Tory MP Says Fewer Straight People Will Marry If Gay People Can
A Conservative MP has suggested fewer heterosexual couples will get married if gay marriage is introduced.
Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday after culture secretary Maria Miller unveiled the government plans for same-sex marriage, Rugby MP Mark Pawsey said the move would lead to more unmarried parents.
"The secretary of state herself referred to the institution of marriage as a building block of our society and yet last year nearly half of all babies were born to couples who were not married," he said.
To the bafflement of many MPs he added: "Given that marriage rates in Spain and Holland collapsed after same sex marriage was introduced there, is she not concerned that even fewer couples intending to have children will choose to get married?"
Fellow Tory Penny Mordant, replied: "As an umarried heterosexual woman, if the Bill goes ahead, I will certainly consider the institution."
The questions to Miller exposed the depth of opposition on the Tory benches to gay marriage.
Matthew Offord suggested it opened the door to polygamy and Laurence Robertson said people were "deeply offended" by the idea of gay people getting married.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/11/2012|
"To the bafflement of many MPs he added: "Given that marriage rates in Spain and Holland collapsed after same sex marriage was introduced there, is she not concerned that even fewer couples intending to have children will choose to get married?"
He clearly went to the Rush Limbaugh School of Making Shit Up when referring to Spain and Holland.
"The questions to Miller exposed the depth of opposition on the Tory benches to gay marriage."
The depth of stupidity is more like it.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||12/11/2012|
That's like the logic bending argument that we will bankrupt the fed with our marital tax and Social Security rights. As if every single one of us couldn't marry the opposite sex and have the precisely equal financial effect.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||12/11/2012|
[quote]The UK Conservative Party is too forward thinking for him.
You can't be serious. Cameron's hated because he's too liberal, and his pro-gay marriage stance has his party wanting to run him out of power.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/11/2012|
Oh, Shut the fuck up! Gay people don't effect what straight people do - stop trying to dig for excuses and rationales to justify your fucking homophobia.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||12/11/2012|
It's one thing to simply hate gay people, but I genuinely don't understand the ones who claim gay people getting married will have an effect on hetero marriages.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/11/2012|
Fewer Straight People Will Marry If Gay People Can
And this is a problem because.....?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/11/2012|
According to DL "experts," Europe is THE bastion of liberal thought and its just troglodyte Americans who are against gay marriage and/or homophobic.
Could it be that some DLers are full of shit and talking out of their asses?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/11/2012|
Although Cameron is liberal, hell even Boris Johnson is now in favour and he was a roaring homophobe at one time, there IS a political savvy to all this imo.
David Cameron knows that many top industry people are gay, cohabiting and Scottish. Scotland under Alex Salmond's pro-gay SNP could lure City gays back to Scotland in a real coup. Cameron will not only not want to lose taxpayer money from bigwigs incomes but he also doesn't want an independent Scotland to steal a march on England and Wales.
And he'd be correct. It wouldn't be a mass exodus big enough to lose sleep over but many valuable gay people may simply up and go home to Scotland if they can get married there. Because love trumps careers.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/11/2012|
[quote]According to DL "experts," Europe is THE bastion of liberal thought
Please point out where these "experts" are actually experts and where they even said anything like that. Links to such threads would be very helpful.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/11/2012|
As if, please. Maybe it will make people look at marriage a little more seriously. There are obvious financial advantages for staying together, and blatant financial impact upon divorcing.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/11/2012|
R12 What moronic about asking someone to back up their claim? Do you blindly believe everything someone tells you? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling. For you I'll give you a good price.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/11/2012|
England is very pro-gay, and not very church going at all. So this all sounds rather strange, or irrelevant.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||12/11/2012|
From 1980 to 2008, marriage rates in the US fell 33.3%, 34.0% in Spain, 30.2% in the Netherlands, and 30.4% in the UK. True, Canada had 44% drop, and they'd had gay marriage for five years in 2008. On the other hand, Sweden had marriage rates rise from 1980 to 2008.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/11/2012|
R14 is right. What the gov't has done is accommodate the church by answering every argument they could present in opposition to the gov't's plans. What that sounds like is that they're appeasing the church but what they're really saying is that the church is an irrelevance. They've catered to them by completely excluding them. They won't even have the right to reply because no one in the European Court of Human Rights is going to bother with them and, in time, they will just sound old and out of touch. Gay marriage is going forward in the UK and there's no reason at all for the church to argue with that because they've been excluded from the conversation. It's very secular and they will have no voice on this issue.
In less than five years time, Labour will return to power and polish up this legislation.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/11/2012|
Yeah, but no, but like marriage is so gay!
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/11/2012|
This latest barrel-scraping is pitiful. As if most breeders know or care about the arrangements of gays. If they're influenced, they're influenced by their breeding peers, who may or may not marry.
And it was like that way before civil partnerships arrived to so compromise the shining triumph of heterosexual marriage. Which has been less than a triumph since at least The Sixties.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/11/2012|
Ok, even if I take it this argument seriously, I still don't understand it. How does gay people marrying (each other) make marriage less attractive for straight people? Do they consider it less special and interesting if gays marry too? More populistic: In those state and countries where gays can marry, how many straight couples got a divorce because we spoiled it for them? Or how many cancelled their wedding after same-sex marriage became legal. Please post actual statements if you can.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||12/11/2012|
R19 The state with the lowest divorce rate is Massachusetts, so that should say something about how weak this argument is.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/11/2012|
R10 is correct. I've seen this referred to but never backed-up.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||12/11/2012|
R19, the argument is really about this: the existence of gay marriage will cheapen the entire institution to the point where it has no intrinsic moral value, and heterosexuals will feel less and less inclined to get married as a result, which will then bring The End of Society As We Know It.
In a word, MARY!
|by Anonymous||reply 22||12/11/2012|
But that's a circular argument on its face. It will only "cheapen marriage" if people see gays as a disfavored minority. If gays are not a disfavored minority, by the establishment of equal rights, then it won't cheapen marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||12/11/2012|
In other words marriage is, to a significant extent, a way of straight people asserting their privilege as straight people.
Funny, I always thought there were better reasons.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/11/2012|
That's what it is, R25. And it is very obvious when you hear them speak against gay marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/11/2012|
" If gays are not a disfavored minority, by the establishment of equal rights, then it won't cheapen marriage."
Not exactly. To those opposed to gay marriage, gay people are a lesser form of humanity. Our having equal rights won't change their minds about that, any more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed the minds of racists.
Gay marriage cheapens marriage as a whole in their minds becuse we're less legitimate as citizens and therefore bring down the whole institution, to R25's point.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/11/2012|
But they only see gays as a lesser form of humanity because gays have fewer rights. Duh.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/11/2012|
But how can it bring down the "whole institution" if we are naturally inferior R27? They don't see us as naturally inferior but as made inferior by social structures, and that without this structure and sense of privilege, then marriage would have less appeal to people.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/11/2012|