UK - "conservatives" plan legalization of homosexual marriages.
Nick Herbert, minister of environment in conservative shadow cabint, said that after they win the elections, one of conservatives' priorities will be legalization of marriages of homosexuals and allowing them to adopt children. The conservative minister said this last week in Washington, during the conference "Is there a place for gays in conservatism and conservative politics". The meeting took place in libertarian Cato Institute.
Brittish conservatives, according to their leader, David Cameron, doctrine, want to gain new electorate, by resignation from conservative attitude and focusing on social matters. They want to achieve also support from homosexuals and lesbians. "The gays are not property of Left nor any party" said Herbert recently.
The representer of brittish conservatives said later in "The Metro News" that acceptance of equality programme from gays and lesbians is important also because of the need to push the politics forward. He also admitted that after the won of elections, the conservative goverment would struggle for legalization of homosexual marriages. It is expected also by some religious communities, for example Quakers who want to celebrate the homoexual weddings.
Herbert also said that the major goal of the state is to protect the individual laws of the citizens and protectng them from harm. Thats why heterosexuals can't be treated in special way. The issue of equality is a priority of modern world and the necessary element of modern conservatism.
The conservative minister praised recently conservative leader David Cameron for modernization of the party.
Herbert is a homosexual, he is in a civl union with other man.
Adoption. Nonetheless if gay marriage will be legalized their rights to adoption will eventually follow up... My deepst sympathies goes out to the innocent kids who must suffer from others lack of empathy.
Britain already allows adoption. Gays and lesbians receive equal rights of marriage, the only difference is that it's not called marriage.
Not really, don't confuse gay marriage with incest, incestuous acts are abhorred and are illegal in almost all countries in the world, and it is a choice.
Incestual sex is a choice the way gay, straight or any other sexual relationship is a choice.
Incestual sex is a choice the way gay, straight or any other sexual relationship is a choice.
Having sex is a choice, that's for sure, but not feelings. You don't choose to be gay, bi, or straight. If you love your sister or brother, you can avoid it because it concerns only one individual , while if you are gay or lesbian you do have the choice but you only feel the same sex attraction
Hello _Muslim_, I have missed you so much, how have you been doing since "that" last time ? I wanted to send you a PM, but unfortunately I should post at least fifty messages on board.
Hello, bro I'm fine Al-hamdulilLah. Lol I was so confused at first since I didn't remember who you were Try to reach 50 posts soon.
Hello, bro I'm fine Al-hamdulilLah. Lol I was so confused at first since I didn't remember who you were Try to reach 50 posts soon.
Thanks for the link. SubhaanAllah, I didn't know so many countries already allow gay adoption
Inchallah, I will reach 50 posts soon That is only Europe, same sex adoption rights are available in my other countries, regions and parts of the world.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
It is about equality. They aren't out to necessarily gain any advantages over what they have, but wish for legal recognition of equality.
Exactly, end of discrimination and equality for all
In your opinion does the legalization of gay marriages promote equality?
Well, as long as homosexual couples can obtain the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples through a civil partnership they have equality. It is the community asking for nothing more than lip service if viable partnerships already exist, to be honest. The term 'marriage' to me means nothing personally.
Well, as long as homosexual couples can obtain the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples through a civil partnership they have equality. It is the community asking for nothing more than lip service if viable partnerships already exist, to be honest.
Ok.
The term 'marriage' to me means nothing personally.
Ok. If Allah would have guided me astray (I seek refuge from Allah) then I guess it wouldn't have any meaning to me.
Those who believe and obscure not their belief by wrongdoing, theirs is safety; and they are rightly guided. (6:86)
Behold! verily on the friends of Allah there is no fear, nor shall they grieve. (10:62)
Where, in Holland? Yeah was some heavy news a few years ago though we dont hear much from them now. Or did you mean in your own country?
I mean Holland, that party still exists and even has its own political programme. But dutch fascist and medieval society doesnt want to give them tolerance and equality. But thats a matter of time only I guess.
Last edited by Amadeus85; 02-25-2010 at 03:33 PM.
This country is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs.
Yeah, All muslims would have to be at the final analysis. A world united under Allah kind of stamps out the ideas of other cultures living in harmony together, celebrating differences and intergrating with each other.
Thats why,if your looking for a German area of a city or a Scottish area of a city in the UK, you cant find it. All these cultures have just blended in and share the joint experience, which is what multiculturalism is about.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Gay marriage highlights for us the state/church problem with marriage. And I think it is a good motivator to finally separate the two.
My proposal is to separate the state and church aspects of what we now call marriage. The state should not be telling the church who can enter a spiritual union and the church should not be telling the state who must be recognized for certain legal rights (and no, "civil unions" do NOT carry all the same rights as "marriage" under current laws now in many countries, including the US). I would have "civil union" available to anybody who wants it, and have it be a legal contract for the legal rights and then have "marriage" be something religions recognize or not, a spiritual union with no legal aspect attached. Then the religious bigots don't have to recognize the marriages of homosexuals and I don't have to recognize the marriages of religious bigots.
I wonder if this idea could be acceptable to the homosexuals. And I wonder if it could be acceptable to the religious bigots.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 02-26-2010 at 07:41 PM.
Gay marriage highlights for us the state/church problem with marriage. And I think it is a good motivator to finally separate the two.
My proposal is to separate the state and church aspects of what we now call marriage. The state should not be telling the church who can enter a spiritual union and the church should not be telling the state who must be recognized for certain legal rights (and no, "civil unions" do NOT carry all the same rights as "marriage" under current laws now in many countries, including the US). I would have "civil union" available to anybody who wants it, and have it be a legal contract for the legal rights and then have "marriage" be something religions recognize or not, a spiritual union with no legal aspect attached. Then the religious bigots don't have to recognize the marriages of homosexuals and I don't have to recognize the marriages of religious bigots.
I wonder if this idea could be acceptable to the homosexuals. And I wonder if it could be acceptable to the religious bigots.
Gay marriage highlights for us the state/church problem with marriage. And I think it is a good motivator to finally separate the two.
My proposal is to separate the state and church aspects of what we now call marriage. The state should not be telling the church who can enter a spiritual union and the church should not be telling the state who must be recognized for certain legal rights (and no, "civil unions" do NOT carry all the same rights as "marriage" under current laws now in many countries, including the US). I would have "civil union" available to anybody who wants it, and have it be a legal contract for the legal rights and then have "marriage" be something religions recognize or not, a spiritual union with no legal aspect attached. Then the religious bigots don't have to recognize the marriages of homosexuals and I don't have to recognize the marriages of religious bigots.
I wonder if this idea could be acceptable to the homosexuals. And I wonder if it could be acceptable to the religious bigots.
You can read my signature and have a think whether family is something we can change however we want.
This country is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs.
The only other bigotry I can think of caused by religion is the traditional mormon take on black people, but a homosexual can't be a mormon anyway.
Maybe the caste system in India? But I'm not sure if that is religiously derived or culturally derived.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
I wanted to send you a PM, but unfortunately I should post at least fifty messages on board.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks