Bury North MP defends his stance over same-sex marriages

MP DAVID Nuttall has defended his decision not to support Government plans to legalise same-sex marriage.

The Bury North MP, pictured, has come under fire from high school teacher Ben Farnworth who supports equal marriage.

Next Tuesday, MPs will vote on the plans when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has its second reading in the House of Commons.

Mr Farnworth contacted the MP to raise his support for same-sex civil marriage. But Mr Nuttall replied: “I believe that the definition of marriage is that it is between one man and one woman. I do not believe in changing the definition of marriage.”

Mr Farnworth, who lives in Bury, was “extremely disappointed” by the MP’s response and added: “I believe the role of an elected MP is to represent the views of their constituents and not their personal views.”

He told Mr Nuttall: “You have the opportunity to vote on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill which will extend the legal form of marriage to same-sex couples. This is the first key Parliamentary step towards securing marriage equality in England and Wales and one that I am wholly in support of. I would like to ask that you reconsider your previously outlined stance on this issue.”

Mr Nuttall told the Bury Times: “I have had many representations on this matter. Far more people have urged me to support the present definition of marriage rather than vote to change it.

“This is a free vote issue where MPs vote in accordance with their personal opinion and conscience. I have always held the view that marriage is between one man and one woman. I will vote against any proposal to change the definition of marriage.”

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:21pm Thu 31 Jan 13

BFarnworth says...

For those wishing to read the full email exchange between David Nuttall and myself, please click on the link below.

https://outlook.lanc
sngfl.ac.uk/owa/redi
r.aspx?C=84118f7b243
9405f8e8b65d64ff923a
6&URL=https%3a%2f%2f
docs.google.com%2fdo
cument%2fd%2f1oJYOpw
aes-f3YyzlElO7jVVs9x
i7-AgUK3UJVK_Oxg0%2f
edit
For those wishing to read the full email exchange between David Nuttall and myself, please click on the link below. https://outlook.lanc sngfl.ac.uk/owa/redi r.aspx?C=84118f7b243 9405f8e8b65d64ff923a 6&URL=https%3a%2f%2f docs.google.com%2fdo cument%2fd%2f1oJYOpw aes-f3YyzlElO7jVVs9x i7-AgUK3UJVK_Oxg0%2f edit BFarnworth

1:22pm Thu 31 Jan 13

BFarnworth says...

For those wishing to read the full email exchange between David Nuttall and myself, please click on the link below.

https://docs.google.
com/document/d/1oJYO
pwaes-f3YyzlElO7jVVs
9xi7-AgUK3UJVK_Oxg0/
edit
For those wishing to read the full email exchange between David Nuttall and myself, please click on the link below. https://docs.google. com/document/d/1oJYO pwaes-f3YyzlElO7jVVs 9xi7-AgUK3UJVK_Oxg0/ edit BFarnworth

1:36pm Thu 31 Jan 13

rsmith42 says...

This sounds like a failure to represent all the constituents within the MP's area. Allowing one's personal beliefs to sway a vote away from the concerns voiced by your constituents will get you unelected for another term in the US. I congratulate Ben for his strength in letting his voice be heard. More people should let their voice be heard and write the MP telling him to support the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill. If I lived in the UK, I would definitely write the MP and flood his office with correspondence urging his support and his vote for the bill.
This sounds like a failure to represent all the constituents within the MP's area. Allowing one's personal beliefs to sway a vote away from the concerns voiced by your constituents will get you unelected for another term in the US. I congratulate Ben for his strength in letting his voice be heard. More people should let their voice be heard and write the MP telling him to support the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill. If I lived in the UK, I would definitely write the MP and flood his office with correspondence urging his support and his vote for the bill. rsmith42

2:41pm Thu 31 Jan 13

a.j.morehead says...

I agree with rsmith42 in that it is unreasonable to allow a person in office to use their personal values, and not those of the people they are serving, dictate the laws of the land. I also commend Ben for speaking out, and hope that regardless of what the MP says in this article and elsewhere, that in his mind, he is considering the voices of his people.
I agree with rsmith42 in that it is unreasonable to allow a person in office to use their personal values, and not those of the people they are serving, dictate the laws of the land. I also commend Ben for speaking out, and hope that regardless of what the MP says in this article and elsewhere, that in his mind, he is considering the voices of his people. a.j.morehead

8:34pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Babbar Divino says...

BFarnworth wrote:
For those wishing to read the full email exchange between David Nuttall and myself, please click on the link below.

https://outlook.lanc

sngfl.ac.uk/owa/redi

r.aspx?C=84118f7b243

9405f8e8b65d64ff923a

6&URL=https%3a%2
f%2f
docs.google.com%2fdo

cument%2fd%2f1oJYOpw

aes-f3YyzlElO7jVVs9x

i7-AgUK3UJVK_Oxg0%2f

edit
Being devils advocate...........

You state "I believe the role of an elected MP is to represent the views of their constituents"

Who says he is not? You have only quoted a survey commissioned by the Sunday Telegraph. Whilst Mr Nuttal[ says "I can assure you that I have had far more constituents contact me to ask me to vote against the proposals than to vote for it". The ST poll I would be correct in saying did not represent specifically the views of the people of Bury, rather a cross section of people from all over the UK and we only have My Nuttall's word that he receives more messages from people against rather than for.

You correctly state "We do after all live in a democratic society"

Yes Mr Nuttall was voted in democratically as most people hopefully shared his views and if you don't support his views you can vote against him at the next election.
[quote][p][bold]BFarnworth[/bold] wrote: For those wishing to read the full email exchange between David Nuttall and myself, please click on the link below. https://outlook.lanc sngfl.ac.uk/owa/redi r.aspx?C=84118f7b243 9405f8e8b65d64ff923a 6&URL=https%3a%2 f%2f docs.google.com%2fdo cument%2fd%2f1oJYOpw aes-f3YyzlElO7jVVs9x i7-AgUK3UJVK_Oxg0%2f edit[/p][/quote]Being devils advocate........... You state "I believe the role of an elected MP is to represent the views of their constituents" Who says he is not? You have only quoted a survey commissioned by the Sunday Telegraph. Whilst Mr Nuttal[ says "I can assure you that I have had far more constituents contact me to ask me to vote against the proposals than to vote for it". The ST poll I would be correct in saying did not represent specifically the views of the people of Bury, rather a cross section of people from all over the UK and we only have My Nuttall's word that he receives more messages from people against rather than for. You correctly state "We do after all live in a democratic society" Yes Mr Nuttall was voted in democratically as most people hopefully shared his views and if you don't support his views you can vote against him at the next election. Babbar Divino

11:57am Fri 1 Feb 13

mdavies11 says...

Obviously gay marriage is an absurd idea, but the bookies have the vote as 7/1 on to pass, so I don't really see what Farnworth's problem is.
Obviously gay marriage is an absurd idea, but the bookies have the vote as 7/1 on to pass, so I don't really see what Farnworth's problem is. mdavies11

12:17pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Prisoner of Society says...

Hardly a surprising response.

Having also made representations to Mr Nuttall over proposed changes to other individual freedoms, his positions and responses actually make that hard nosed troll Gove look like a sympathetic leftie liberal.

I would respect his position on such matters if he had the courtesy to make even the slightest attempt to acknowledge and respond to any of the considered points raised, but his replies to my own representations do not touch on so much as a single argument in the original correspondence and simply state he doesn't agree, the end!

It almost feels like he is standing in front of you with his fingers in his ears shouting "LALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA"

Heck, at least Cheater Chaytor had the decency to discuss rather than dismiss when I challenged him on the proposed school closures back in 2006. I respected him for that if nothing else.
Hardly a surprising response. Having also made representations to Mr Nuttall over proposed changes to other individual freedoms, his positions and responses actually make that hard nosed troll Gove look like a sympathetic leftie liberal. I would respect his position on such matters if he had the courtesy to make even the slightest attempt to acknowledge and respond to any of the considered points raised, but his replies to my own representations do not touch on so much as a single argument in the original correspondence and simply state he doesn't agree, the end! It almost feels like he is standing in front of you with his fingers in his ears shouting "LALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" Heck, at least Cheater Chaytor had the decency to discuss rather than dismiss when I challenged him on the proposed school closures back in 2006. I respected him for that if nothing else. Prisoner of Society

6:56pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Babbar Divino says...

mdavies11 wrote:
Obviously gay marriage is an absurd idea, but the bookies have the vote as 7/1 on to pass, so I don't really see what Farnworth's problem is.
The problem with Mr Farnworth is that for all his blathering about democracy he doesn't actually agree with it unless you agree with him.
[quote][p][bold]mdavies11[/bold] wrote: Obviously gay marriage is an absurd idea, but the bookies have the vote as 7/1 on to pass, so I don't really see what Farnworth's problem is.[/p][/quote]The problem with Mr Farnworth is that for all his blathering about democracy he doesn't actually agree with it unless you agree with him. Babbar Divino

12:43pm Sun 3 Feb 13

nomoresurfin says...

Nuttall by name nutjob by nature.
Nuttall by name nutjob by nature. nomoresurfin

8:21pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Greenmount says...

The link doesn't work so I can't comment on the interplay of views.
There has never been a time in the history of democracy when an elected official was expected to sacrifice his own principles to reflect the views of a (vociferous) grouping of his constituents.
If Mr Nuttall simply sought votes by reflecting the views of his constituents Tory/Labour/LibDem/U
KIP ethnic, LGBT, gay, he would campaign for the return of the death penalty and would win hands down.
But that wouldn't suit BFarnworth's view of democracy either.
The link doesn't work so I can't comment on the interplay of views. There has never been a time in the history of democracy when an elected official was expected to sacrifice his own principles to reflect the views of a (vociferous) grouping of his constituents. If Mr Nuttall simply sought votes by reflecting the views of his constituents Tory/Labour/LibDem/U KIP ethnic, LGBT, gay, he would campaign for the return of the death penalty and would win hands down. But that wouldn't suit BFarnworth's view of democracy either. Greenmount

7:28am Tue 5 Feb 13

Greenmount says...

Managed to open the emails now. Whilst I'm sure Mr Farnworth feels strongly about this issue, I'm not sure we require our MPs to continue lengthy correspondence with constituents over matters on which they simply disagree.
If you're unhappy with your MP's stance, don't vote for him/her.
Managed to open the emails now. Whilst I'm sure Mr Farnworth feels strongly about this issue, I'm not sure we require our MPs to continue lengthy correspondence with constituents over matters on which they simply disagree. If you're unhappy with your MP's stance, don't vote for him/her. Greenmount

10:40am Tue 5 Feb 13

buckfeed17 says...

David Nuttall has every right to not agree with legalising same sex marriages but i would expect someone who is obviously well educated to not have this stance. The defination may well be "marriage is that it is between one man and one woman", but this definition was most likely created when homosexually was not accepted, religion poisened peoples views and homosexuals didn't openly admit to thier persuasion for fear of persecution. However, times and views have now changed and homosexuality is not thought of with with same stigma. It's about time we all moved with the times and just let people get on with their lives and be happy. What difference does it make to you, how other people show their love for each other, just give them the right and ability to do it.
David Nuttall has every right to not agree with legalising same sex marriages but i would expect someone who is obviously well educated to not have this stance. The defination may well be "marriage is that it is between one man and one woman", but this definition was most likely created when homosexually was not accepted, religion poisened peoples views and homosexuals didn't openly admit to thier persuasion for fear of persecution. However, times and views have now changed and homosexuality is not thought of with with same stigma. It's about time we all moved with the times and just let people get on with their lives and be happy. What difference does it make to you, how other people show their love for each other, just give them the right and ability to do it. buckfeed17

12:53pm Tue 5 Feb 13

pablozabaleta says...

As much as I disagree with Mr Nuttall's stance on this, Mr Farnworth's argument that he should vote for gay marriage because an MP's job is to represent the views of his constituents is wrong.

Mr Farnworth is one constituent who feels strongly one way. I bet I can find another who feels strongly the other way. Since we don't have constituency-wide referendums on every issue, what's Mr Nuttall to do?

The answer is to use his own judgement. That's actually what we elect MPs to do - to listen to arguments and then make their own minds up.

And as a previous commentor has said - if you don't like the decisions he comes to, don't vote for him. Sadly more people in Bury North voted for a Conservative MP than for one from another party. That's annoying for those of us who don't like conservative social views, but them's the breaks.
As much as I disagree with Mr Nuttall's stance on this, Mr Farnworth's argument that he should vote for gay marriage because an MP's job is to represent the views of his constituents is wrong. Mr Farnworth is one constituent who feels strongly one way. I bet I can find another who feels strongly the other way. Since we don't have constituency-wide referendums on every issue, what's Mr Nuttall to do? The answer is to use his own judgement. That's actually what we elect MPs to do - to listen to arguments and then make their own minds up. And as a previous commentor has said - if you don't like the decisions he comes to, don't vote for him. Sadly more people in Bury North voted for a Conservative MP than for one from another party. That's annoying for those of us who don't like conservative social views, but them's the breaks. pablozabaleta

6:51pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Babbar Divino says...

Buckfeed17......

I don't really think being well educated has anything to do with it. I'm sure there are many people who are a lot more intelligent than us both who disagree with same sex marriage for whatever reason.

Personally I think everyone to his\her own, however I'm not sure about the implications down the line when a same sex couple use a surrogate for a child as we are reading about more and more. I may be wrong but I just suspect problems
Buckfeed17...... I don't really think being well educated has anything to do with it. I'm sure there are many people who are a lot more intelligent than us both who disagree with same sex marriage for whatever reason. Personally I think everyone to his\her own, however I'm not sure about the implications down the line when a same sex couple use a surrogate for a child as we are reading about more and more. I may be wrong but I just suspect problems Babbar Divino

6:55pm Tue 5 Feb 13

evervegas says...

I am in total agreement with Mr Nuttall.
Who does David Cameron think he is to just cast aside centuries of the tradition of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. End of story.If the day ever comes that men can give birth to babies then maybe this could be considered, until then, married, in the true sense of the word, they never will be. What will marriage give them that civil partnership doesnt ?
I applaud Mr Nuttall voting with his conscience. I would also like to know who the majority of the country are that are apparently in agreement! No one has been to ask me. How many people out there have been asked ?
I am in total agreement with Mr Nuttall. Who does David Cameron think he is to just cast aside centuries of the tradition of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. End of story.If the day ever comes that men can give birth to babies then maybe this could be considered, until then, married, in the true sense of the word, they never will be. What will marriage give them that civil partnership doesnt ? I applaud Mr Nuttall voting with his conscience. I would also like to know who the majority of the country are that are apparently in agreement! No one has been to ask me. How many people out there have been asked ? evervegas

7:05pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Babbar Divino says...

Evervegas...

Not many people have been asked. It's just marketing companies that ask a cross section of the populus about their views and from that they get pretty accurate results. However it must be pointed out that the results do very much depend on the construction of the question(s) people are being asked which in turn depends on the answer the person commissioning the servery wants to receive.
Evervegas... Not many people have been asked. It's just marketing companies that ask a cross section of the populus about their views and from that they get pretty accurate results. However it must be pointed out that the results do very much depend on the construction of the question(s) people are being asked which in turn depends on the answer the person commissioning the servery wants to receive. Babbar Divino

7:19pm Tue 5 Feb 13

evervegas says...

So true, just like statistics. They can say whatever they want them to say. However, on a subject like this, I feel more people should have been asked, and I have to wonder, why is it being rushed? The state this country is in and they are wasting valuable time on this !! Beggars belief. They have no mandate, it was not in the manifesto, but then again, manifestos are no longer worth the paper they are written on. I will never vote Conservative again.
So true, just like statistics. They can say whatever they want them to say. However, on a subject like this, I feel more people should have been asked, and I have to wonder, why is it being rushed? The state this country is in and they are wasting valuable time on this !! Beggars belief. They have no mandate, it was not in the manifesto, but then again, manifestos are no longer worth the paper they are written on. I will never vote Conservative again. evervegas

12:26pm Wed 6 Feb 13

buckfeed17 says...

evervegas wrote:
I am in total agreement with Mr Nuttall.
Who does David Cameron think he is to just cast aside centuries of the tradition of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. End of story.If the day ever comes that men can give birth to babies then maybe this could be considered, until then, married, in the true sense of the word, they never will be. What will marriage give them that civil partnership doesnt ?
I applaud Mr Nuttall voting with his conscience. I would also like to know who the majority of the country are that are apparently in agreement! No one has been to ask me. How many people out there have been asked ?
I couldn't disagree more. The meaning of the word "marriage" needs to be changed. The word was created at a time where only men and women were openly ever in a relationship. Homosexuality was never considered to really exist, so the meaning would never include man/man or woman/woman. However, this is 2013 where homosexuality is now accepted and people aren't as controlled by religion and brainwashed by religious lies as they once were. What has marriage got to do with babies??
[quote][p][bold]evervegas[/bold] wrote: I am in total agreement with Mr Nuttall. Who does David Cameron think he is to just cast aside centuries of the tradition of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. End of story.If the day ever comes that men can give birth to babies then maybe this could be considered, until then, married, in the true sense of the word, they never will be. What will marriage give them that civil partnership doesnt ? I applaud Mr Nuttall voting with his conscience. I would also like to know who the majority of the country are that are apparently in agreement! No one has been to ask me. How many people out there have been asked ?[/p][/quote]I couldn't disagree more. The meaning of the word "marriage" needs to be changed. The word was created at a time where only men and women were openly ever in a relationship. Homosexuality was never considered to really exist, so the meaning would never include man/man or woman/woman. However, this is 2013 where homosexuality is now accepted and people aren't as controlled by religion and brainwashed by religious lies as they once were. What has marriage got to do with babies?? buckfeed17

12:28pm Wed 6 Feb 13

buckfeed17 says...

Babbar Divino wrote:
Buckfeed17......

I don't really think being well educated has anything to do with it. I'm sure there are many people who are a lot more intelligent than us both who disagree with same sex marriage for whatever reason.

Personally I think everyone to his\her own, however I'm not sure about the implications down the line when a same sex couple use a surrogate for a child as we are reading about more and more. I may be wrong but I just suspect problems
Surely education brings with it tolerence and understanding? I can't see why anyone would oppose same sex marriage apart from people with religious beliefs. And don't get me started on them ha
[quote][p][bold]Babbar Divino[/bold] wrote: Buckfeed17...... I don't really think being well educated has anything to do with it. I'm sure there are many people who are a lot more intelligent than us both who disagree with same sex marriage for whatever reason. Personally I think everyone to his\her own, however I'm not sure about the implications down the line when a same sex couple use a surrogate for a child as we are reading about more and more. I may be wrong but I just suspect problems[/p][/quote]Surely education brings with it tolerence and understanding? I can't see why anyone would oppose same sex marriage apart from people with religious beliefs. And don't get me started on them ha buckfeed17

1:28pm Wed 6 Feb 13

evervegas says...

I consider myself well educated and I am not religious. I still hold the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage has everything to do with babies. It is a centuries old institution for the procreation of children. Correct me if I am wrong but men still cannot give birth ? Why should we change the definition of marriage to suit gay people. Let them find their own institution. They have civil partnerships, what can calling themselves "married" offer that is different for them ? Leave marriage alone. I am not homophobic nor a religious nutter, just someone with an opinion, but then again, unless you agree with so called "modernisation " and " change " then you are a bigot or worse.
I consider myself well educated and I am not religious. I still hold the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage has everything to do with babies. It is a centuries old institution for the procreation of children. Correct me if I am wrong but men still cannot give birth ? Why should we change the definition of marriage to suit gay people. Let them find their own institution. They have civil partnerships, what can calling themselves "married" offer that is different for them ? Leave marriage alone. I am not homophobic nor a religious nutter, just someone with an opinion, but then again, unless you agree with so called "modernisation " and " change " then you are a bigot or worse. evervegas

1:40pm Wed 6 Feb 13

buckfeed17 says...

That may have been the case century's ago, but not any more. So are you of the opinion: couples who aren't able to have children, should never get married, coz what's the point?? that's just ridiculous!!
That may have been the case century's ago, but not any more. So are you of the opinion: couples who aren't able to have children, should never get married, coz what's the point?? that's just ridiculous!! buckfeed17

2:06pm Wed 6 Feb 13

buckfeed17 says...

evervegas wrote:
I consider myself well educated and I am not religious. I still hold the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage has everything to do with babies. It is a centuries old institution for the procreation of children. Correct me if I am wrong but men still cannot give birth ? Why should we change the definition of marriage to suit gay people. Let them find their own institution. They have civil partnerships, what can calling themselves "married" offer that is different for them ? Leave marriage alone. I am not homophobic nor a religious nutter, just someone with an opinion, but then again, unless you agree with so called "modernisation " and " change " then you are a bigot or worse.
That may have been the case century's ago, but not any more. So are you of the opinion: couples who aren't able to have children, should never get married, coz what's the point?? that's just ridiculous!!”
[quote][p][bold]evervegas[/bold] wrote: I consider myself well educated and I am not religious. I still hold the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage has everything to do with babies. It is a centuries old institution for the procreation of children. Correct me if I am wrong but men still cannot give birth ? Why should we change the definition of marriage to suit gay people. Let them find their own institution. They have civil partnerships, what can calling themselves "married" offer that is different for them ? Leave marriage alone. I am not homophobic nor a religious nutter, just someone with an opinion, but then again, unless you agree with so called "modernisation " and " change " then you are a bigot or worse.[/p][/quote]That may have been the case century's ago, but not any more. So are you of the opinion: couples who aren't able to have children, should never get married, coz what's the point?? that's just ridiculous!!” buckfeed17

2:54pm Wed 6 Feb 13

evervegas says...

So are we to change everything that is centuries old to fit in with some peoples idea of "modernisation " ? Why ? If it aint broke dont fix it. I am fed up of people tinkering with tradition in the name of "modernisation". What is wrong with old fashioned values ? Too many things today are changed and not always for the better, and if people dont agree with it we are " ridiculous" or worse. If this was put to a vote and people voted honesltly instead of with "political correctness" who would win ?? Also the marriage ceremony begins " we are gathered here today to witness the joining together of this man and this woman " . Would you have that changed as well ??
So are we to change everything that is centuries old to fit in with some peoples idea of "modernisation " ? Why ? If it aint broke dont fix it. I am fed up of people tinkering with tradition in the name of "modernisation". What is wrong with old fashioned values ? Too many things today are changed and not always for the better, and if people dont agree with it we are " ridiculous" or worse. If this was put to a vote and people voted honesltly instead of with "political correctness" who would win ?? Also the marriage ceremony begins " we are gathered here today to witness the joining together of this man and this woman " . Would you have that changed as well ?? evervegas

3:14pm Wed 6 Feb 13

buckfeed17 says...

evervegas wrote:
So are we to change everything that is centuries old to fit in with some peoples idea of "modernisation " ? Why ? If it aint broke dont fix it. I am fed up of people tinkering with tradition in the name of "modernisation". What is wrong with old fashioned values ? Too many things today are changed and not always for the better, and if people dont agree with it we are " ridiculous" or worse. If this was put to a vote and people voted honesltly instead of with "political correctness" who would win ?? Also the marriage ceremony begins " we are gathered here today to witness the joining together of this man and this woman " . Would you have that changed as well ??
It is broken as a lot of people are calling for reform. This has to be reformed as society is calling for it and society now accepts homosexuality and people are far more open to accept it. Marriage has always been the uniting of a man and a woman because no homosexual would have ever admitted love for someone of the same sex as they would have been disowned by their family or worse, so in open society, it didn't exist. And yes if the legislation was passed, the opening of a marriage ceremony would be changed depending on the sex of both parties. You didn't answer my question on my previous mail about couple who can't have children getting married?! you swerved that one didn't you ha
[quote][p][bold]evervegas[/bold] wrote: So are we to change everything that is centuries old to fit in with some peoples idea of "modernisation " ? Why ? If it aint broke dont fix it. I am fed up of people tinkering with tradition in the name of "modernisation". What is wrong with old fashioned values ? Too many things today are changed and not always for the better, and if people dont agree with it we are " ridiculous" or worse. If this was put to a vote and people voted honesltly instead of with "political correctness" who would win ?? Also the marriage ceremony begins " we are gathered here today to witness the joining together of this man and this woman " . Would you have that changed as well ??[/p][/quote]It is broken as a lot of people are calling for reform. This has to be reformed as society is calling for it and society now accepts homosexuality and people are far more open to accept it. Marriage has always been the uniting of a man and a woman because no homosexual would have ever admitted love for someone of the same sex as they would have been disowned by their family or worse, so in open society, it didn't exist. And yes if the legislation was passed, the opening of a marriage ceremony would be changed depending on the sex of both parties. You didn't answer my question on my previous mail about couple who can't have children getting married?! you swerved that one didn't you ha buckfeed17

3:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13

evervegas says...

The reason it is broken is because of the degeneration in morals that now abound. Who is this society you speak of ? They are not the majority, of that I am sure. Ask around and anyone who has the guts to give an honest opinion would hark back to past times, when peopls had morals, standards and virtues. And no, I would not like to go back to hounding homosexuals, that is unacceptable, however, I still to not agree that they can be married in the true sense of the word. I did not swerve anything !!! As to the people that cant have children then that is tragic, would you further castigate them by denying them marriage. Many people do not know they cannot have children until after they are married anyway. Would you advocate they then divorce ? You are doing what a lot of people do now getting personal because I do not share your view. I am also entitled to mine and I am also entitled to voice it. I also think the only reason people are " far more open to accept it is because of political correctness" and all that entails. How many people are honest and brave enough to admit they are against it ? They are too scared of people like yourself slapping them down for having a different opinion.
The reason it is broken is because of the degeneration in morals that now abound. Who is this society you speak of ? They are not the majority, of that I am sure. Ask around and anyone who has the guts to give an honest opinion would hark back to past times, when peopls had morals, standards and virtues. And no, I would not like to go back to hounding homosexuals, that is unacceptable, however, I still to not agree that they can be married in the true sense of the word. I did not swerve anything !!! As to the people that cant have children then that is tragic, would you further castigate them by denying them marriage. Many people do not know they cannot have children until after they are married anyway. Would you advocate they then divorce ? You are doing what a lot of people do now getting personal because I do not share your view. I am also entitled to mine and I am also entitled to voice it. I also think the only reason people are " far more open to accept it is because of political correctness" and all that entails. How many people are honest and brave enough to admit they are against it ? They are too scared of people like yourself slapping them down for having a different opinion. evervegas

3:37pm Wed 6 Feb 13

buckfeed17 says...

evervegas wrote:
The reason it is broken is because of the degeneration in morals that now abound. Who is this society you speak of ? They are not the majority, of that I am sure. Ask around and anyone who has the guts to give an honest opinion would hark back to past times, when peopls had morals, standards and virtues. And no, I would not like to go back to hounding homosexuals, that is unacceptable, however, I still to not agree that they can be married in the true sense of the word. I did not swerve anything !!! As to the people that cant have children then that is tragic, would you further castigate them by denying them marriage. Many people do not know they cannot have children until after they are married anyway. Would you advocate they then divorce ? You are doing what a lot of people do now getting personal because I do not share your view. I am also entitled to mine and I am also entitled to voice it. I also think the only reason people are " far more open to accept it is because of political correctness" and all that entails. How many people are honest and brave enough to admit they are against it ? They are too scared of people like yourself slapping them down for having a different opinion.
I think you're losing the plot here, it was you who said that marriage is all about the procreation of children, not me!! I would allow any 2 consenting adults to wed no matter what their situation. And what has gay marriage got to do with morals??
The simple fact is allowing same sex marriage has NO negative impact on anyone, simply no one. All it will bring is happiness to a large group of people who just want the same rights. How can anyone possibly be against this?
[quote][p][bold]evervegas[/bold] wrote: The reason it is broken is because of the degeneration in morals that now abound. Who is this society you speak of ? They are not the majority, of that I am sure. Ask around and anyone who has the guts to give an honest opinion would hark back to past times, when peopls had morals, standards and virtues. And no, I would not like to go back to hounding homosexuals, that is unacceptable, however, I still to not agree that they can be married in the true sense of the word. I did not swerve anything !!! As to the people that cant have children then that is tragic, would you further castigate them by denying them marriage. Many people do not know they cannot have children until after they are married anyway. Would you advocate they then divorce ? You are doing what a lot of people do now getting personal because I do not share your view. I am also entitled to mine and I am also entitled to voice it. I also think the only reason people are " far more open to accept it is because of political correctness" and all that entails. How many people are honest and brave enough to admit they are against it ? They are too scared of people like yourself slapping them down for having a different opinion.[/p][/quote]I think you're losing the plot here, it was you who said that marriage is all about the procreation of children, not me!! I would allow any 2 consenting adults to wed no matter what their situation. And what has gay marriage got to do with morals?? The simple fact is allowing same sex marriage has NO negative impact on anyone, simply no one. All it will bring is happiness to a large group of people who just want the same rights. How can anyone possibly be against this? buckfeed17

3:48pm Wed 6 Feb 13

evervegas says...

Well maybe you would, but there are a lot of the country who do not agree. They have those rights with civil partnerships. What extra will they gain ?? It is not the same and never will be. It is biologically impossible. And if you cannot comment without getting personal and insulting then I rest my case regarding people not being allowed an opinion if it opposes yours. This is supposed to be a country of free speech !!!
Well maybe you would, but there are a lot of the country who do not agree. They have those rights with civil partnerships. What extra will they gain ?? It is not the same and never will be. It is biologically impossible. And if you cannot comment without getting personal and insulting then I rest my case regarding people not being allowed an opinion if it opposes yours. This is supposed to be a country of free speech !!! evervegas

3:53pm Wed 6 Feb 13

buckfeed17 says...

they do not have the same rights at all, they have many but not all. what's not biologically impossible?? I've not once got personnal at all, i just can't see that you have a valid argument against same sex marriage. There is no right or wrong when it comes to opinions but it does say a lot about the person :)
they do not have the same rights at all, they have many but not all. what's not biologically impossible?? I've not once got personnal at all, i just can't see that you have a valid argument against same sex marriage. There is no right or wrong when it comes to opinions but it does say a lot about the person :) buckfeed17

5:03pm Wed 6 Feb 13

mdavies11 says...

Oh well. Hopefully gay men will all become monogamous couples now.
Oh well. Hopefully gay men will all become monogamous couples now. mdavies11

5:59pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Babbar Divino says...

mdavies11 wrote:
Oh well. Hopefully gay men will all become monogamous couples now.
What like heterosexuals :)
[quote][p][bold]mdavies11[/bold] wrote: Oh well. Hopefully gay men will all become monogamous couples now.[/p][/quote]What like heterosexuals :) Babbar Divino

6:24pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Babbar Divino says...

Well the dye has been cast now anyway so we will see.

On this subject which evervegas and buckfeed have been engaging in handbags at 10 paces, my view is that I can't see any problem with same sax couples getting married (although I really don't see what extra they will get out of it) but I think there are more important things on the agenda at the moment. Both mention morals. What about the lack of morals in society, elderly people getting mugged in the streets and robbed in their homes. People on the streets either drunk or drugged up. Heterosexuals treating marriage as something you go into and as soon as the going gets tough just walk away from leaving kids without mothers or fathers around. People who have children because they can and bring them up without fathers or mothers on the social. People who have never and will never work.

Todays society, in my opinion, is rotten to the core as far as morals are concerned and this is far more important than same sex marriage or the high speed rail white elephant but I fear it might be too late.

BTW buckfeed when evervegas was talking about "not biologically possible" he was talking about the ability of same sex couples to produce a child naturally.
Well the dye has been cast now anyway so we will see. On this subject which evervegas and buckfeed have been engaging in handbags at 10 paces, my view is that I can't see any problem with same sax couples getting married (although I really don't see what extra they will get out of it) but I think there are more important things on the agenda at the moment. Both mention morals. What about the lack of morals in society, elderly people getting mugged in the streets and robbed in their homes. People on the streets either drunk or drugged up. Heterosexuals treating marriage as something you go into and as soon as the going gets tough just walk away from leaving kids without mothers or fathers around. People who have children because they can and bring them up without fathers or mothers on the social. People who have never and will never work. Todays society, in my opinion, is rotten to the core as far as morals are concerned and this is far more important than same sex marriage or the high speed rail white elephant but I fear it might be too late. BTW buckfeed when evervegas was talking about "not biologically possible" he was talking about the ability of same sex couples to produce a child naturally. Babbar Divino

8:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13

evervegas says...

Babbar, I agree with you on nearly all your points. Society has been declining for years, and I also agree that there are more important things the government should be concentrating on. All the points you raise for starters.
I personally think standards have slipped precisely because too much has become acceptable and people are now too afraid to question things for fear of being seen as racist, prejudice. homophobic etc.
You are also correct in your explanation of my saying "not biologically possible". However, I am a woman not a man, and I am also fearful for the future, not for myself as I am now 57, but for my children and future grandchildren. If I was youger I would be leaving this sinking country.
Babbar, I agree with you on nearly all your points. Society has been declining for years, and I also agree that there are more important things the government should be concentrating on. All the points you raise for starters. I personally think standards have slipped precisely because too much has become acceptable and people are now too afraid to question things for fear of being seen as racist, prejudice. homophobic etc. You are also correct in your explanation of my saying "not biologically possible". However, I am a woman not a man, and I am also fearful for the future, not for myself as I am now 57, but for my children and future grandchildren. If I was youger I would be leaving this sinking country. evervegas

9:42pm Wed 6 Feb 13

BFarnworth says...

Babbar Divino wrote:
mdavies11 wrote:
Obviously gay marriage is an absurd idea, but the bookies have the vote as 7/1 on to pass, so I don't really see what Farnworth's problem is.
The problem with Mr Farnworth is that for all his blathering about democracy he doesn't actually agree with it unless you agree with him.
I do believe in a democratic society hence discussing the matter with my local MP.
I wanted to establish and understand the reasons behind David's opinion and perhaps then enter into a discussion about this and offer my own perspective. I am not against someone because they do not agree with me, I merely wanted to illustrate my point effectively with David.
If society deems that marriage is an institution that does not recognise same sex couples then so be it. I will still continue to question the reasons behind this and campaign for change.
Disagreeing with something does not mean I do not believe in democracy. It means I am willing to challenge the decisions being made by those in power rather than just accepting them.
[quote][p][bold]Babbar Divino[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdavies11[/bold] wrote: Obviously gay marriage is an absurd idea, but the bookies have the vote as 7/1 on to pass, so I don't really see what Farnworth's problem is.[/p][/quote]The problem with Mr Farnworth is that for all his blathering about democracy he doesn't actually agree with it unless you agree with him.[/p][/quote]I do believe in a democratic society hence discussing the matter with my local MP. I wanted to establish and understand the reasons behind David's opinion and perhaps then enter into a discussion about this and offer my own perspective. I am not against someone because they do not agree with me, I merely wanted to illustrate my point effectively with David. If society deems that marriage is an institution that does not recognise same sex couples then so be it. I will still continue to question the reasons behind this and campaign for change. Disagreeing with something does not mean I do not believe in democracy. It means I am willing to challenge the decisions being made by those in power rather than just accepting them. BFarnworth

9:49pm Wed 6 Feb 13

BFarnworth says...

pablozabaleta wrote:
As much as I disagree with Mr Nuttall's stance on this, Mr Farnworth's argument that he should vote for gay marriage because an MP's job is to represent the views of his constituents is wrong.

Mr Farnworth is one constituent who feels strongly one way. I bet I can find another who feels strongly the other way. Since we don't have constituency-wide referendums on every issue, what's Mr Nuttall to do?

The answer is to use his own judgement. That's actually what we elect MPs to do - to listen to arguments and then make their own minds up.

And as a previous commentor has said - if you don't like the decisions he comes to, don't vote for him. Sadly more people in Bury North voted for a Conservative MP than for one from another party. That's annoying for those of us who don't like conservative social views, but them's the breaks.
I completely agree with your comment about Mr Nuttall using his own judgement to represent his constituents on occasion. I merely wanted to voice my opinion to my elected MP so that he may understand my view point. How else is he to know what his constituents thoughts are and make the right decisions?
[quote][p][bold]pablozabaleta[/bold] wrote: As much as I disagree with Mr Nuttall's stance on this, Mr Farnworth's argument that he should vote for gay marriage because an MP's job is to represent the views of his constituents is wrong. Mr Farnworth is one constituent who feels strongly one way. I bet I can find another who feels strongly the other way. Since we don't have constituency-wide referendums on every issue, what's Mr Nuttall to do? The answer is to use his own judgement. That's actually what we elect MPs to do - to listen to arguments and then make their own minds up. And as a previous commentor has said - if you don't like the decisions he comes to, don't vote for him. Sadly more people in Bury North voted for a Conservative MP than for one from another party. That's annoying for those of us who don't like conservative social views, but them's the breaks.[/p][/quote]I completely agree with your comment about Mr Nuttall using his own judgement to represent his constituents on occasion. I merely wanted to voice my opinion to my elected MP so that he may understand my view point. How else is he to know what his constituents thoughts are and make the right decisions? BFarnworth

10:01pm Wed 6 Feb 13

BFarnworth says...

I think there are many valid comments that have been raised on this feed and I applaud those people who have had the courage to speak up and be heard. I may not agree with all of those opinions voiced but only by us all having our say and standing up for what we believe in can we hope to build a society that is safe for everyone and that we can be proud to leave for our future generations.
I think there are many valid comments that have been raised on this feed and I applaud those people who have had the courage to speak up and be heard. I may not agree with all of those opinions voiced but only by us all having our say and standing up for what we believe in can we hope to build a society that is safe for everyone and that we can be proud to leave for our future generations. BFarnworth

9:16am Thu 7 Feb 13

buckfeed17 says...

evervegas: i enjoyed yesterdays debate with you, nice to view our opinions with other. Babb Divino, it wasn't handbags, just merely a debate and exchange of views
evervegas: i enjoyed yesterdays debate with you, nice to view our opinions with other. Babb Divino, it wasn't handbags, just merely a debate and exchange of views buckfeed17

1:23pm Thu 7 Feb 13

buckfeed17 says...

BFarnworth wrote:
I think there are many valid comments that have been raised on this feed and I applaud those people who have had the courage to speak up and be heard. I may not agree with all of those opinions voiced but only by us all having our say and standing up for what we believe in can we hope to build a society that is safe for everyone and that we can be proud to leave for our future generations.
here here
[quote][p][bold]BFarnworth[/bold] wrote: I think there are many valid comments that have been raised on this feed and I applaud those people who have had the courage to speak up and be heard. I may not agree with all of those opinions voiced but only by us all having our say and standing up for what we believe in can we hope to build a society that is safe for everyone and that we can be proud to leave for our future generations.[/p][/quote]here here buckfeed17

7:26pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Babbar Divino says...

buckfeed17 wrote:
BFarnworth wrote:
I think there are many valid comments that have been raised on this feed and I applaud those people who have had the courage to speak up and be heard. I may not agree with all of those opinions voiced but only by us all having our say and standing up for what we believe in can we hope to build a society that is safe for everyone and that we can be proud to leave for our future generations.
here here
Yep I'll second
[quote][p][bold]buckfeed17[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BFarnworth[/bold] wrote: I think there are many valid comments that have been raised on this feed and I applaud those people who have had the courage to speak up and be heard. I may not agree with all of those opinions voiced but only by us all having our say and standing up for what we believe in can we hope to build a society that is safe for everyone and that we can be proud to leave for our future generations.[/p][/quote]here here[/p][/quote]Yep I'll second Babbar Divino

7:37pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Babbar Divino says...

evervegas wrote:
Babbar, I agree with you on nearly all your points. Society has been declining for years, and I also agree that there are more important things the government should be concentrating on. All the points you raise for starters.
I personally think standards have slipped precisely because too much has become acceptable and people are now too afraid to question things for fear of being seen as racist, prejudice. homophobic etc.
You are also correct in your explanation of my saying "not biologically possible". However, I am a woman not a man, and I am also fearful for the future, not for myself as I am now 57, but for my children and future grandchildren. If I was youger I would be leaving this sinking country.
Yes agreed there are certain groups who have been very successful in making people wary of speaking their mind. Notice I said "certain" so point proven.
.
I apologise for making the assumption you were a "he". Although not quite as old as you I am concerned for the world my daughters and their daughters will have to live in.
.
BTW I was fortunate to be able to have the opportunity and leave the UK a couple of years ago. The quality of life here is better (depending how you quantify it) although the underlying problems are the same.
[quote][p][bold]evervegas[/bold] wrote: Babbar, I agree with you on nearly all your points. Society has been declining for years, and I also agree that there are more important things the government should be concentrating on. All the points you raise for starters. I personally think standards have slipped precisely because too much has become acceptable and people are now too afraid to question things for fear of being seen as racist, prejudice. homophobic etc. You are also correct in your explanation of my saying "not biologically possible". However, I am a woman not a man, and I am also fearful for the future, not for myself as I am now 57, but for my children and future grandchildren. If I was youger I would be leaving this sinking country.[/p][/quote]Yes agreed there are certain groups who have been very successful in making people wary of speaking their mind. Notice I said "certain" so point proven. . I apologise for making the assumption you were a "he". Although not quite as old as you I am concerned for the world my daughters and their daughters will have to live in. . BTW I was fortunate to be able to have the opportunity and leave the UK a couple of years ago. The quality of life here is better (depending how you quantify it) although the underlying problems are the same. Babbar Divino

5:19pm Fri 8 Feb 13

R'Marcus says...

So-called "gay weddings" are a complete misnomer.
MARRIAGE, by defination, is a process for a man and a woman. Procreation is paramount in marriage.
Mr. Nuttall is totally right in this occasion.
So-called "gay weddings" are a complete misnomer. MARRIAGE, by defination, is a process for a man and a woman. Procreation is paramount in marriage. Mr. Nuttall is totally right in this occasion. R'Marcus

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree