriage debate is just an argument over a name.
Ironically, the existence of civil partnerships do not help the gay marriage cause-it simply waters it down. If the rights are the same as marriage, then people haven’t the patience over the fight over a name.
It just seems a big whingefest now that the rights are the same.
I say this to put across the view of a non-homophobic, non-religious majority.
People are struggling, in debt, and fearful for their jobs-they haven’t sympathy for trivia like gay marriage.
I have the feeling that people are more sick of the religious orgs. Most the people I speak to can’t understand why religious orgs are wasting valuabe time and money on this issue instead of doing “good” work, It’s also an eye opener on how vicious and nasty they are as well.
I agree jobs fears, debt are obviously more important but bringing in equal civil marriage is a one line change with no cost involved ,so what’s the big deal.
I can tell you that your ‘feeling’ is wrong. I attended an Easter event at Haymarket in Leicester and C4M fliers were being distributed to passers – by. Majority of people recieved it pleasantly while some signed the paper petition there and then. I can also tell you that most of the people you speak to may tell you what you want to hear so as not to hurt your feelings when in fact they have signed the C4M petition!
“Majority of people recieved it pleasantly”
I quite happily will take a flyer off anyone who is handing it out pleasantly, doesn’t mean I don’t then tear it up without reading it so I wouldn’t put too much faith in that one. Perhaps it’s a case “that most of the people you speak to may tell you what you want to hear”?
And while there will be people out there who are happy to sign the petition, until it can be shown, and proven, that a large majority of the country has actually signed up to it(Is it even 1% of the UK population yet?) then I think I’ll stick to my opinion that the actual majority of people in this country are of no real opinion either way and will just get on with things regardless.
Perphaps, you should be more concerned with the percentage of UK population that have signed the C4Em petition. I however agree with your opinion that majority of people in the UK are of no real opinion either way. That is the more reason why gay ‘marriage’ is an unnecessary distraction to the issues that are of real concern to majority of people in the UK as Ben Bradshaw has rightly argued.
I’m not particularly concerned about the numbers on either petition. At the end of the day this isn’t a popularity contest. And while Mr Bradshaw can certainly speak for himself, and based on comments on this site he pretty much was, I see no reason why a Government shouldn’t be able to deal with more than one issue at any one time.
You should be concerned with the percentage of the UK population that have signed the C4EM petition. I do however agree with you that the ‘actual majority of people in this country are of no real opinion’. That is the more reason why the proposals for gay ‘marriage’ are unnecessary as Ben Bradshaw has correctlt argued.
WOW. You took the original post, changed a few words and reposted it. In light of your half ar$edness, I won’t bother with a reply but instead invite you to simply read the post above yours
The percentage of he population ken? Less than one percent. Lol.
Even if every alleged signature on the C4M petition is individual, unique and from within England & Wales then it still is less than 1% of the population – so your point is?
The reality is that many of the signatures are not genuine, are of people who do not wish to sign (and who the C4M either refuse to move or relate to complaints they ignore) – that is why there is an Information Commissioner investigation going on into the propriety of the petition. There also appears to be a significant risk that there are multiple signatories from outside the area that is impacted on by these decisions – rendering those signatures invalid.
In any event, this is not a referendum – its going to be a parliamentary vote on HOW to ensure same sex couples can marry *not* IF.
i think ken refers to C4EM not CAM and thinks we should be concern with low number of signatures on that form
Disgusting, using a religious event like Easter to promote political views. Shame on them.
Were the CI or CARE involved – isn’t political campaigning a breach of their charity status?
Easter is a bit of a flag day for the church though, and the rest of the year most people couldn’t give a flying toss about religion, so that may have skewed behaviour a little.
I’m sure Cameron has every intention of not falling on his face over this, so any Tory MP aspiring to do well in the party will be under no illusions about the direction their ‘free’ vote is supposed to be going.
Of course there are also a much larger number of openly gay Tory MPs than there have been previously who have no doubt forged friendships and working relationships with other Tory colleagues, coupled with the strong messages coming from the Tory leadership, I would hope that on the whole the Tory’s are less likely to block the proposals.
I enjoin you in that, Sister Mary. I don’t think the Tories can afford to lose the election in 2015. I can’t imagine that any Tory MP in opposition to equal marriage is prepared to vote against his party let alone abstain to see it defeated over this one issue. I just hope that among the openly gay MPs, we won’t see any more of the Ben Bradshaw ilk. I’m hoping that pragmatism will take hold when it comes to a vote. I’m sure it will pass in Parliament, maybe not by a landslide, but then there’s that pesky House of Lords to contend with. If they vote against it, I’m hoping the government will invoke the Parliament Act.
it would help if commons overwhelmingly voted in favor of the equal marriage, less pressure on invoking parliament act
I smile politely at people who give out religious fliers in the street and then put them in a waste bin around the corner, without reading them etc.
Should you have attempted to have thrust a C4M leaflet etc in my hand then depending on how busy I was, I may have just smiled accepted it and binned it (partly to prevent it being used on other people).
People being polite can often mean they do not want to speak to you or endorse your campaigning and are eager to be out of the arena of people they find vile and repellent.
I’m losing patience with the religious organisations and the supporters of gay marriage to be truthful.
I don’t consider myself to be homophobic and I am not religious.Atheist with a small ‘a’.
I understand completely and agree with civil partnerships-it IS utterly wrong that a gay couple who have shared a life can be denied certain rights, I am, however, also sympathetic to the view that marriage is essentially about reproduction-yes, not all married couples reproduce but that is the principle behind marriage.
You know I don’t understand why there is such a fuss about gay marriage- it baffles me why gay people would want actual marriage-as opposed to civil partnerships- when it’s obviously a heterosexual institution.
It’s a failure to recognise that objectively the government recognises marriage because of reproduction. Not about love
I really don’t think it is as simple as a one line change, either, think about it: the adultery aspect. That’s all tied up with paternity, surely?
I don’t think you get it, Sal. But even if we explained, would it make any difference?
There is no mandate to procreate nor was marriage invented solely and primarily for procreation, most certainly not within civil marriage which has no religious component whatsoever. It is only the religious denominations who have redefined religious marriage as such. There is NO law mandating procreation either. If you think it is the main principle behind marriage, then you must ban heterosexuals who are infertile or deliberately choose not to have children as well as women beyond child-bearing years since they would be marrying in defiance of the main principle you cite. You can’t have it both ways. Civil marriage is primarily about love and commitment, procreation is secondary or tertiary and the universal gold standard for love and commitment within a legal union. Ten countries, soon to be eleven, have recognised that. What is it you just don’t get or refuse to understand? Why do you think they legislated for it? They can’t all be wrong.
Marriage is about the union of a man and a woman to procreate. It is concerned with the process of reproduction. It exists outside the law, but the reason the law recognises it is because of the potential of reproduction. The state recognises and rubber stamps marriage for this reason. So what if a couple are committed and love each other?
If you take the love and commitment argument to its logical conclusion, then ANY couple who loves one another should be allowed to marry-why not sisters?
Now there are enough similarities between gay and heterosexual relationships to -rightfully- warrant civil partnerships.
That not every couple procreates is not relevant -in the same way that not everybody who buys a 4×4 takes it off the road.
The only argument(s)I see for gay marriage is that there are legal differences like adultery aspect, which I am not sure can be got around
Marriage as it stands simply cannot accommodate homosexuality. No moral judgments, just realism.
“If you take the love and commitment argument to its logical conclusion, then ANY couple who loves one another should be allowed to marry-why not sisters?”
So therefore if you take the reproduction argument, and disregard love and commitment as reason to marry, to it’s logical conclusion why should any couple able to reproduce not be allowed to marry – why not brother and sister? Why not one man and several women? Or several men and one woman? This argument is used by those against marriage equality but by your argument, if it’s purely about procreation why shouldn’t hetrosexual incest or polygamy be allowed?
Sall, what is your obsession with adultery? what exact;y about it can’t be got around? You don’t make sense. But then your failure to get past the ‘union of a man and a woman….’ bit proved that, for one reason only.
Marriage is not required to procreate. Any fertile female can do so with or without a man. There are millions of women pushing prams with no husband in sight. There is even a story in the papers today about a doctor who used his own sperm to father at least 600 babies without marrying any of the mothers. (Would love to see the CSA track him down! LOL) Incestuous and polygamous relationships can also produce children without a marriage certificate involved. So drop the obviously fallacious thing about reproduction and try to use a bit of logic, please.
Your comments about procreation and extending relationships being those between siblings or friends, sound remarkably similar to those of Lord Carey or Peter Bone.
Are you sure you are not a C4M mole?
If you are not, and I am not convinced … then you certainly have been entranced by their lies – which have been deftly and carefully unpicked by Robert, Adrian, and many others on here over the last few months. You clearly are just not listening. Which is what makes me agree with Ben Foster that explaining it to you will make little if any difference – and this leads me to suspect your claimed atheism is a fabrication and that you are a vehement C4M supporter.
I think you have it in a nutshell. Most people actually really can’t be bothered with same sex marriage simply because it doesn’t concern or affect them, and there are far more important things in the world to worry about if you aren’t LGBT, (or even if you are).
The Church as whipped up this almighty sh|tstorm when, as you say, it is simply a ‘one line change’ and I think the whole debacle is likely to seriously backfire on them when they are seen to be targeting a harmless minority of people just to retain the upper hand.
Except that they’re having a Commons vote on this, not a referendum. So it doesn’t matter what the public think about it, or what the religious people think about it, what matters is what MPs think. Pretty much all of Labour will likely support this, all Lib Dems will, and the Tory front benches at least will – although the backbenchers will vote against. So long as this vote is still put to the Commons (and it’ll be only Cameron to blame if he backs down and decides not to go ahead with this vote) it should pass, there aren’t enough backbench Tories to sink this bill against the Lib Dems, Labour, Tory front benchers who will vote for it.
Sall, you claim to be non-homophobic yet repeat the same mantra the homophobes do.
Absolutely, almost word for word.
Either indoctrinated (but claims to be athiest!?!) or not quite honest in what they have to say, or just doesn’t listen (all of the points they make have been dealt with in detail on here over the last few weeks).
Sad that they think repeating it makes it true – it doesnt.
Why is everyone being gloomy about this. Despite everything that people have thrown at us recently 56% of the House of Commons, a clear majority, still think everything will go ahead as planned. It doesn’t say that those 44% who don’t think it will go ahead will vote against it either. Admittedly it doesn’t mean that the 56% will vote in favour either but I would suggest that most will.
But in the end this is all nonsense anyway. It only matters if Cameron, May, Featherstone etc want to move legislation and if they stick to their promises then legislation will be forthcoming. It would be an incredibly embarrassing climb down for Cameron if he backs down, especially if SSM is introduced in Scotland.
I agree. To be honest, 4 in ten Tory MPs saying they are optimistic about marriage equality passing, despite all the huffing and puffing from the major right wing media, is quite something. And that should be emphasised more. The tories have a long way to go, but the party has come a long way from the days of candidates like Adrian Rogers and his vile campaign against Ben Bradshaw in 1997, which occurred without censure.
Only for the aforementioned Mr Bradshaw to turn round and bite the hand that fed him.
I think as the consultation concludes and the debate continues, more will take the pragmatic approach and vote for it even if they personally don’t think it’s necessary or important. I can’t imagine Tory MPs want to see their party lose in 2015 over an issue that’s really not going to affect their lives one way or the other. The C4M petition really means nothing since it’s probably comprised mostly of religious bigots, a few atheists and some deeply closeted self-loathers as well as fictitious signatories, hardly a representation of the entire population. The fact that it refuses to publish it’s methodology is quite revealing. What is it they’re trying to hide I wonder? If there’s is an honest campaign, why no transparency?
I agree, what I think is even more encouraging about this survey is that despite the best efforts of C4M to manipulate the survey (read the questions in detail!) and use an outfit already associated with misleading methodology – they still achieve results which show that a majority of MPs believe that equal marriage will become law. In some of the questions posed the majoirty is significantly higher too!
I think this is a survey that is positive and endorses equal marriage – although C4M and their supporters (whether open or those pretending not to be) and trying to twist this as a disaster for LGBT people – when in fact its a disaster for the C4M.
The only crumbs they have is the fabricated signatures on their petition and they are worthless.
In terms of issues that matter they are losing and will continue to do so.
Isn’t that the same org that did the deeply flawed poll for a vatican propaganda sheet?
Clearly though, nothing should be taken for granted, and the odious and intrinsically homophobic propaganda of the opponents must be vigorously countered.
Ultimately it will be in the hands of the MP’s when it is put to the vote. Party Whips will be withdrawn as it will be a free vote but what I do not want to see are rows of empty benches in the House of Commons when it happens.
That is quite a possibility. It is worrying that it is possible to abstain by simply not chipping up.
Indeed, that is worrying. Let’s hope that won’t be the case. Maybe a pep talk by Cameron might prevent it for the sake of the party. Do they really want it to be defeated in 2015 by this one issue? Are they that stupid?
why would they be defeated in 2015 by not introducing ssm, as been said already people in general don’t have strong feelings about this issue. its one of those u-turns that wont be very damaging to the government in terms of reelection
The Tories weren’t able to gain an outright majority at the last election, hence the coalition. If they want to win an outright majority then they need people to vote for them, including LGBT folk who previously viewed them as “the nasty party”.
Performing a u-turn on any issue would show a sign of weakness which could alienate a lot of voters, not just LGBT voters.
If they couldnt achieve a majority with LGBT trusting that they had changed and would make a difference, then they will never have a majority if they fail to introduce equal marriage as they promised in their manifesto.
“The official consultation paper, launched last month, makes clear that the question is “how” the change could be made, not “whether”.
That is the crux. Hopefully Cameron will stand by his guns and pass this bill through, and not bow down to the homophobic Christian extremists.
The issue about whether MPs think equal marriage is a bit of a red herring really. Its merely a test of what MPs think their party and opposition colleagues will vote, and is nothing more than opinion.
The full findings are here http://www.fagburn.com/2012/04/daily-telegraph.html
Heterosexual incest is not allowed because it is illegal and widely regarded as an aberration. It is not in the state’s interest to encourage such activity.
I’m not being anti-homosexual here, just recognising that marriage is the state’s way of supporting heterosexual people who wish to reproduce.
It’s a one-size-fits-all policy and it simply would not be possible or advantageous to exclude a non-related heterosexual couple from it on the basis of sterility.
Funnily enough, I am pro gay adoption and am glad that cp’s exist to assist gay people in that respect, but marriage? Well, that’s something else.
“It’s a one-size-fits-all policy and it simply would not be possible or advantageous to exclude a non-related heterosexual couple from it on the basis of sterility.”
So if it is not a basis for excluding heterosexual people from being able to marry then why should it be a reason for homosexual people? If an infertile couple marry knowing they cannot have children then why are they marrying? For love, commitment and stability I would assume. If that’s good enough for them then why not LGBT people?
Also, what about the polygamy? I understand with the incest argument, I oppose it but wanted to ask. But surely if marriage is not about love and commitment then a polygamous couple involving men AND women should be ok then as they can procreate?
Kris, polygamous marriages were condoned in the old testament. Solomon for example had 300 wives and conubines. Civil marriage was the last redifinition of traditional marriage in the UK in the 19th century which permitted people to divorce and remarry. Divorce was illegal prior to that. There is NO mandate or law in the land compelling procreation within civil marriage. Women beyond child bearing years would also have to be banned from civil marriage since they would be physically incapable of procreating. Fertile heterosexuals who choose not to procreate or infertile couples who can’t would also have to be included under such a ban if procreation were the primary reason and principle for civil marriage. I’ve attended several including a couple in my immediate family. There was no admonition to procreate and no reference to any deity. Ten countries have recognised equal civil marriage for gay couples and soon that will be eleven with Denmark legalising it in June.
‘Concubines’ was the word I meant to have said in the third sentence of my last commentary.
None of the opponents of equal civil marriage can produce any evidence that which can substantiate their claims of the harmful effects that will emerge including the absurd notion that it will herald polygamous and other forms of relationships claimed by the bigots at the C4M. Hollland has had equal civil marriage for eleven years. I’ve not heard of public demand for polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages or bestial marriage. Polygamy is an entirely heterosexual phenomenon and not supported by any government that I know of with the exception of some Islamic countries where up to four wives at a time are permitted. Yet, not a word from the bigots about that. Bearing false witness against their neighbours (same-sex couples) is a violation of one of the ten commandments. Who has been responsible for the serial adultery among heterosexuals I wonder, to say nothing of the serial divorces?
“Who has been responsible for the serial adultery among heterosexuals I wonder, to say nothing of the serial divorces?”
(In a deep southern american accent) Well surely that’s the work of that there Satan sure it is
I wanted to see how the other side of the argument goes. We’re told constantly marriage is a no no for us as we cannot procreate and that’s what marriage is all about. So if that’s the case what argument would C4M supporters have to say polygamous marriage with men and women should not be allowed if love and commitment is sacrificed in the name of procreation.
I know there is absolutely no link between marriage and procreation and nor should there be, unless a ban was introduced. Yet the OP sees no problem with infertile couples marrying yet not LGBT people so why the double standards I wonder?
They are marrying for love and commitment, I agree, but
that is not why the government is sanctioning it.
Can you see the difference between why a couple marry and why the government wants them to marry? I can.
All of marriage law as it stands would have to drastically be altered. The sexual aspect would have to be removed. Marriage would in effect become cp’s..
I’ve no problem with this. I would rather equality be achieved by calling all non-religious legal unions cp’s. Fine, great.
But I simply can’t equate homosexual unions with marriage itself.
The basis of marriage is one father, one mother. It’s not in government’s interest to recognise polygamy.
Sall, somebody explained patiently above, but you obviously missed it.
Genes, sorry but you are being illogical here. It’s about providing a legal basis to procreate, obviously procreation itself need not require marriage!
It’s so that if the father does a bunk or dies, the mother can wave a certificate about to claim financial assistance. It’s about protection of the birth parent.
Marriage is a legal recognition of the fact that men and women get together to procreate. This is obviously true because if this were not the case, none of us would be here today.
Also you say
“Funnily enough, I am pro gay adoption”
So what then would you say to a child who has been adopted by a same sex couple when they grow up and ask why their mummies/daddies aren’t the same as their friends mummy and daddy? Would you tell them that even though their mummies/daddies love them and raised them that the love they share between eachother and with the child is less than that of their friends mummy and daddy purely because the child was not born of that relationship?
So you support letting a child be adopted by a couple you deem to have less value than a heterosexual couple?
Stu, it’s nothing to do with valuing a homosexual couple any less. I would prefer a child to be brought up with loving homosexual parents than terrible straight ones.
I just don’t know how I can make it more clear:
marriage is fundamentally heterosexual in nature. It just is. This is not to say that homosexual relationships are worthless at all. Just different and it is nigh on impossible to apply marriage law to them.
What exactly is adultery? Or non-consummation?
Saying blue is not yellow is not passing a value judgement on blue or yellow.
How about answering me then:
What then would you say to a child who has been adopted by a same sex couple when they grow up and ask why their mummies/daddies aren’t the same as their friends mummy and daddy? Would you tell them that even though their mummies/daddies love them and raised them that the love they share between eachother and with the child is less than that of their friends mummy and daddy purely because the child was not born of that relationship?
Why are the relationships of gay couples in Argentina, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, Mexico City, New York, Massachusetts, Portugal etc seen as worthy of marriage – but we should deny that in England? Why?
I won’t be the last to point this out, but it bears repeating: by that logic, heterosexual couples who don’t or can’t reproduce shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. Yet we don’t forbid the sterile, the elderly, or the childless by choice to marry. Why? Pure sentimentality? No—it’s because we as a society consider marrying to be a fundamental right. (Not to mention the fact that doing so would lead to all sorts of absurdities.) Children are beside the point.
The cultural phenomenon of marriage may be rooted in evolutionary processes that helped protect children. But we are not living in the stone age. Marriage in our civilization has long been an essential right afforded to all heterosexual couples. Extending that right (“the chance to be
equally miserable,” as rapper Eminem put it) to same-sex couples is the logical and obvious next step in the advancing visibility and acceptance of LGBT people.
If marriage is really for pro-creation, as some gay rights opponents suggest, why not require married couples to have children? An initiative filed by gay marriage advocates in Washington State would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled. Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.
c4m:’When asked if civil partnerships already provided the same legal rights as those afforded by marriage, more than 60 per cent of MPs agreed with the statement ‘
oh i see what you just did there:
our statistics clearly show that introducing ssm is a waste of time and money just to accommodate semantics, since cps afford same rights to gay people. very crafty indeed
but that is not true is it c4m? you know very well that cps, unlike marriages, are worthless abroad. an american/english couple with cp would not be allowed to live in america as cp unions are not legally recognized in states.
cp is a compromise not equality
So most MPs think gay marriage law will succeed.
In essence, yes!!
According to the responses to the strange questions in this C4M commissioned poll.
Seeing as my MP insists he will only talk to bone fide members of his constituency, and wanted my name and address before answering my simple question, what are they doing filling in surveys not submitted by constituents?
I spent 30 mins on google trying to find MPs who have clearly said they support ensuring that same sex couples can marry in civil ceremonies.
In just 30 mins, I found 32 Conservative MPs, 1 Green, 41 Labour, 23 LibDem and 4 SNP.
I purely looked at Westminster MPs. I only counted them if there was an attributable statement saying they either supported the plans to introduce equal marriage or would vote with the proposals.
I found over 200 other MPs from all parties who sounded as though they supported the proposals but the comment was not worded completely clearly.
I only found 26 MPs who said they would not support (predominantly Conservative, but with a couple of Labour and a LibDem).
I believe the 56% claim is suspect at best.
Noticeable that its funded by the C4M when questions are asked about perception of CPs or the relationship between society and the church.
This is about human rights.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand your question at all. Every adopted child is going to face those issues -whether or not parents are same sex or opposite,
what has love got to do with it?
What difference does it make if the couple are civilly-partnered or married?
I’m not out to diss gay people, but I genuinely do not see how marriage law as it stands can be applied to homosexual people. Not just like that.
The definition of marriage would have to change.
Instead of calling for equal marriage, wouldn’t it be more progressive to call for all marriages to become civil partnerships?
Why not consider for a second that cp’s are up-to-date and that marriage law is wrong?
“I’m not out to diss gay people”
I believe that is exactly what you are out to do.
OK. We’ll try a different way. Your child invites little Timmy from school over. Little Timmy has 2 mummies. Your child and Timmy come into the living room and ask you why Timmy’s mummies aren’t married like you are as your child’s parents. What answer would you give?