UK Parliament votes in favor of Gay marriage!

[QazzarFan]

>> News report <<

Disclaimer: House of Commons voted for it not the whole parliament.

Interesting fact:

4 of 6 Muslim Labour MPs voted FOR this and 2 didn't vote. Good to see them vote on behalf of their constituency despite their personal beliefs.

Good to see more and more party members are realizing that the state needs to stop interfering in peoples affairs and allow people more personal freedoms. Any educated society would not discriminate based on sexual identity.

Britain O so fabulous


So far countries with legalized gay marriage:

US(9 states)
Canada
Brazil(some states)
Mexico(some states)
Argentina
Sweden
Norway
Belgium
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Spain
Portugal
South Africa

Wonder what will Church of England say about this?

 

[Bhaijaan]

Good stuff England. Being gay is not a disease, sooner people realize it the better.

 

[ElRaja]

Wonder what will Church of England say about this?

doesnt matter what they say anyway, they may have state patronage, they dont have any real authority though.

 

[mahout]

the street patrols will have to step up it seems

 

[Jo_Don]

About time people start moving away from the medieval way of thinking.

 

[ElRaja]

just reading through the bbc report, nearly 140 tori rebels, cameron must be feeling the heat. technically this was a free vote but i seriously doubt the whip was sleeping, if anything this is bad PR for the tories.... again.

yays 132 - 139 nays from the tori side.

cameron is losing his party in the thankless task of trying to modernise the tories.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Looking at that list I am very surprised at how few countries have legalised gay marriages in this day and age. The message seems to be that even in free societies people across the world are not ready to endorse homosexuality yet.

 

[Pakistaniboy]

Why do people even care?

If they are gay then let it be.

Focus on yourself and what you`re doing and those who preaches about religion, Focus on improving it and your country instead of focusing on what other people do.

People are too hung up in this.

 

[shaykh1985]

>> News report <<

Disclaimer: House of Commons voted for it not the whole parliament.

Interesting fact:

4 of 6 Muslim Labour MPs voted FOR this and 2 didn't vote. Good to see them vote on behalf of their constituency despite their personal beliefs.

Good to see more and more party members are realizing that the state needs to stop interfering in peoples affairs and allow people more personal freedoms. Any educated society would not discriminate based on sexual identity.

Britain O so fabulous


So far countries with legalized gay marriage:

US(9 states)
Canada
Brazil(some states)
Mexico(some states)
Argentina
Sweden
Norway
Belgium
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Spain
Portugal
South Africa

Wonder what will Church of England say about this?

Didn't realise so few countries had legalised gay marriage...

 

[Dolphins]

I live in a country where gay marriage is legalized and it affects me in no way or shape. So good for Britain. I don't know why people go against gays or gay marriage. Someone being gay or straight should not affect you.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Why is there such a fuss about this?

Surely a legally wedded couple deserves the same rights regardless of sexual orientation. I can't see how making this change affects anyone negatively.

There's a simple solution for those who are against gay marriage - just don't marry a gay person.

 

[QazzarFan]

Good stuff England. Being gay is not a disease, sooner people realize it the better.

Unfortunately, individuals surrender their sense of morality, just and ability to derive one's personal liberty to the holy book of bigotry which is instrumental in suppressing one's will and intellect.

I always asked myself what's with the ever growing hatred for gay union coming from conservatives, even as more and more people beginning to get over their long-held prejudices. Fear of normalizing such unions would result in it becoming more common, and that this would devalue or diminish heterosexual marriage? Or may be there is an underlying fear that if same-sex marriage were to become more accepted, heterosexuals would actually begin converting their sexual orientation? Or perhaps it all comes down to upsetting the hierarchical nature of traditional society-God over kings, kings over nobles, nobles over commoners, men over women?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why do people even care?

If they are gay then let it be.

Focus on yourself and what you`re doing and those who preaches about religion, Focus on improving it and your country instead of focusing on what other people do.

People are too hung up in this.

Fine, in that case tell the OP not to post the damn thread.

 

[vandokkum]

Congratulations to them, it's about time we start not giving a damn about people who think that same sex lovers marrying is somehow going to affect their lives. Funny how conservatives are always on the wrong side of history, same people here in the US that opposed abolition of slavery now want to ban same sex marriage.

 

[Pakistaniboy]

Fine, in that case tell the OP not to post the damn thread.

The thing is,

I dont give a crap about what others do or not.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Unfortunately, individuals surrender their sense of morality, just and ability to derive one's personal liberty to the holy book of bigotry which is instrumental in suppressing one's will and intellect.

I always asked myself what's with the ever growing hatred for gay union coming from conservatives, even as more and more people beginning to get over their long-held prejudices. Fear of normalizing such unions would result in it becoming more common, and that this would devalue or diminish heterosexual marriage? Or may be there is an underlying fear that if same-sex marriage were to become more accepted, heterosexuals would actually begin converting their sexual orientation? Or perhaps it all comes down to upsetting the hierarchical nature of traditional society-God over kings, kings over nobles, nobles over commoners, men over women?

Brutal fact of the matter is a lot of such kids are put to sleep very early in their life by their loving parents in our parts of the world. South Asia keeping its honour intact, via honour killings.

 

[vandokkum]

DailyFail and it's readers crying about how most people don't agree with it while 3 out of 5 voters actually agree... LOL.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Unfortunately, individuals surrender their sense of morality, just and ability to derive one's personal liberty to the holy book of bigotry which is instrumental in suppressing one's will and intellect.

I always asked myself what's with the ever growing hatred for gay union coming from conservatives, even as more and more people beginning to get over their long-held prejudices. Fear of normalizing such unions would result in it becoming more common, and that this would devalue or diminish heterosexual marriage? Or may be there is an underlying fear that if same-sex marriage were to become more accepted, heterosexuals would actually begin converting their sexual orientation? Or perhaps it all comes down to upsetting the hierarchical nature of traditional society-God over kings, kings over nobles, nobles over commoners, men over women?

Most people really don't think that hard about it. You live in the US, the beacon for freedom of all nations. When Tom Cruise and Daniel Craig star in a smash hit movie about two gays in a steamy relationship then feel free to come back and update us on what people really think.

 

[Yossarian]

A number of MP's, from all the major political parties, are gays and in civil unions, including former Labor Cabinet Minister Ben Bradshaw, who is touted as a potential future leader of the Labor Party, and thus a potential future Prime Minister.

Many of the above mentioned have already indicated their intentions to get married to their current civil union partners.

This raises a few interesting questions as regards diplomacy and international relations.

What if a Cabinet Minister (or a future Prime Minister) were to go on a State visit to, say Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan or even Malaysia or Indonesia, and wished to be accompanied by their gay marital partner on such a State visit, with all the arrangements normally afforded to heterosexual married couples, could this result in a diplomatic stand-off?

 

[James]

Good news. It's also kind of irrelevant news because the UK already offers civil partnerships just like many other countries: this is essentially a debate over semantics. So the current bill to change the name of something seems to be going well, lol.

 

[LethalSami]

where do you stop/draw line????

Is it OK for someone to marry their...

son???
daughter??
father??
mother???
grandparents??
their pets??

any pro homo, homosapiens with an answer??

 

[James]

where do you stop/draw line????

Is it OK for someone to marry their...

son???
daughter??
father??
mother???
grandparents??
their pets??

any pro homo, homosapiens with an answer??

I don't understand this argument. Nobody has proposed that we should be marrying people in the above groups.

 

[Dolphins]

where do you stop/draw line????

Is it OK for someone to marry their...

son???
daughter??
father??
mother???
grandparents??
their pets??

any pro homo, homosapiens with an answer??

Not sure what homosexuality has to do with the above. How many people actually want to marry their family members (well excluding Pakistanis, they do marry their 1st cousins).

And not sure why you are equating homosexuals with animals

 

[Yossarian]

I don't understand this argument. Nobody has proposed that we should be marrying people in the above groups.

Give it time. People said the same about gay civil unions/marriages not that many years ago.

Bestiality is currently legal in many US States, as well as in some European countries.

Incest is also legal in many countries, including Portugal, France, Japan, Argentina, just to name a few.

In Sweden as long as only one parent is common (ie they are half brother/sister, and not full brother/sister), then marriage is allowed.

So back to the question...the way things are going, just give it time.

 

[LethalSami]

I don't understand this argument. Nobody has proposed that we should be marrying people in the above groups.

Not sure what homosexuality has to do with the above. How many people actually want to marry their family members (well excluding Pakistanis, they do marry their 1st cousins).

And not sure why you are equating homosexuals with animals

It has to do with the right to marry....

why is it illegal to marry the groups i've listed above,

yet they are legalizing gay marriage, sodomy etc...

is it Not natural for those groups to feel "love"?? and hence have the right to marry, if they wish to do so...

why the discrimination against those groups??? in those same places legalizing and justifying gay marriage??

 

[ElRaja]

interesting fact, in ancient chinese culture there was no word for homosexuality as it was not recognised as a specific lifestyle choice as the philosophies and religions of ancient China regarded gay relationships as a normal facet of life.

 

[shan]

where do you stop/draw line????

Is it OK for someone to marry their...

son???
daughter??
father??
mother???
grandparents??
their pets??

any pro homo, homosapiens with an answer??

Or their first cousins??

 

[LegendsXI]

If suppressing one's freedom is wrong; than why are the people against homosexuality ostracized.

Its not natural, it is morally wrong (IMO), but it is also the personal choice of people (that no one has the right to change).

 

[shaykh1985]

interesting fact, in ancient chinese culture there was no word for homosexuality as it was not recognised as a specific lifestyle choice as the philosophies and religions of ancient China regarded gay relationships as a normal facet of life.

Its interesting that you mention this...

Homosexuality imo itself is a sexual construct...the Chinese never identified themselves as homosexual if they committed homosexual acts...it was essentially a preference...so its like a guy who likes Russian girls and Latin American girls...two preferences...however liking one doesn't give you an identity based around it like societies do today...

Western concepts assume sexuality to be a lifelong disposition...

The reason why there was no word for homosexuality in Chinese was because it was never seen as a defining or integral part of a person’s identity. Male-male sexual and romantic bonds were construed as relationships between two people as opposed to a psychological essence that defined either person. Moreover, these same-sex bonds were seen as a perfectly acceptable and natural way of life in Imperial China (Hinsch, 1992).

The general sense is that if someone figures out that they are gay today, then they must have been gay when they were born, and they will be gay for the rest of their life. But there is simply not much empirical data that supports the position that sexual preference is a life-long predisposition that never wavers or changes because there are such strong social norms to identify with being straight, gay or bisexual. It is also unclear how many people would choose to have sex with both genders if there were not cultural norms for sexual preferences for one gender. Think about it this way. When someone realizes they are strongly attracted to Asians as sexual partners, they do not have to deal with the anxiety of wondering whether they will only like Asians for the rest of their life because there is no strong social norm for racial preference. But when someone thinks that they are attracted to someone of the same gender, they are suddenly forced to deal with a life-long decision.

Secondly, the concept of homosexuality has come to define an integral part of an individual’s identity in a way that other equally well-defined terms do not. For example, straight people do not think that being straight is an integral part of their identity. In personality psychology, we know that basic traits such as introversion can be measured accurately during childhood and are fairly stable over a life-time, but introverts do not typically report that introversion is an integral part of their identity. No freshmen at college will introduce themselves by saying, “I am an introvert. I realized I was an introvert when I was 13”. There is no Introvert Pride Day, nor is there anything referred to as Introvert Culture. Again, Gay Pride is a counter-reaction to a past injustice, but that injustice was itself created by a socially constructed category that was purposefully meant to be alienating.

This for me is the most compelling argument about homosexuality...

One of the arguments made about the existence of homosexuality being natural is the prevalence of animals that have homosexual relations but to my knowledge there is no animal that exclusively has same sex relations...

http://www.nickyee.com/ponder/social_construction.html

 

[shaykh1985]

It has to do with the right to marry....

why is it illegal to marry the groups i've listed above,

yet they are legalizing gay marriage, sodomy etc...

is it Not natural for those groups to feel "love"?? and hence have the right to marry, if they wish to do so...

why the discrimination against those groups??? in those same places legalizing and justifying gay marriage??

A lot of rules and regulations are arbitrary...for instance polygamy is often forbidden yet things like incest are not...

Essentially in regard to the questions you raise the likelihood is if enough people push for those then they can be put in motion...

As for pets the issue is one of consent...

 

[MenInG]

You guys want to discuss this - do so without resorting to cheapshots etc - people needing definitions of what gay is etc can consult a dictionary - no need to state anything explicit in this thread.

 

[James]

I don't agree that the slippery slope principle can be applied to gay marriage; some people's eagerness to use it just displays their prejudice. The principle fits into debates over euthanasia and torture (which are hugely contentious issues) quite nicely - but homosexuality is no such issue, because it is a not uncommon behaviour in most animal societies as research and science have strongly suggested.

Moreover practically nobody in the West has any desire to marry a family member or has proposed a bill for it, whereas gay rights and LGBT concerns have for a great many decades been a talking point that has manifested within an ever-growing, determined lobby which is now at last succeeding in gaining some kind of equality as a minority.

In fact the only places where human beings not infrequently display a cultural leaning or otherwise some kind of a need to marry blood relatives are outside of the West. Why is this not talked about by the above posters, you ask? It's simply another symptom of their prejudice of course.

 

[LegendsXI]

I don't agree that the slippery slope principle can be applied to gay marriage; some people's eagerness to use it just displays their prejudice. The principle fits into debates over euthanasia and torture (which are hugely contentious issues) quite nicely - but homosexuality is no such issue, because it is a not uncommon behaviour in most animal societies as research and science have strongly suggested.

Moreover practically nobody in the West has any desire to marry a family member or has proposed a bill for it, whereas gay rights and LGBT concerns have for a great many decades been a talking point that has manifested within an ever-growing, determined lobby which is now at last succeeding in gaining some kind of equality as a minority.

In fact the only places where human beings not infrequently display a cultural leaning or otherwise some kind of a need to marry blood relatives are outside of the West. Why is this not talked about by the above posters, you ask? It's simply another symptom of their prejudice of course.

West is more civilized, is that your point?

 

[saadibaba]

Most people really don't think that hard about it. You live in the US, the beacon for freedom of all nations. When Tom Cruise and Daniel Craig star in a smash hit movie about two gays in a steamy relationship then feel free to come back and update us on what people really think.

There was a movie called "Brokeback Mountain" about gays in love with steamy scenes, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhal, not exactly Tom Cruise and Daniel Craig, but two top young actors both with a large female fan base, it actually received a lot of critical acclaim and was favorite to win the Oscars but missed out to "Crash".

As for the main discussion, I find it funny that the conservatives parties and people who are mostly against this law, their own traditional marriage structure has deteriorated to the point that half of the marriages end up in divorce and mostly because of infidelity. If marriage is so precious and sacred why not try to improve the traditional heterosexual type first before denying others the same rights.

 

[James]

West is more civilized, is that your point?

No, I merely seek to expose the irrationality and hypocrisy of the arguments against homosexuality.

Now if you reply to my points in turn we can debate this properly.

 

[LegendsXI]

No, I merely seek to expose the irrationality and hypocrisy of the arguments against homosexuality.

Now if you reply to my points in turn we can debate this properly.

Who is your question directed at? the non western pro inter related marriage group, or the pro homosexuality westerners?

Pretty distasteful comment James. You think the westerns are too civilized to support a backward concept such as inter related marriage, yet they support the civilized notion of gay marriage.

 

[James]

There was a movie called "Brokeback Mountain" about gays in love with steamy scenes, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhal, not exactly Tom Cruise and Daniel Craig, but two top young actors both with a large female fan base, it actually received a lot of critical acclaim and was favorite to win the Oscars but missed out to "Crash".

As for the main discussion, I find it funny that the conservatives parties and people who are mostly against this law, their own traditional marriage structure has deteriorated to the point that half of the marriages end up in divorce and mostly because of infidelity. If marriage is so precious and sacred why not try to improve the traditional heterosexual type first before denying others the same rights.

Top points. Abrahamic tribal rules and religious conservatism more generally, always hypocritical are now starting to look woefully outdated as well.

Like many other kinds of bigotry, homophobia will reduce over time due to serious inquiry and research, scientific advancements in our understanding of the behaviour, and recognition that we need to observe the Golden Rule and have a greater sense of empathy with others.

 

[James]

Who is your question directed at? the non western pro inter related marriage group, or the pro homosexuality westerners?

Pretty distasteful comment James. You think the westerns are too civilized to support a backward concept such as inter related marriage, yet they support the civilized notion of gay marriage.

My comment is not distasteful. I think it has just rattled your cage because you've had your world view challenged.

My comment displays the absurdity of the slippery slope principle when applied to homosexuality. I've seen opinions that if we legalise gay marriage in the West then we will also eventually legalise marriage with relatives. Yet marriage with relatives is often practiced outside of the West already (merely a different cultural view). So why are people so against gay marriage, but not willing to discuss the already existent blood marriage which they warn against as if it were hypothetical? It makes no sense. Dolphins and Shan are two other users in this thread that have noticed the hypocrisy in that argument as well.

By the way, how can we have a serious debate if you're going to perform the lazy West-East reading? This is a grown-up matter, it requires a grown-up discussion.

 

[LegendsXI]

My comment is not distasteful. I think it has just rattled your cage because you've had your world view challenged.

My comment displays the absurdity of the slippery slope principle when applied to homosexuality. I've seen opinions that if we legalise gay marriage in the West then we will also eventually legalise marriage with relatives. Yet marriage with relatives is often practiced outside of the West already (merely a different cultural view). So why are people so against gay marriage, but not willing to discuss the already existent blood marriage which they warn against as if it were hypothetical? It makes no sense.

By the way, how can we have a serious debate if you're going to perform the lazy West-East reading? This is a grown-up matter, it requires a grown-up discussion.

Valid point, but don't think generalizations are required. I wouldnt really call that a grown up approach, rather the short hand solution. If you want discuss the merit of the cultural norms of the non western countries.

Do you think that the act of inter related marriage is the same as same sex marriage. In the scientific perspective, are the both concepts similar.

And please stop referring to homosexuality as a natural concept, because it is not. Majority of the human beings are against the act; hence on the contrary it is unnatural.

The only relevant point in the debate in my opinion, is that if two adults chose to live their life in any manner they want; they don't need anyone's approval. Neither should anyone have the right to effect their lives.

 

[James]

Valid point, but don't think generalizations are required. I wouldnt really call that a grown up approach, rather the short hand solution. If you want discuss the merit of the cultural norms of the non western countries.

Hm not really, I think this has been extrapolated beyond the original point. I do not seek to make generalisations, nor do you I hope after your original (now retracted? ) dismissal about some kind of Western mentality.

Do you think that the act of inter related marriage is the same as same sex marriage. In the scientific perspective, are the both concepts similar.

Two human beings joining in a loving union? (there is a measure of science behind love too.) Sure, that's similar. It can happen between man and woman, woman and woman, man and man. This has been observed in society.

If you're referring to the sexual element, that's more complicated and this is probably not the forum to be going into details.

And please stop referring to homosexuality as a natural concept, because it is not. Majority of the human beings are against the act; hence on the contrary it is unnatural.

We can't resort to the argumentum ad populum fallacy here. It's too biased by perspective.

'Many human beings have spoken out against homosexuality therefore homosexuality is wrong.' False statement.

Equally, 'I have met many human beings who have no problem with homosexuality [because I have] therefore homosexuality is right.' Also a false statement.

I personally think homosexuality is a natural behaviour (in some) because in human history and hundreds of other animal societies there is a long history of its observation and practice. Gay people didn't come into existence in the 20th century; we're talking thousands of years here. Remember that humans are no better, we are animals too, we have merely followed a differently evolutionary path.

The only relevant point in the debate in my opinion, is that if two adults chose to live their life in any manner they want; they don't need anyone's approval. Neither should anyone have the right to effect their lives.

I agree. I am rather liberal too.

 

[LegendsXI]

Hm not really, I think this has been extrapolated beyond the original point. I do not seek to make generalisations, nor do you I hope after your original (now retracted? ) dismissal about some kind of Western mentality.



Two human beings joining in a loving union? (there is a measure of science behind love too.) Sure, that's similar. It can happen between man and woman, woman and woman, man and man. This has been observed in society.

If you're referring to the sexual element, that's more complicated and this is probably not the forum to be going into details.



We can't resort to the argumentum ad populum fallacy here. It's too biased by perspective.

'Many human beings have spoken out against homosexuality therefore homosexuality is wrong.' False statement.

Equally, 'I have met many human beings who have no problem with homosexuality [because I have] therefore homosexuality is right.' Also a false statement.

I personally think homosexuality is a natural behaviour (in some) because in human history and hundreds of other animal societies there is a long history of its observation and practice. Gay people didn't come into existence in the 20th century; we're talking thousands of years here. Remember that humans are no better, we are animals too, we have merely followed a differently evolutionary path.



I agree. I am rather liberal too.

Where have i retracted? please enlighten me.

Well i wouldn't go into too many details with you, but its nice to see that you agree on the most important part. Most of the debate is focused on the factors that are to be honest, quite irrelevant.

And by the way i completely disagree with your attempt on all the former points; and i truly applaud you for posting something which doesn't insult me (Well almost)

In summary: homosexuality is not normal (infact it is abnormal, no einstein theories required a simple survey would suffice, not satisfied with you response to the scientific perspective (seriously love? and i think you have the sense to get your point across without being too crass. Considering we have debated about the subject of manual labor *wink, and for the love of god stop relying on the animals to make your points)

We are not animals (kind of). And even if animals do something, doesnt mean it provides the human beings the right to replicate (animals do some animalistic sh*t)

P.s Dude why dont we look at the big picture and debate about the real points, like the one i mentioned at the end. you want to talk about the existence of homosexuals throughout the history, than i'll about the existence of pedophiles throughout the history (i.e Homosexuality vs cannibalism vs bestiality vs non western inter related marriages; irrelevant debate).

Fact of the matter is; no one has any right to try to force or alter the lifestyle choices of two consenting adults, and thats it! Doesnt matter if you agree or condone their acts.

Edit: And please note that when i criticize your stance and preference to generalize, i am not referring to the western society as a whole. Only you.

 

[James]

We are not top of any food chain, we are merely a part of one. I'm interested as to why you think humans are not animals; most scientists agree that humans evolved from other primates.

I'm also interested as to why you decry the violent behaviours of other animals; human beings in fact have been by far the most violent and destructive species of animal. Other animals kill to eat and live, whereas humans do too, only we are the prime animal proven to have an ability to kill for sport, conquest and ideology, and also to torture and to construct suffering before we kill. Sounds quite animalistic to me.

I don't see where I made a generalisation particularly because I certainly don't think in those terms - unless I displayed a poor choice of words, in which case somebody can highlight that statement and tell me precisely why it was a generalisation of distaste or malice, and we can have a closer look at it from there.

Also I don't quite understand your refutation on the idea of science and love? Again, their connection has been proven - I can point you to numerous relevant sources. Although love, culturally, spiritually and philosophically may have deeper meanings to different individuals, there is an element of brain chemistry in at as well. Unless you're suggesting that gay people cannot love each other as straight people do, which I hope you're not, because you would be insulting many millions of people with such an opinion.

Love ultimately is a great emotion, and can thus arise in any moment in any space between any two people. Of any family or social background. And of any gender! Which is why the gay marriage bill can be very credibly supported.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There was a movie called "Brokeback Mountain" about gays in love with steamy scenes, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhal, not exactly Tom Cruise and Daniel Craig, but two top young actors both with a large female fan base, it actually received a lot of critical acclaim and was favorite to win the Oscars but missed out to "Crash".

As for the main discussion, I find it funny that the conservatives parties and people who are mostly against this law, their own traditional marriage structure has deteriorated to the point that half of the marriages end up in divorce and mostly because of infidelity. If marriage is so precious and sacred why not try to improve the traditional heterosexual type first before denying others the same rights.

Yes that movie got "critical acclaim" but how did it fare at the box office? I'm fairly sure it can't have done that well otherwise why have there not been more similar movies? It seems there just isn't a public appetite for it yet, despite the political pressure applied by the gay lobby. When 80% of the states in the US still haven't legalised gay marriage, that tells it's own story.

 

[James]

Yes that movie got "critical acclaim" but how did it fare at the box office? I'm fairly sure it can't have done that well otherwise why have there not been more similar movies? It seems there just isn't a public appetite for it yet, despite the political pressure applied by the gay lobby. When 80% of the states in the US still haven't legalised gay marriage, that tells it's own story.

$14 million budget with an $83 million US gross and $95 million rest of world gross, reaching number one in many countries. They call that less of a commercial success and more of an absolute smash. Is in the top ten grossing romantic dramas of all time. Moreover it won the Oscars for Best Director and Best Screenplay, and the Baftas for Best Director, Best Actor and Best Film. So I'm not sure if appetite is the right term, but greater acceptance would certainly be fair to say.

 

[in_cutter]

I don't care what anyone else thinks- I am AGAINST this decision.

 

[LegCutter]

I don't care what anyone else thinks- I am AGAINST this decision.

Why, if you're straight then it really doesnt effect you in any way.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

$14 million budget with an $83 million US gross and $95 million rest of world
gross, reaching number one in many countries. They call that less of a commercial success and more of an absolute smash. Is in the top ten grossing romantic dramas of all time. Moreover it won the Oscars for Best Director and Best Screenplay, and the Baftas for Best Director, Best Actor and Best Film. So I'm not sure if appetite is the right term, but greater acceptance would certainly be fair to say.

In the film industry the bottom line is commercial success. We see successful films being milked for every last cent with sequels and reboots, even low grade slasher movies. Then I guess you'd have to ask the question why there has been so few big money follow up movies with a gay theme? It's still very much in the niche market along with many others that don't appeal to the masses. Acceptance? Like I said, I'm genuinely surprised at how few countries have actually legalised marriage at this point. It looks like it's still an uphill battle, even in this day and age.

 

[Indiafan]

And please stop referring to homosexuality as a natural concept, because it is not. Majority of the human beings are against the act; hence on the contrary it is unnatural.

There was a time when majority of human beings believed white skinned people were superior to dark skinned ones in all respect and that dark skinned people were dumb who only could be slaves. Didnt make that natural. Education and an open mind changed that

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why, if you're straight then it really doesnt effect you in any way.

When they start handing out school books to 10 year olds showing little Johnny with his two dads it will.

 

[Kwremb]

In the film industry the bottom line is commercial success. We see successful films being milked for every last cent with sequels and reboots, even low grade slasher movies. Then I guess you'd have to ask the question why there has been so few big money follow up movies with a gay theme? It's still very much in the niche market along with many others that don't appeal to the masses. Acceptance? Like I said, I'm genuinely surprised at how few countries have actually legalised marriage at this point. It looks like it's still an uphill battle, even in this day and age.

Dude you don't make romantic movies with a budget of $200 million, you're confusing action/fantasy movies with massive vfx effects. If a heterosexual romantic movie grosses $200 million that's a massive success let alone a gay romantic movie.

 

[Yossarian]

My comment is not distasteful. I think it has just rattled your cage because you've had your world view challenged.

My comment displays the absurdity of the slippery slope principle when applied to homosexuality. I've seen opinions that if we legalise gay marriage in the West then we will also eventually legalise marriage with relatives. Yet marriage with relatives is often practiced outside of the West already (merely a different cultural view). So why are people so against gay marriage, but not willing to discuss the already existent blood marriage which they warn against as if it were hypothetical? It makes no sense. Dolphins and Shan are two other users in this thread that have noticed the hypocrisy in that argument as well.
.

I've already pointed out in post #37 above that incest is legal in many countries in the West, including Portugal & France, just to name a few. Furthermore, marriage between a half brother and sister is already allowed in Sweden, which is in the West.
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=5534361&postcount=37

 

[James]

In the film industry the bottom line is commercial success. We see successful films being milked for every last cent with sequels and reboots, even low grade slasher movies. Then I guess you'd have to ask the question why there has been so few big money follow up movies with a gay theme? It's still very much in the niche market along with many others that don't appeal to the masses. Acceptance? Like I said, I'm genuinely surprised at how few countries have actually legalised marriage at this point. It looks like it's still an uphill battle, even in this day and age.

I think it's 30-odd countries that allow civil partnerships including 20-odd that allow gay marriages, with us soon to become the newest member of the latter group, and I'm quite pleased about that.

It is a very recent development - in only 1998 there occurred the horrific torture and murder of Matthew Shepard, and in response Barack Obama has only recently managed to pass a bill that explicitly outlines the protection of LGBT people from the additional violence they can face.

Meanwhile, the year 2001 marked the confirmation of the first ever gay marriage, in the Netherlands. So in twelve years and across four continents, that's significant progress.

Polling and studies on the issue have been conducted throughout the first decade of the 21st century as well as before. These polls and studies have shown a consistent trend of increasing support for same-sex marriage across the world. Many developed countries achieved a majority of people in support of same-sex marriage in the first decade of the 21st century. Support for legalization has increased across every age group, political ideology, religion, gender, race, and region of various developed countries in the world.

Various detailed polls and studies about same-sex marriage conducted in several countries generally show that support for same-sex marriage increases with higher levels of education, and that younger people are more likely to support the legalization of it than older generations. In each U.S. state to hold a voter referendum on the issue prior to November 2012, the public has rejected same-sex marriage laws. However, recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, approximately 53%. Approximately 49% of whites, 51% of blacks, and 59% of Hispanics support same-sex marriage respectively. Several polls and studies have shown that people who personally know a person who is gay are much more likely to support LGBT rights and same-sex marriage than those who do not. Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved same-sex marriage by referendum on 6 November 2012.

 

[James]

There was a time when majority of human beings believed white skinned people were superior to dark skinned ones in all respect and that dark skinned people were dumb who only could be slaves. Didnt make that natural. Education and an open mind changed that

I agree. Homophobia is just as nasty a discrimination as racism, sexism et al.

 

[Liberty]

We are just living during an age where the partnership between Church and State is coming the an end. Historically, the church informed its followers of the devine rule of the king - the king would provide revenue and tax breaks to the coffers of the church.

Idealy, marriage should be privatized, leave it in the hands of the church and its followers. Let the church decide who they wish to marry - it is after all a private contractual agreement between 2 parties. This legislation is good because it allows the church to decide who they wish to marry. No need for the state enterprise interfering in this contractual agreement.

where do you stop/draw line????

Is it OK for someone to marry their...

son???
daughter??
father??
mother???
grandparents??
their pets??

any pro homo, homosapiens with an answer??

I see nothing wrong with this - except marrying pets.

 

[NJamal]

What a champions of humanity, salute.

























































What is the outcome of Gay marriages?

 

[James]

Still don't understand how varying laws on incest (which themselves are often hazy, and also difficult to enforce because many incestuous relationships are consensual) are relatable to legislation on civil partnerships and gay marriage...?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I agree. Homophobia is just as nasty a discrimination as racism, sexism et al.

I disagree, I don't think you can lump together totally different themes and use one to justify another. But this is a free society and when the majority feel gay marriages and all the repercussions in public life are fine then we should accept it as the price of living in Britain.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Dude you don't make romantic movies with a budget of $200 million, you're confusing action/fantasy movies with massive vfx effects. If a heterosexual romantic movie grosses $200 million that's a massive success let alone a gay romantic movie.

Yet there are loads of romantic heterosexual films made every year. Is that the case with homosexual ones?

 

[Kwremb]

Yet there are loads of romantic heterosexual films made every year. Is that the case with homosexual ones?

Maybe it's got to do with the amount of scripts available and since majority are heterosexual they wouldn't be able to relate to it in a movie. Movies have to be universal which is why Brokeback Mountain's success was remarkable.

 

[James]

I disagree, I don't think you can lump together totally different themes and use one to justify another. But this is a free society and when the majority feel gay marriages and all the repercussions in public life are fine then we should accept it as the price of living in Britain.

I don't anticipate a great impact on British public life through gay marriage being legalised. Since 2004 we have offered civil partnerships (mostly the same thing) and same-sex adoption, and it's still the Britain it was before. You earlier mentioned the incidence of a younger person learning about the existence of homosexuals, well, in my view that will just make him a more open-minded and accepting person in later life. It won't 'turn' him gay, whatever that concept means.

Yet there are loads of romantic heterosexual films made every year. Is that the case with homosexual ones?

LGBT art (i.e. produced by, for, or about homosexuals) has been around for a very long time. The taboos surrounding it were first broken by sculptures and paintings, and then plays and literature - of which there are many popular and rated examples - so I guess Hollywood movies are naturally the last area to be tapped, for they are the medium where homosexuality can be explored in the most detail and by the widest possible audience. With Brokeback Mountain, this seems to have begun.

 

[shaykh1985]

Still don't understand how varying laws on incest (which themselves are often hazy, and also difficult to enforce because many incestuous relationships are consensual) are relatable to legislation on civil partnerships and gay marriage...?

Well the discussion on incest is legitimate in that it is a form of consensual relationship that many feel is disgusting...

Providing that there is consistency from people there is no issue...if you support an individuals right to have consensual relations with another man then I presume you feel the same way about individuals marrying members of their immediate family?...

 

[shaykh1985]

We are not top of any food chain, we are merely a part of one. I'm interested as to why you think humans are not animals; most scientists agree that humans evolved from other primates.

I'm also interested as to why you decry the violent behaviours of other animals; human beings in fact have been by far the most violent and destructive species of animal. Other animals kill to eat and live, whereas humans do too, only we are the prime animal proven to have an ability to kill for sport, conquest and ideology, and also to torture and to construct suffering before we kill. Sounds quite animalistic to me.

I don't see where I made a generalisation particularly because I certainly don't think in those terms - unless I displayed a poor choice of words, in which case somebody can highlight that statement and tell me precisely why it was a generalisation of distaste or malice, and we can have a closer look at it from there.

Also I don't quite understand your refutation on the idea of science and love? Again, their connection has been proven - I can point you to numerous relevant sources. Although love, culturally, spiritually and philosophically may have deeper meanings to different individuals, there is an element of brain chemistry in at as well. Unless you're suggesting that gay people cannot love each other as straight people do, which I hope you're not, because you would be insulting many millions of people with such an opinion.

Love ultimately is a great emotion, and can thus arise in any moment in any space between any two people. Of any family or social background. And of any gender! Which is why the gay marriage bill can be very credibly supported.

Animals engage in homosexual acts...animals aren't homosexual...animals don't have an orientation...so the parallel to animals is an incorrect one...

 

[James]

Animals engage in homosexual acts...animals aren't homosexual...animals don't have an orientation...so the parallel to animals is an incorrect one...

What evidence are you basing this comment on? Animal sexuality/homsexuality is a rapidly developing field of study btw.

 

[Yossarian]

Still don't understand how varying laws on incest (which themselves are often hazy, and also difficult to enforce because many incestuous relationships are consensual) are relatable to legislation on civil partnerships and gay marriage...?

The post was in response to "where do you stop/draw the line?" in regards to marriage with sons/daughters/brothers/sisters......pets, to which I said "just give it time", and pointed out that gay civil partnerships/marriages was also forbidden territory not that many years ago.
I gave examples of Western countries where incest is already legal and even pointed out Sweden as a Western country where marriage between half-brother and sister is already allowed.

You also implied that marriage with close relatives is something that occurs only outside the West, which I refuted by pointing out the above examples.

It is not inconceivable that just as laws on homosexuality have changed over the years such that gay marriages are now being allowed in many countries, the same changes will not eventually occurr as regards incest. In fact, if one looks at the examples I've mentioned, these changes are already well on the way.

Hence the correlation between the two.

 

[James]

The post was in response to "where do you stop/draw the line?" in regards to marriage with sons/daughters/brothers/sisters......pets, to which I said "just give it time", and pointed out that gay civil partnerships/marriages was also forbidden territory not that many years ago.
I gave examples of Western countries where incest is already legal and even pointed out Sweden as a Western country where marriage between half-brother and sister is already allowed.

You also implied that marriage with close relatives is something that occurs only outside the West, which I refuted by pointing out the above examples.

It is not inconceivable that just as laws on homosexuality have changed over the years such that gay marriages are now being allowed in many countries, the same changes will not eventually occurr as regards incest. In fact, if one looks at the examples I've mentioned, these changes are already well on the way.

Hence the correlation between the two.

I stand corrected for missing a small piece of Swedish legislation, anyway I disagree, I think the correlation with incest and such occurs because some consider homosexuality on the level of these 'taboo' and 'immoral' behaviours rather than being more on the level of 'straight' and 'moral' sexual behaviours, but again it's a complex and potentially graphic debate there.

What I certainly don't get is when people say two humans having consensual sex is ever comparable to a human having non-consensual sex with another species of animal. For one that's insulting to all animals concerned, but more importantly it is an illogical position.

 

[Vegitto1]

I don't agree that the slippery slope principle can be applied to gay marriage; some people's eagerness to use it just displays their prejudice. The principle fits into debates over euthanasia and torture (which are hugely contentious issues) quite nicely - but homosexuality is no such issue, because it is a not uncommon behaviour in most animal societies as research and science have strongly suggested.

Moreover practically nobody in the West has any desire to marry a family member or has proposed a bill for it, whereas gay rights and LGBT concerns have for a great many decades been a talking point that has manifested within an ever-growing, determined lobby which is now at last succeeding in gaining some kind of equality as a minority.

In fact the only places where human beings not infrequently display a cultural leaning or otherwise some kind of a need to marry blood relatives are outside of the West. Why is this not talked about by the above posters, you ask? It's simply another symptom of their prejudice of course.

Once again you are applying double standards by saying that abortion and torture are contentious issues but whether Homos should be allowed to marry or not isn't.

- Firstly, to support this you have referred to the "animal societies" argument and relied on it heavily. It is absurd logic to justify homosexuality because it is common among animals etc.

There are many other acts which are common among animal societies, shall we adopt those as well and make them legal?

- Secondly, How is granting the right to abortion and/or euthanasia any different to allowing same-sex marriages? It comes down to freedom of choice of an individual, and these two issues has nothing to do with society, which is one of your points in favour of same-sex marriages, if someone who is terminally ill wants to end their suffering sooner and/or a teenager who has made a mistake wants to abort her child, then why should we not allow them to do so. It is their life, after all people do commit suicide, it is very common to end ones life so why not legalise it?

- One of the above posters have provided a list of western countries which have legalised incest, and I believe he stated that half-brothers and sisters can get married in Sweden. If that isn't the West then I need to restart my geography lessons.

And even if they hadn't, you are comparing two different issues. Incest is frowned upon by most civilised societies, however the definition or what classifies as incest varies. Marrying your siblings is incest, even if they are step-siblings. Now if different societies want to make it even more strict then that is their preference. On the other hand, homosexuality is wrong and unnatural - no two ways about it.

(I have indeed used the religious / popular and the logical position on the two above subjects and have not formed my opinions by watching Animal Planet).

 

[Yossarian]

What I certainly don't get is when people say two humans having consensual sex is ever comparable to a human having non-consensual sex with another species of animal. For one that's insulting to all animals concerned, but more importantly it is an illogical position.

As regards consensual/non-consensual, I would agree with your comment.
Having said that, many US States and some European countries, that are very firm (and rightly so) as regards consent between both parties, appear to ignore this when human/animal relations are concerned since bestiality is not illegal in these States/countries.

So when it comes to legality, there are already parallels between gay marriages/incest/bestiality in some countries, ie they are all legal.

 

[the Great Khan]

err, so if the institution of marriage has been redefined to include same sex marriages, why cant a man marry more than one woman?

 

[Vegitto1]

As regards consensual/non-consensual, I would agree with your comment.
Having said that, many US States and some European countries, that are very firm (and rightly so) as regards consent between both parties, appear to ignore this when human/animal relations are concerned since bestiality is not illegal in these States/countries.

So when it comes to legality, there are already parallels between gay marriages/incest/bestiality in some countries, ie they are all legal.

All three are equally vile.

And I second what Great Khan said, why can't a man have more than one wife and/or a woman more than one husband, if all parties consent?

Need to change the law to:

"You can do whatever you like as long as you are not hurting another individual (physically) or causing damage to property belonging to someone else"

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Disgusting. Marriage is such an important fabric of society. To treat it like this...... just wrong.

 

[the Great Khan]

You can do whatever you like as long as you are not hurting another individual (physically) or causing damage to property belonging to someone else"

actually that definition could be problematic if you talk about bestiality or even incest. Perhaps even within gay marriage , or maybe even within hetrosexual marriage.

 

[Vegitto1]

"You can do whatever you like as long as you are not hurting another individual (physically without their consent) or causing damage to property belonging to someone else (without their consent)"

There! fixed it for you TGK.

 

[shaykh1985]

What evidence are you basing this comment on? Animal sexuality/homsexuality is a rapidly developing field of study btw.

My basic point is that orientation itself is a social construct...if we look at older societies where homosexuality took place it was never a form of identity...its something that some did often alongside other acts...it was treated as a preference rather than a form of identity...homosexuality is a social creation imo...orientation in fact is a social creation...its not different to any other sort of sexual preference...its just society creates orientation and also states that it is a lifelong commitment...

Now my understanding in regards to animals is they by todays definitions are bisexual...I remember reading a while back that animals engage in homosexual behaviour but they don't engage in it exclusively...has anything changed in regards to that argument?...animal behaviour doesn't disagree with my argument about sexuality itself all being a social construct...

 

[shaykh1985]

err, so if the institution of marriage has been redefined to include same sex marriages, why cant a man marry more than one woman?

Which shows the arbitrariness of some countries rules...

Providing adults are consenting they should be permitted to have as many partners as they so wish based on the values of freedom...

 

[ElRaja]

Its interesting that you mention this...

Homosexuality imo itself is a sexual construct...the Chinese never identified themselves as homosexual if they committed homosexual acts...it was essentially a preference...so its like a guy who likes Russian girls and Latin American girls...two preferences...however liking one doesn't give you an identity based around it like societies do today...

Western concepts assume sexuality to be a lifelong disposition...

The reason why there was no word for homosexuality in Chinese was because it was never seen as a defining or integral part of a person’s identity. Male-male sexual and romantic bonds were construed as relationships between two people as opposed to a psychological essence that defined either person. Moreover, these same-sex bonds were seen as a perfectly acceptable and natural way of life in Imperial China (Hinsch, 1992).

The general sense is that if someone figures out that they are gay today, then they must have been gay when they were born, and they will be gay for the rest of their life. But there is simply not much empirical data that supports the position that sexual preference is a life-long predisposition that never wavers or changes because there are such strong social norms to identify with being straight, gay or bisexual. It is also unclear how many people would choose to have sex with both genders if there were not cultural norms for sexual preferences for one gender. Think about it this way. When someone realizes they are strongly attracted to Asians as sexual partners, they do not have to deal with the anxiety of wondering whether they will only like Asians for the rest of their life because there is no strong social norm for racial preference. But when someone thinks that they are attracted to someone of the same gender, they are suddenly forced to deal with a life-long decision.

Secondly, the concept of homosexuality has come to define an integral part of an individual’s identity in a way that other equally well-defined terms do not. For example, straight people do not think that being straight is an integral part of their identity. In personality psychology, we know that basic traits such as introversion can be measured accurately during childhood and are fairly stable over a life-time, but introverts do not typically report that introversion is an integral part of their identity. No freshmen at college will introduce themselves by saying, “I am an introvert. I realized I was an introvert when I was 13”. There is no Introvert Pride Day, nor is there anything referred to as Introvert Culture. Again, Gay Pride is a counter-reaction to a past injustice, but that injustice was itself created by a socially constructed category that was purposefully meant to be alienating.

This for me is the most compelling argument about homosexuality...

One of the arguments made about the existence of homosexuality being natural is the prevalence of animals that have homosexual relations but to my knowledge there is no animal that exclusively has same sex relations...

http://www.nickyee.com/ponder/social_construction.html

i completely agree with you of the illogicality of defining your identity by your sexuality. but i will say this is not a completely gay phenomenon, i have seen a lot of hetero men and women who may not introduce themselves by saying, hi im soandso and im straight, but by the way they dress, talk and act create an exhibition of their sexuality, and their sexuality does become a defining feature of their identity.

i have known a few gay people and the ones who make an exhibition of their sexuality are a minority, perhaps in greater numbers than heterosexuals, but still a minority, imo.

 

[Andrew Hughes]

"You can do whatever you like as long as you are not hurting another individual (physically without their consent) or causing damage to property belonging to someone else (without their consent)"

Throw in a line or two about slander/libel/incitement to violence and that is, more or less, the manifesto of JS Mill. A reasonable basis on which to build a society.

Arguments about whether people should or shouldn't define themselves as gay, or whether homosexuality is caused by pre-natal hormones, environment or both are beside the point. Arguments about incest, polygamy and bestiality are also separate debates.

As I see it, the issue is, do people who define themselves as gay, who take part in homosexual acts and who wish to marry same sex partners do any harm? As far as I can see, they do not, so society/government has no right to intervene and prevent/punish or prohibit such things.

The opponents of gay marriage, and of homosexuality in general, fall into two camps:

1. Those who find it distasteful.

2. Those who believe that it is wrong because God has said that it is wrong.

The first group can largely be ignored, since no-one is suggesting that they be compelled to join in. There are many things I find distasteful, but this is no basis for banning something. The second group are sincere, but no genuine debate is possible with them, in my experience, since who can argue with a divine proscription?

So the debate on homosexuality is a fruitless one. Peter Hitchens calls it an intellectual Stalingrad for social conservatives in the West.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Good news for these guys too. Won't be long until we see Britain's first Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Christian etc gay marriage. Good luck to them.

British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings

British gay Muslims are joining the global fight for equality and seeking gay Islamic marriage. The BBC's 5 live Investigates speaks to one couple about their 'nikah' - a Muslim matrimonial contract - and asks how they balance their sexuality with the Islamic faith.

"We met about three years ago, at an iftar - a breaking of fast during Ramadan.

"I think a lot of Muslims find that time of year very spiritual and very enlightening, and so I think that's why our relationship developed, because we spoke about our faith."

"Eventually we went on a date."

Asra recalls the first time she met her partner, Sarah, three years ago. The gay couple, who are also Muslim, are one of a growing number of gay, British Muslims who have cemented their relationship with marriage - Islamic marriage.

Asra fondly remembers the moment Sarah proposed to her.

"After the first date, which was about an hour, Sarah casually asked me to marry her."

Sarah interjects.

"I think it was more like four hours, after dinner, coffee and walking. I didn't really plan it, but it just really seemed like the way it was between us, I should try and keep it as pure as possible.

"That may sound strange being lesbians, but it felt like we should do it the most honourable way we could."
The Muslim way

Asra and Sarah decided upon a 'nikah' - a Muslim matrimonial contract. Whilst nikahs have traditionally been the reserve of heterosexual Muslims, Asra and Sarah were aware that other gay Muslims had followed this route and the couple decided to investigate further.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

It's still very difficult for me to tell my family about my life being a lesbian. They know I am a believer, they know I am religious, but going as far as saying I am a lesbian is quite hard”

Asra, gay Muslim

"A few friends said you don't really have to have an official Imam, but you need someone who is knowledgeable enough about the Qur'an to do it. Fortunately, one of our friends was, and she offered to do it. She's a lesbian herself, and she said we could do it in her home."

Three months after the proposal, the big day came. Asra wore a white shalwar kameez - a traditional Pakistani outfit - and Sarah a pink dress.

"I wanted to wear leather, but Asra wouldn't let me," she sighs.

"We got rings from Camden market, and we drew up contracts - we got a blueprint off the internet of a heterosexual contract and we both looked at it separately, to see if there were things we wanted to change."

"I remember I put about the dog - that if we broke up, Asra wouldn't steal the dog."

Asra rolls her eyes and adds "we also did a dowry, of £5. It was a symbolic thing and we've still got those £5 notes."

In attendance were six friends, who also acted as witnesses - "and a cat," says Sarah.

The short ceremony was conducted in Arabic, and additional duas - prayers - were read and the marriage was essentially no different from the nikahs performed for straight Muslim couples all over the world.
Activists at a London Pride event in 2005 There is growing visibility of gay Muslims in Britain, although not all are confident about coming out

But the Islamic faith vehemently rejects homosexuality, and the fact this nikah was for a gay couple is highly offensive to the majority of Muslims - including Asra's own parents.

"It's still very difficult for me to tell my family about my life being a lesbian. They know I am a believer, they know I am religious, but going as far as saying I am a lesbian is quite hard," Asra says.

"I remember thinking this is the only time I am going to get married, and my family weren't there.

"That was constantly going through my mind - I am having an Islamic nikah, doing as much as I can through my faith, but my family weren't there."

However, Sarah's relationship with her family is quite different.

"Because I wasn't born a Muslim - I converted five years ago - I think my family is quite accepting of my sexuality. But sometimes it seems like they are waiting for me to grow out of being a Muslim."
Gay Muslim voices

Sarah and Asra know their marriage is unorthodox, and the idea of a gay nikah would be rejected by the majority of Muslim scholars, but Sarah says it is nobody's business.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
Imam Daayiee Abdullah

By not allowing same-sex couples to wed, there is a direct attack on the Qur'an's message that each person has a mate who is their 'comfort and their cloak'”

Imam Daayiee Abdullah

"It is between me and God, and when we got married it was not ideal, but we were doing our best."

However, there is a small but growing voice within the Muslim community representing gay people, with the emergence of British gay Muslim support groups such as Imaan and Safra Project.

One of the key advocates of Muslim gay marriage is the American Imam, Daayiee Abdullah - who himself is gay. He has performed a number of gay nikahs in America and has also advised gay British Muslim couples on how to perform the ceremony.

He reasons that to deny gay Muslim couples the right to a religious union, goes against teachings in the Koran.

Speaking to 5 live Investigates, he says: "Since Islamic legal precedence does not allow same sexes to wed, Muslim societies make it a legal impossibility within Islam [but] by not allowing same-sex couples to wed, there is a direct attack on the Koran's message that each person has a mate who is their 'comfort and their cloak'."

It is not just within the Muslim community that gay Muslim couples such as Sarah and Asra have encountered hostility.

"I feel there's Islamaphobia within the gay community. It's something that really worries me," says Sarah.
Continue reading the main story
LISTEN TO THE FULL REPORT

You can hear the full 5 live Investigates report at 2100 GMT on Sunday, 20 February on BBC 5 live

Download the 5 live Investigates podcast

Asra recalls a particularly unsavoury incident.

"There was an occasion at gay pride once where one of the marchers turned around and quite crudely said 'we didn't know pride was allowing suicide bombers on the march' - it was really shocking to hear it from a fellow gay marcher."

But according to Sarah, it's not just Muslims who are rejected by the gay community.

"I think there's a deep-rooted assumption in the secular queer community that you can't be gay and believe in anything, apart from yourself or materialism."
Acceptance

However, gay unions are being integrated into wider British society even more - and the government recently announced plans to allow churches in England and Wales to host civil partnership ceremonies.

Ministers have pledged greater equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, but said no religious group would be forced to host the ceremonies.

The Church of England has said it will not do so. Quakers have welcomed the plans, with support also expected from Unitarians and Liberal Jews. But what about the Muslim community?

"Homosexuality is not considered a halal way of living at the moment, so of course there's going to be an extreme reaction to a gay nikah. So, as a community we have to get tolerance before we can even attempt acceptance of marriage," says Asra.

But she is hopeful for the future.

"I certainly know younger gay Muslims that are out to their families and their families are absolutely fine with it.

"Same-sex nikahs are still a contentious issue, but all I can say is I have done it, and I am completely comfortable and content with my faith and hopefully people will think 'well, let me try and get to that place'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12486003

 

[pakistanalltheway]

^^^
I don't think It will be an Islamic marriage or would it ?

 

[the Great Khan]

we'll soon have halal pork too. Verily we live in the end of times!

 

[shaykh1985]

Good news for these guys too. Won't be long until we see Britain's first Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Christian etc gay marriage. Good luck to them.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12486003

Now this is where it becomes silly...

If a Muslim wants to get married to someone of the same sex then they can do that but not through an Islamic wedding...there is no such thing...just as there is no such thing as an Islamic wedding between a Muslim or a Hindu...Islam doesn't permit the act...so how then can one ask about homosexual Islamic weddings...

Its pathetic when people manipulate religion for their own means...if one wants to be homosexual then do so...don't try and find religious legitimacy for that behaviour...

For instance drinking...many Muslims partake in it...thats their prerogative...but it would be nonsensical if they were to ascribe religious legitimacy to that behaviour...