BRITISH MPs have voted in favour of controversial legislation allowing gay marriage despite fierce opposition from members of Prime Minister David Cameron's own party.
The move puts Britain on track to join the 10 countries that allow same-sex couples to marry, but Mr Cameron had the embarrassment of seeing half of his Conservative legislators refusing to back him.
Read more:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/british-mps-back-gay-marriage/story-e6frg6so-1226571282763
a sad day
Posted by: oldskool | February 6, 2013 at 09:46 AM
Hooray for democracy!
Posted by: pk | February 6, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Oldskool,
Though I share your sentiment, anything less would have been hypocritical. British society has descended into a moral abyss of epic proportion. The Conservative Party had no moral ground to stand on. It is political parties on both sides of the political spectrum who created morally vacuous societies. To now suddenly feign indignation and attempt to 'defend' traditional marriage seems too little too late.
Most western 'conservative' parties are nothing more than 99% fat free liberals. Think Malcolm Turnbull. There are exceptionally few real conservatives in politics. Conservatives are branded as fanatics and nut-jobs by a media machine dominated by so called social progressives. Think Cori Bernardi.
Sadly, Britain is reaping what they've been sowing in the name of 'progress' and 'social justice'. Once you abdicate your duty to defend the moral absolutes upon which western society flourished, you all but ensure its eventual total destruction.
Posted by: Abraham | February 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM
pk,
You are as pretentious as you are misguided.
'Celebrating' democracy's apparent 'victory' over conservative values exposes your lack of understanding the value of democracy and also why democracy still is a flawed system.
For one, the democratic process never guarantees a morally just society. It is merely a process whereby everyone has the option to have a vote. Nothing more; nothing less.
Morality is the foundation of every successful society. Without a clear moral code defining right from wrong; acceptable from unacceptable, society inevitable reverts back to a state of primitivity.
By exclaiming " ... Hooray for democracy ..." you pretend to celebrate the political process of democracy, where as in actual fact you are celebrating the continued moral degradation of a once great society.
What you should've said is " ... Hooray for homosexuality ...". Now that would have been honest and directly in line with your personal beliefs.
Posted by: Abraham | February 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Your 'moral absolute' ain't mine Abe - sorry if the majority in the UK feel the same way as I.
But just for argument's sake, can you please tell me in clear detail what exactly will happen to society if homosexual couples are recognised? I won't buy the 'spread of homosexual lifestyles' hysteria however - as it's been clear throughout history there has always been and always will be a portion of gay people in the community - whether the state recognises them or not.
Posted by: pk | February 6, 2013 at 02:28 PM
“Your 'moral absolute' ain't mine Abe - sorry if the majority in the UK feel the same way as I.”
I think you assumption as to the level of support for homosexual marriage is ambitious. Politicians seldom do what their constituents expect them to do. Australia’s own Mr. Windsor and Oakeshott comes to mind. I’d be very interested as to how the MPs representing Britain’s increasing Muslim demographic voted. Were they Labor or Conservative MPs?
“But just for argument's sake, can you please tell me in clear detail what exactly will happen to society if homosexual couples are recognised?”
Homosexual couples are regonised by all legislation and have similar legal rights as heterosexual couples. Unless there are certain legislative rights – excluding marriage – they are denied. And herein lies the argument. If homosexual couples, in terms of legislation, have similar rights to heterosexual couples, what legislative rights would they gain by ‘getting married’? What additional rights would they acquire by possessing a marriage certificate?
“I won't buy the 'spread of homosexual lifestyles' hysteria however …”
Neither do I. However, homosexual behavior is abnormal and unnatural. Acceptance of homosexual behavior does not change the fact it is abnormal and unnatural.
Moral relativism accepts human behavior as relative. What one individual considers as unnatural, another might not necessarily consider as such. But human nature is predisposed to acts of repulsive depravity. Failure to acknowledge the existence of moral absolutes inevitably leads to moral degradation. Without moral absolutes (knowing right from wrong) human nature relinquishes its humanity and regresses to a state of base primitivism. Humans become animals.
You disagree? Let me ask you this question. You are a moral relativist and wholeheartedly reject moral absolutes, correct.
“Under what circumstances is it appropriated to torture new born babies?”
Posted by: Abraham | February 6, 2013 at 05:23 PM
pk-the majority did not get a vote-only the majority of parliamentary members did. Think to the co2 tax-virtually all of the population voted for a candidate who promised not to introduce one and yet a "majority" voted for it-against the wishes.
This is why our government will never put the same sex marriage law to a popular vote nor will one ever go to an election promising to do it (not in oz anyways) as the majority will vote against it.
As always-keep sending in your comedy and mirage of facts-very enlightening.
Posted by: kraka | February 6, 2013 at 06:16 PM
For anyone interested in a candid and blunt look at the social and cultural degeneration in the UK, Melanie Phillips wrote this brilliant piece. I highly recommend it ...
http://www.melaniephillips.com/how-tory-left-collaborators-undermine-marriage-conservatism-and-britain
Posted by: Abraham | February 6, 2013 at 06:23 PM
I've always maintained:
Put these issues to a referendum.
MAJORITY wins.
Naturally the Gay Lobby do not want this course of action.
Posted by: Peter Simmons | February 6, 2013 at 06:29 PM
It has been proven time and time again that once a society goes down the amoral decadent route and abandons the family as it's foundation it is doomed.......thinking Ancient Rome here. :-)
Posted by: bluebell | February 6, 2013 at 07:12 PM
At least the Muslims are holding out - they, unlike us will never recognize the homosexual 'lifestyle' as normal. In fact it is abnormal, they cannot reproduce naturally, and marriage my dear pk was designed for that very purpose. A union between a man and a woman to unite them as a pro-creating couple to advance the human species into the future. They might have their 'gay marriage' in the UK now, but it will never be equal. By all means have your little victory dance, because in the end it will be reversed by future generations when deep social problems arise from this little 'progressive' socialist experiment.
Posted by: bluebell | February 6, 2013 at 07:24 PM
The Catholics hold out too, but they are the only ones villified and lampooned by the Gay Lobby.
Why aren't they protesting outside mosques and wearing Islamic garb on the floats in the "Mardi Gras"?
Posted by: Peter Simmons | February 6, 2013 at 07:54 PM
[Why aren't they protesting outside mosques and wearing Islamic garb on the floats in the "Mardi Gras"?]
Because the Muslim community wouldn't stand for it for starters, and the gay activists know it. They (gay activists) are much more comfortable attacking Christian organizations because they have lost the will to stand up for the very Book they profess to revere. When God says it is an abomination for man to sleep with man, and for women to act sexually like men they conveniently omit it from their consciences. Not only is Western Civilization on the brink of collapse, so is Christianity itself. The churches are in decline and are being taken over by Muslims. This is a very stark fact in the UK and Europe. For the first time in history indigenous Londoner's are now a minority!
Posted by: bluebell | February 6, 2013 at 08:12 PM
The short answer: no guts, no intestinal fortitude, lack of backbone, cowards. Oops, that's the long answer.
Posted by: Linne | February 6, 2013 at 08:16 PM
Christians won't behead blasphemers or declare fatwas against infidels.
That and Political Correctness stop people from saying what they wish, but only if you are in the minority.
Posted by: Peter Simmons | February 6, 2013 at 09:14 PM
well said Bluebell
Posted by: oldskool | February 6, 2013 at 09:22 PM
Where's PK?
Posted by: Abraham | February 7, 2013 at 07:49 AM
hai! here I am!
“Under what circumstances is it appropriated to torture new born babies?”
none, and I don't agree with male or female circumscion if thats what you're driving at (unless you want to do it when you can agree to it yourself). I do however agree with not always extending the life of newborns so badly disabled or sick they will not survive on their own anyway, which also can be a form of torture. See, you have far more in common with rabid Muslim clerics than I do haha! All you conservatives now hold hands and sing songs of praise hey!
I still can't get a clear answer BTW- how do we become animalistic society if gay marriage is recognised again? I'm guessing you - like to always- put situations of abuse eg: Pedophilia in the same basket as Gay unions conveniently forgetting the main principal here - consent between parties.
Posted by: pk | February 7, 2013 at 09:30 AM
>Think to the co2 tax-virtually all of the population voted for a candidate who promised not to introduce one and yet a "majority" voted for it-against the wishes.
If you think most people voted Labor because of that little speech you really need to get out more. Here's a tip - some people always vote Labor, some people vote Labor because they have more of an alliance with greens and independent (which you learned the hard way last time round huh!) some people vote labor for their (now nearly dead) history of focusing on education, health and worker's rights (remember work Choices kids?) yeah there are lots of reasons. Any bet You didn't vote labor last time round, so what would you know of the reasons of people who did?
Posted by: pk | February 7, 2013 at 09:34 AM
what kind of garbage response is that. You state things that are obvious-like we know you will always vote alp/green no matter how shite they are.
Rather than let you once again change tack to avoid defending your first ridiculous post-how about we discuss the difference between a majority of the people and a majority of parliamentarians.
Did Cameron go to an election promising to legalize gay marriage-if he did not then your claim of a majority of people agree to it is outrageous.
The only way you can claim an absolute majority is via referndum-as you republicans found out the hard way-the majority of parliamentarians were at odds with the majority of people.
I would put my house on a referendum on legalizing gay marriage in bothe britain and australia would fail miserably.
Anyways-keep believing you are in the majority pk if that helps you justify your beliefs-your mum still thinks your special.
Posted by: kraka | February 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM
On this topic, i will. and she does.
Posted by: pk | February 7, 2013 at 01:26 PM
The byline on this blog is 'there is room for everyone ' . Why are there no pro gay marriage commentators here? There are a substantial number of us on the centre right in favour of bringing gays into an institution that brings stability and happiness. Where are their voices on menzies house?
Posted by: Matthew | February 8, 2013 at 12:48 AM
Washed out by those who still believe that moral values restricted to one religion should be an integral, sanctioned part of the state.
Posted by: Frank | February 8, 2013 at 01:24 AM
"...restricted to one religion ... "
Which one would that be Mate?
Posted by: Abraham | February 8, 2013 at 04:32 AM
Love and stability is the result of human commitment. Not an institution. That's the problem with homosexual marriage. A misguided and deluded belief 'getting married' will bring forth equality. Really?
Posted by: Abraham | February 8, 2013 at 04:36 AM
According to the Australian Human Rights Commission's survey of "Most important Human Rights for the 2013 Federal Election" only 3% of respondent consider Homosexual (or Gay as they worded it) marriage.
Weird. I thought the WHOLE of Australia wants homosexuals to enter the holy misery of matrimony. Must be a glitch.
Weirder still ... Freedom of speech isn't even listed. Astounding!!!!
http://somethingincommon.gov.au/content/what-most-important-human-rights-issue-2013-federal-election
Posted by: Abraham | February 8, 2013 at 06:24 AM
Abraham, your argument that love and stability are the result of commitment and not an institution ie marriage sounds a lot like the leftist argument against marriage in general. The institution helps foster commitment, consideration of the long term over the short term. It ca civilise men - gay or straight.
Posted by: Matthew | February 8, 2013 at 07:02 AM
So pk, your arguments are based on consent, with your statement, 'Pedophilia in the same basket as Gay unions conveniently forgetting the main principal here - consent between parties'
So you are OK with sex between consenting parties then?
It's OK as long as the child consents.
Posted by: bushwanker | February 8, 2013 at 08:26 AM
bushwaker- A child cannot give their consent, they are unable to. It's pretty easy to understand. Are you willing to indulge a paedophile who states the child 'agreed' to it, and even think in some cases he might be right?
I thought not.
Get back to me when you can clearly argue as to why and how the world will turn animal if gay unions are recognised by the state/society. I'd like a blow by blow account of this apocalypse, if you please.
Posted by: pk | February 8, 2013 at 09:53 AM
That would be Christianity, but you should have known that anyway.
Posted by: Frank | February 8, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Really???
Only Christianity???
Posted by: Abraham | February 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM