# 180 Tories to vote against Gay marriage



## youngian (Feb 3, 2013)

Two dozen of the usual high tea party suspects yes, but 180!
An even bigger collection of reactionaries than I previously thought and thats saying something.

Its obvious they've further to the right on economics and welfare but half of them haven't even moved on liberal social issues. Sir Bufton Tufton is alive and well.


----------



## Stigmata (Feb 3, 2013)

They've already decided that when they lose the next election, it'll be because of the gays


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 3, 2013)

Stigmata said:


> They've already decided that when they lose the next election, it'll be because of the gays


 
I, for one, will be happy to accept the credit 

Good to know that the tories still hate gays more than they hate Europe...


----------



## Firky (Feb 3, 2013)

The death of the tories is puffs getting married? I'd have thought it would have been the bedroom tax, the highspeed railway, the draconian cuts to welfare, the erosion of the NHS, the arts, giving themselves pay rises whilst capping benefit etc. never would have thought it was down to one singular trivial thing.

Makes me want to get married to a bloke and spite a tory.


----------



## stavros (Feb 3, 2013)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Good to know that the tories still hate gays more than they hate Europe...


 
Hopefully, the discovery of gay Europeans will send them over the edge.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 3, 2013)

stavros said:


> Hopefully, the discovery of gay Europeans will send them over the edge.


 

They'd be surprised at how many gay Poles there are, considering that my b/fs mum (a Pole) said "_it_ [gayness_] is western disease_" and said that these "_problems don't really exist_" in places like Poland cos the church is so strong.

_She's SUCH a dick._

Srsly. I've met more gay guys here then I ever have anywhere else. The tories would have a fuckin shock and it's a "_Catholic country_".


----------



## youngian (Feb 3, 2013)

Cameron is looking for a cost free issue to align himself with the centre ground rather than placating the right as Romney disastrously did.

But the US presidential election is a two party race and this will see many of the turnip taliban in provincial Tory constituency parties being wooed by UKIP and threatening slim majorities in marginal seats.

Such a sad dilmena for the Tories. How we laughed.


----------



## jakethesnake (Feb 3, 2013)

They are fucking idiots... I've met loads of conservative leaning people who happen to be gay... how to alienate your constiuancy!


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2013)

Obviously for all the wrong reasons, but Cameron is right to enact legislation of equality, but I am also of the view that civil partnerships should be available for all.

This is a win, win for LP though, as Cameron is in the process of toxifying the party for significant numbers of its core supporters. Farage must be pissing himself.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 3, 2013)

> The letter's signatories say there is a lot of public opposition. They argue civil partnerships already allow gay and lesbian couples to form legal ties, and warn the proposals do not give adequate protection for churches and teachers to refuse to conduct the ceremonies or teach pupils about them.


 
Why do teachers have to teach about it? Do they teach about heterosexual marriage ceremonies these days?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Good to know that the tories still hate gays more than they hate Europe...


 
I think this is a bit unfair. It is coming up for vote...I think they have massively underestimated the feeling of quiet religious types who don't normally make much noise and now they are running a bit scared for what they have unleashed.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 3, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> I think this is a bit unfair. It is coming up for vote...I think they have massively underestimated the feeling of quiet religious types who don't normally make much noise and now they are running a bit scared for what they have unleashed.


 
I don't think so. This has shown that the thing 'rank and file' tories care about most of all is what the gays are up to. So, gayers get to marry, the tories set about destroying themselves in what will be the run up to a GE, and ukip are shown to put chasing tory voters ahead even of the dreaded EU. I also look forward to reading about married, church-going tory MPs who vote against this picking up rent boys


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Nine Bob Note said:


> I don't think so. This has shown that the thing 'rank and file' tories care about most of all is what the gays are up to. So, gayers get to marry, the tories set about destroying themselves in what will be the run up to a GE, and ukip are shown to put chasing tory voters ahead even of the dreaded EU. I also look forward to reading about married, church-going tory MPs who vote against this picking up rent boys


 


My concern about this, is that if it fails, no party will dare go near it for another 20 years.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Don't expect them to destroy themselves over it though...if it looks to be proper contentious, expect them to drop it like a hot potato.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2013)

brogdale said:


> This is a win, win for LP though, as Cameron is in the process of toxifying the party for significant numbers of its core supporters. Farage must be pissing himself.


If the 180 figure is correct Cameron is screwed. He can't drop this issue without looking weak personally and having the Tories look like the scum they are, on the other hand if he can't force it through he'll have the same problems.

That said where does the 180 figure come from? I think even the most stupid Tories must realise that if the vote does go ahead the party has to back it, for it to be passed only due to the support of the Libdems/Labour would be suicide. Not read enough to be sure but my first thought is that this 180 figure is an attempt by the right wing to put the frighteners on the leadership and get them to drop the bill.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 3, 2013)

I really don't get the excitement over this, permitting gay people to get married is not going to affect heterosexuals that get or are married, but will positively equalise "rights" between gay and hetero people. What business is it of mine, or anyone elses if gay people want to get married, let em!

The church of england should be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies!! forced!


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

As we're broadly an atheist bunch here, it's easy to forget the religious types. Many of them can't stand tory principals, but oppose this.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2013)

personally i find the serious aversion to democracy on this thread a lot more disturbing than the fact a large number of people from a political party happen to have a problem with their leader introducing a major policy shift that wasnt on their manifesto in what seems like little more than passing fashionable stance dreamed up by some pr guru. They, along with everyone else,  have a perfect right to have their own opinion on the subject . I dont see how theyre oppressing anyone or advocating hatred . AT least not on this occasion .


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Dear Member of Parliment

As a concerned constituent I urge you to vote against the Marrige (Same Sex Couples Bill)


Marriage between a man and a women is the foundation of the family and provides the best circumstances in which to raise the next generation.
This is why society has recognised marriage as having an identity distinct from any other relationship, however much love or commitment may be involved; marriage is about the common good.
No mainstream political party promised such a radicale change in its last election manifesto. There is therefore no mandate for it.
Please vote against it and let me know your views.
Name
Address


----------



## weltweit (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> personally i find the serious aversion to democracy on this thread a lot more disturbing than the fact a large number of people from a political party happen to have a problem with their leader introducing a major policy shift that wasnt on their manifesto in what seems like little more than passing fashionable stance dreamed up by some pr guru. They, along with everyone else, have a perfect right to have their own opinion on the subject . I dont see how theyre oppressing anyone or advocating hatred . AT least not on this occasion .


 
Yes, it was not in the tory manifesto, nor the coalition manifesto (iirc) but what rational argument is there to deny gay people marriage?


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> I think this is a bit unfair. It is coming up for vote...I think they have massively underestimated the feeling of quiet religious types who don't normally make much noise and now they are running a bit scared for what they have unleashed.


 
i dont think you actually have to be all that religious to have a problem with it . Ive no problem with same sex civil partnerships and gay people being afforded equal rights to inheritance, benefits etc . Its only right . I just happen to think that marriage is an institution/sacrament between a man and a woman thats been there for millenia . And all of a sudden thanks to a metropolitan liberal current fad it sudenly isnt, with fuck all actual political consultation with anyone . Chucking important stuff out the window on a whim is dangerous for society i reckon . Anything goes isnt the way to go.
I remember reading something once by gay film maker Pier Pasolini pointing out the same thing . If nothing stands for fuck all then we live in a more dangerous world . A bit of (social) conservatism every now and then does us no harm at all . Same goes for tolerance .

Supporters of gay marriage strike me as the most intolerant bunch of cunts ive heard in a long time . Completely unable to accept someone else might have an alternative point of view and can only be a bigot if they disagree. Bollocks to that .


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 3, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I really don't get the excitement over this, permitting gay people to get married is not going to affect heterosexuals that get or are married, but will positively equalise "rights" between gay and hetero people. What business is it of mine, or anyone elses if gay people want to get married, let em!


 
And that's why the primary argument against gay marriage is now "But what about the economy??"


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Yes, it was not in the tory manifesto, nor the coalition manifesto (iirc) but what rational argument is there to deny gay people marriage?


 
because it symbolises the union between a man and a woman, which has always been pretty important to humanity . And seen by the vast majority of humanity as pretty important . Why should they want to get married in a church for example  ? Just because straight people do ?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Only because not that many years ago being gay meant you were a second class citizen. It's a massive fuck you to all those who opposed equal rights and continue to oppose them

Maybe you could how what important stuff we're chucking out the window?

Do gay people affect your marriage? No. Do you have to see it? No Then get the fuck back to the 19th century.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> because it symbolises the union between a man and a woman, which has always been pretty important to humanity . And seen by the vast majority of humanity as pretty important . Why should they want to get married in a church for example ? Just because straight people do ?


 
Except that churches have the right not to marry people they don't want to, so this argument is completely facile.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2013)

jakethesnake said:


> They are fucking idiots... I've met loads of conservative leaning people who happen to be gay... how to alienate your constiuancy!


 
the constituency who plainly didnt vote for it ? but who  did vote for around 180 mps that seem dead opposed to it ?
it strikes me its cameron whos alienating his constitutency .


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i dont think you actually have to be all that religious to have a problem with it . Ive no problem with same sex civil partnerships and gay people being afforded equal rights to inheritance, benefits etc . Its only right . I just happen to think that marriage is an institution/sacrament between a man and a woman thats been there for millenia . And all of a sudden thanks to a metropolitan liberal current fad it sudenly isnt, with fuck all actual political consultation with anyone . Chucking important stuff out the window on a whim is dangerous for society i reckon . Anything goes isnt the way to go.
> I remember reading something once by gay film maker Pier Pasolini pointing out the same thing . If nothing stands for fuck all then we live in a more dangerous world . A bit of (social) conservatism every now and then does us no harm at all . Same goes for tolerance .
> 
> Supporters of gay marriage strike me as the most intolerant bunch of cunts ive heard in a long time . Completely unable to accept someone else might have an alternative point of view and can only be a bigot if they disagree. Bollocks to that .


 
You seem to be implying that there will be negative consequences (beyond those who disagree throwing their teddies out of the pram). What might these negative consequences be?


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Except that churches have the right not to marry people they don't want to, so this argument is completely facile.


 
thats not what i said . I asked why would they want to ?

and just because churches currently have that right whats to stop the next trendy liberal bringing in a law saying they have to, without consulting anyone beforehand .


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> thats not what i said . I asked why would they want to ?
> 
> and just because churches currently have that right whats to stop the next trendy liberal bringing in a law saying they have to, without consulting anyone beforehand .


 
Maybe they might have found a region that isn't full of bigots and happen to have faith?

And we're not debating what might be...we're talking about the current bill and homophobes opposition to it.

Edit: I've no idea why people would want to get married in a church, but that's because I'm not religious.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> thats not what i said . I asked why would they want to ?
> 
> and just because churches currently have that right whats to stop the next trendy liberal bringing in a law saying they have to, without consulting anyone beforehand .


 
The fucking immense power of religious lobby groups for one. This reminds me of something my grandad used to say. A few hundred years ago they used to stone you for homosexuality, then they started locking you up, then they made it legal. I'm glad I'll be dead before they make it compulsory. Strikes me that your fears have as much basis in reality as his.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2013)

I wouldn't bother Spiney the moronic prick isn't worth it.

His homophobia give him another reason to support pricks like Assad, Gaddafi and the Argentinian Junta though.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Dear Member of Parliment
> 
> As a concerned constituent I urge you to vote against the Marrige (Same Sex Couples Bill)
> 
> ...


 
i see fuck all controversial about that position . Theyve a perfect right to hold it and it doesnt make them bigots.


----------



## dylans (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i dont think you actually have to be all that religious to have a problem with it . Ive no problem with same sex civil partnerships and gay people being afforded equal rights to inheritance, benefits etc . Its only right . I just happen to think that marriage is an institution/sacrament between a man and a woman thats been there for millenia . And all of a sudden thanks to a metropolitan liberal current fad it sudenly isnt, with fuck all actual political consultation with anyone . Chucking important stuff out the window on a whim is dangerous for society i reckon . Anything goes isnt the way to go.
> I remember reading something once by gay film maker Pier Pasolini pointing out the same thing . If nothing stands for fuck all then we live in a more dangerous world . A bit of (social) conservatism every now and then does us no harm at all . Same goes for tolerance .
> 
> Supporters of gay marriage strike me as the most intolerant bunch of cunts ive heard in a long time . Completely unable to accept someone else might have an alternative point of view and can only be a bigot if they disagree. Bollocks to that .


What a load of reactionary bigoted old shite. 

Bigotry has nothing to do with your holding a "different point of view" It has everything to do with you thinking it ok to deny other people the same rights that you take for granted simply because they are gay. Fuck that. You don't like gay marriage. Fine. Don't have one. You don't like other people having a same sex marriage. Tough. At that point you cross the line from holding an opinion to deny equal rights to your fellow citizens. That makes you a bigot.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2013)

I don't think he's necessarily homophobic - my mum's opposed to gay marriage too and she's definitely no homophobe - some people just have very conservative views on social issues like these - usually rooted in fear of change rather than hatred of anyone.

I just want to understand what exactly he thinks will happen, how and why.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i see fuck all controversial about that position . Theyve a perfect right to hold it and it doesnt make them bigots.


 
You don't believe gay people are fit to raise children?


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Maybe they might have found a region that isn't full of bigots and happen to have faith?
> 
> And we're not debating what might be...we're talking about the current bill and homophobes opposition to it.
> 
> Edit:* I've no idea why people would want to get married in a church, but that's because I'm not religious*.


 
so why the fuck are you arguing for something you admit youve got no idea about ? Or condemning people who do have religious views as bigots and homophobes ?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think he's necessarily homophobic - my mum's opposed to gay marriage too and she's definitely no homophobe - some people just have very conservative views on social issues like these - usually rooted in fear of change rather than hatred of anyone.
> 
> I just want to understand what exactly he thinks will happen, how and why.


 
So does my mum - I've heard this argument to much over the last few months. She's no homophobe, she's just been poisoned by the catholic church.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> so why the fuck are you arguing for something you admit youve got no idea about ? Or condemning people who do have religious views as bigots and homophobes ?


 
Nice selective quoting there. 

You asked why gay people would want to get married in a church - my point is it's about as relevant for them as anyone else.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> so why the fuck are you arguing for something you admit youve got no idea about ? Or condemning people who do have religious views as bigots and homophobes ?


 
But he's not - if he was saying churches should have to hold gay marriage ceremonies then maybe you'd have a point but he isn't is he?


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Supporters of gay marriage strike me as the most intolerant bunch of cunts ive heard in a long time . Completely unable to accept someone else might have an alternative point of view and can only be a bigot if they disagree. Bollocks to that .


 
Should I have a say as to whether you may legally get married to a consenting partner (of either gender)? If I object, am I merely 'having an alternative view?' And if you have a problem with this, are you the 'intolerant cunt'?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 3, 2013)

There is nothing in scripture, in our out of Nicea approved canon, regarding Jesus having an opinion on same gender relations.

This blog entry from a few months back, in response to George Carry being a cunt, outlines some ripostes to standard bleating from "Christians" under the guise of "theology".

http://stevedrant.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/another-christian-hell-bent-on-discrediting-the-faith/


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Supporters of gay marriage strike me as the most intolerant bunch of cunts ive heard in a long time . Completely unable to accept someone else might have an alternative point of view and can only be a bigot if they disagree. Bollocks to that .


 
And how are other people's views relevant to whether or not someone should be able to get married? It doesn't concern them in any way.

Maybe religious people are offended by gay marriage. Tough shit. Whenever religious people offend me with their absurd behaviour, their disproportionate influence in society and their ingrained bigotry I'm expected to put up with it, why can't they return the favour?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There is nothing in scripture, in our out of Nicea approved canon, regarding Jesus having an opinion on same gender relations.
> 
> This blog entry from a few months back, in response to George Carry being a cunt, outlines some ripostes to standard bleating from "Christians" under the guise of "theology".
> 
> http://stevedrant.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/another-christian-hell-bent-on-discrediting-the-faith/


 
You can dig stuff out of the scripture to support pretty much any view on any issue if you so wish. And they know their scripture far better than you do so you're on a hiding to nothing taking this route - seriously.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think he's necessarily homophobic - my mum's opposed to gay marriage too and she's definitely no homophobe - some people just have very conservative views on social issues like these - usually rooted in fear of change rather than hatred of anyone.
> 
> I just want to understand what exactly he thinks will happen, how and why.


 
I dont oppose it out of fear . I oppose it because i think that marriage symbolises the union between a man and woman , not between 2 people of the same gender, which is something different . Not lesser or bad but different and there should be a distinction . And that taking the serious meaning out of things in life adds to the overall process of nothing stands for fuck all any more . Which overall isnt good for us and isnt safe . It means our rights can go out the window on a whim just as fucking easy . Which they do  because they dont stand for fuck all either. Im a human being, not a fucking consumer . I dont give a fuck what the current fads are . That doesnt make  me either a bigot or a homophobe.
I also take the view that those who cant handle disagrremnt on the issue and simply resort to insults such as bigot and homphobe with anyone who disagrees are a bunch of wankers who need seriously reigned in . And for that reason alone - democracy and a stand against 2 bit bullies- this is worth opposing .


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Why should there be a distinction and why is a commitment between two people different?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> And how are other people's views relevant to whether or not someone should be able to get married? It doesn't concern them in any way.
> 
> Maybe religious people are offended by gay marriage. Tough shit. Whenever religious people offend me with their absurd behaviour, their disproportionate influence in society and their ingrained bigotry I'm expected to put up with it, why can't they return the favour?


 
Hang on, so because some religious people have offended you (and I suspect this has in reality either never happened or very rarely) that means you've got a green light to offend all religious people as a result? Sounds sort of bigoted to me.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 3, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You can dig stuff out of the scripture to support pretty much any view on any issue if you so wish. And they know their scripture far better than you do so you're on a hiding to nothing taking this route - seriously.



You can't dig out a view in scripture to support the idea that Jesus opposed homosexuality. If you can dig out stuff to support "just about anything" then it shows this idea to be especially weak, which is useful.

How do you know how well "they" or "I" know scripture? I am constantly astounded by the arrogance of many "Christians". Lots of them only read Nicea approved stuff to start with, and many of them couldn't tell you why.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Im a human being, not a fucking consumer . I dont give a fuck what the current fads are .


 
Yes, I've read that being gay is very trendy these days.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:
			
		

> You can't dig out a view in scripture to support the idea that Jesus opposed homosexuality. If you can dig out stuff to support "just about anything" then it shows this idea to be especially weak, which is useful.
> 
> How do you know how well "they" or "I" know scripture? I am constantly astounded by the arrogance of many "Christians". Lots of them only read Nicea approved stuff to start with, and many of them couldn't tell you why.



Their scripture, their dogma, doesn't depend entirely on what Jesus is purported to have said.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> . *And they know their scripture far better than you do* so you're on a hiding to nothing taking this route - seriously.


While I agree with the conclusion I have to say I don't agree with the bit in bold, IME lots of religious people actually have a very poor knowledge of the Bible/theology.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I dont oppose it out of fear . I oppose it because i think that marriage symbolises the union between a man and woman , not between 2 people of the same gender, which is something different .


 
Things change - they change all the time.



Casually Red said:


> Not lesser or bad but different and there should be a distinction . And that taking the serious meaning out of things in life adds to the overall process of nothing stands for fuck all any more .


 
What is this serious meaning? How do you see 'meaning' being lost by this happening? Marriage would still have a profound meaning - two people committing themselves to one another for life. I don't see what is being lost here.



Casually Red said:


> Which overall isnt good for us and isnt safe . It means our rights can go out the window on a whim just as fucking easy .


 
Our rights already can go out of the window far more easily - but they won't go out of the window because a couple of puffs can tie the knot. They'll go out of the window if observing them means going against the interests of state and capital.



Casually Red said:


> Which they do because they dont stand for fuck all either. Im a human being, not a fucking consumer . I dont give a fuck what the current fads are . That doesnt make me either a bigot or a homophobe.


 
I never called you either of those things - I disagree with a lot that you post but you've never come across as a bigot. I just think you're wrong. And I genuinely have no clue how you think gay marriage makes you less of a human being and more of a consumer - it makes no sense whatsoever.




Casually Red said:


> I also take the view that those who cant handle disagrremnt on the issue and simply resort to insults such as bigot and homphobe with anyone who disagrees are a bunch of wankers who need seriously reigned in .


 
To an extent I agree - it's the same as those who shout racist at anyone who doesn't want open borders. Al it means is people shout past eachother without even trying to understand why they hold those views.



Casually Red said:


> And for that reason alone - democracy and a stand against 2 bit bullies- this is worth opposing .


 
The democracy argument here is incredibly shit. Everyone who votes, without exception, disagrees with the person they vote for on a whole range of issues. To assume that just because they voted for them they must agree with their stance on gay marriage is just plain wrong. It's one of the arguments made by those who really believe that we live in a democracy - who actually think we have the system of governance we have because people in this country really want it, otherwise they'd vote for something else. And while I won't be providing a link because I can't be arsed to look I think the majority of the British public supports gay marriage.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> While I agree with the conclusion I have to say I don't agree with the bit in bold, IME lots of religious people actually have a very poor knowledge of the Bible/theology.


 
The ones who come up with the arguments and disseminate them don't though.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You can't dig out a view in scripture to support the idea that Jesus opposed homosexuality. If you can dig out stuff to support "just about anything" then it shows this idea to be especially weak, which is useful.
> 
> How do you know how well "they" or "I" know scripture? I am constantly astounded by the arrogance of many "Christians". Lots of them only read Nicea approved stuff to start with, and many of them couldn't tell you why.


 
I'm often astounded by the ignorance of wet liberal greens who assume that the religious aren't able to think for themselves.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 3, 2013)

Marriage has not existed for millennia. Marriage-type contracts have existed for a couple of thousand years in some places - and nowhere near as long as that in the UK - but they were so different to modern marriage that we just apply the word marriage to them because they're roughly the same.

Slavery, on the other hand, definitely has existed for millennia, and it wasn't so long ago that it was repealed almost worldwide. I guess that's just because of a passing fad too.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2013)

Maybe not but I think they often rely on the ignorance of their churches. 
There was a reason why the Catholic church was so opposed to letting it's worshippers read the Bible first hand.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 3, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Maybe not but I think they often rely on the ignorance of their churches.
> There was a reason why the Catholic church was so opposed to letting it's worshippers read the Bible first hand.


 
Was about to post that English Xians weren't allowed bibles for a thousand years, but there you go...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2013)

And of course the shift from indentured labour to wage labour definitely _did _increase the degree to which people were consumers in a capitalist society. Guess we should have opposed that really then.

Whenever someone who was previously shat on starts to get the same rights as anyone else you'll get conservatives claiming the extension of said rights dilutes their meaning. They can't usually explain how and why this happens, generally resorting to the kind of logic-free hand wavy crap usually only associated with hippies.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I dont oppose it out of fear . I oppose it because i think that marriage symbolises the union between a man and woman , not between 2 people of the same gender, which is something different . Not lesser or bad but different and there should be a distinction . And that taking the serious meaning out of things in life adds to the overall process of nothing stands for fuck all any more . Which overall isnt good for us and isnt safe . It means our rights can go out the window on a whim just as fucking easy . Which they do  because they dont stand for fuck all either. Im a human being, not a fucking consumer . I dont give a fuck what the current fads are . That doesnt make  me either a bigot or a homophobe.
> I also take the view that those who cant handle disagrremnt on the issue and simply resort to insults such as bigot and homphobe with anyone who disagrees are a bunch of wankers who need seriously reigned in . And for that reason alone - democracy and a stand against 2 bit bullies- this is worth opposing .


a) Stop referring to it as a fad, you're not fooling anyone. It's the same as any other campaign for people to be treated equally.
b) I dispute your definition of marriage. It's a commitment between two people, not a man and a woman. Some definitions may make the distinction, but there are many different types of marriage and it is truly exasperating for people to cite the Judeo-Christian definition as uncontested fact. If religions don't want to recognise gay marriage that's one thing, but that should have no impact on my state and its laws. Religions do not own the concept of marriage.
c) Bugger, there was a c) but I'm tired and I've forgotten it. Oh wait: just because things have been one way for a long time, doesn't make them right. Things have changed for the better before, and, rationality willing, they shall again. Not quite as articulate as I would like, but I'm tired.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

I'm actually really surprised we need to have this discussion on urban.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2013)

It's hardly a discussion it's one cunt, who's incoherent "anti-imperialism" leads him to support any disgusting regime so long as it makes even the vaguest pretence of being anti-US or anti-UK.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 3, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Hang on, so because some religious people have offended you (and I suspect this has in reality either never happened or very rarely) that means you've got a green light to offend all religious people as a result? Sounds sort of bigoted to me.


 
I was simply stating that if you're offended by something someone else does that has no effect on you, then that's your problem not theirs.

This was in response to someone implying that those advocating equal marriage rights for gay people were bigots because their position might be offensive to religious people.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Moving the thread back on track then, whilst many here delight in the idea of the Tory party destroying themselves over this one, what chance to do you thin it has of getting through?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 3, 2013)

The tories' excuse for voting against this is quite amusing. We haven't got time, they say, we need to sort out the economy instead. Even accepting the fairly daft idea that approving gay marriage would take up a huge amount of parliamentary time, pretty much everything this government has done has made the economy worse so anything that takes their attention away from economic matters for any length of time is probably going to benefit the general public.

I hear they're also complaining that there is no electoral mandate for a change, but if I remember rightly supporting gay marriage was one of very few promises Cameron made before the election that he's actually sort of stuck with. We never hear the word 'mandate' from the tories when they're privatising the NHS or doing something else that's the exact opposite of what they said they'd do, why do they suddenly give a shit about public opinion now?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

Because they're bricking I think. It's all well and good attacking the less fortunate in society as they don't vote Tory, but I think this may have them running scared.

Did they make this as a promise before the election then? I've got to say I missed that, probably because I don't pay much attention to the cunts. If so then a bigger fuck you to their traditional supporters.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 3, 2013)

More like they're clutching at straws trying to find an excuse to oppose this that's slightly more acceptable than just admitting that they're a bunch of unreconstructed bigots.

It hasn't worked from where I'm standing.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 3, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> * Please don't quote this bit


Could be worse, they wouldn't have mine.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 3, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Moving the thread back on track then, whilst many here delight in the idea of the Tory party destroying themselves over this one, what chance to do you thin it has of getting through?


 
It'll go through easily unless a lot of Labour/Lib Dem MPs also vote against.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 3, 2013)

And the tories will have earned a few more nails for their coffin in the process.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 3, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> And the tories will have earned a few more nails for their coffin in the process.


at this rate we won't be able to chuck the coffin on the pyre as the excess of nails will make it far too heavy to move.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

I'm not so sure that's the case...why bring it up in the first place if they were just bigots? I think they massively misunderstood how people feel about the issue, hence them trying to back out of it now.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> And the tories will have earned a few more nails for their coffin in the process.


 


stuff_it said:


> at this rate we won't be able to chuck the coffin on the pyre as the excess of nails will make it far too heavy to move.


 
You lot are to optimistic. I'd place a small bet they'll still manage to win the next election, distasteful as the idea may be.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 3, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> You lot are to optimistic. I'd place a small bet they'll still manage to win the next election, distasteful as the idea may be.


I hear Scotland's nice...


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 3, 2013)

If they leave we'll be stuck with them for a long long time


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 3, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> If they leave we'll be stuck with them for a long long time


Innit.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 4, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It'll go through easily unless a lot of Labour/Lib Dem MPs also vote against.


Yes but that would be a serious blow for Cameron. Like I said before I would be very surprised if 180 Tories voted against or abstained (the thread title is actually wrong), this is an attempt to kill this off before hand. There will be rebels but I can't see half the party stabbing not only Cameron but themselves in gut.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I dont oppose it out of fear . I oppose it because i think that marriage symbolises the union between a man and woman , not between 2 people of the same gender, which is something different . Not lesser or bad but different and there should be a distinction . And that taking the serious meaning out of things in life adds to the overall process of nothing stands for fuck all any more . Which overall isnt good for us and isnt safe . It means our rights can go out the window on a whim just as fucking easy . Which they do because they dont stand for fuck all either. Im a human being, not a fucking consumer . I dont give a fuck what the current fads are . That doesnt make me either a bigot or a homophobe.
> I also take the view that those who cant handle disagrremnt on the issue and simply resort to insults such as bigot and homphobe with anyone who disagrees are a bunch of wankers who need seriously reigned in . And for that reason alone - democracy and a stand against 2 bit bullies- this is worth opposing .


<derail>Are you seriously suggesting that gay marriage is somehow the thin end of the wedge? That our rights are at risk because there's a chance that 'the gays' might be allowed to marry each other?</derail>


----------



## Jollity Farm (Feb 4, 2013)

Tories saying this isn't an important issue, and nobody really cares about it.

Same Tories willing to slice the Conservative party into bits over this apparently irrelevant issue that nobody cares about.

Fun times.

Also, straight people are terrible at marriages, I don't think we need their input on anything. *trollface*


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Supporters of gay marriage strike me as the most intolerant bunch of cunts ive heard in a long time . Completely unable to accept someone else might have an alternative point of view and can only be a bigot if they disagree. Bollocks to that .


 
You think others are intolerant because they disagree with your own pathetic justification of your intolerance? More idiotic than your usual pathetic waffle....

Don't like 'gay marriage'? Then don't marry a bloke, it's really rather simple, luckily enough for you.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 4, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm often astounded by the ignorance of wet liberal greens who assume that the religious aren't able to think for themselves.


 
They (the sex obsessed oddballs) fan be able to think for themselves and rely on the most astonishingly bad logic and theology in doing so. I am "of faith" myself as it happens. It's no secret that the poor arguments of often otherwise intelligent folk of faith are a lead cause for faith being increasingly scorned.

Most "Christians" have their sources dictated by an imperialist motivated conference held 1600 years ago. It's bizarre.

You made a point about how easy it was to use scripture to prop up just about any point. You have not answered my point that there is no scripture attributed to Jesus which props up a negative opinion on same gender relations. 

In the context of your true statement, that's pretty devastating.

Followers of Jesus who invoke His name in dissing these relations really should be more wary of the 4th commandement than they seem to be. 

Could you try dealing with my points via theology and logic rather than limp insults?Your more effective points will come over all the better I reckon.


----------



## HST (Feb 4, 2013)

Hang about. My parents married in a registry office. I really can't see any difference between that and a civil relationship ceremony. People in a civil relationship have the same legal rights as people married in a cathedral, a mosque, a synagogue or a temple. If you want a church ceremony it's up to the church, not the state. If it's about the state recognising gay marriages carried out by churches etc then fair enough. I'm not aware of any cases where the state has refused to recognise gay marriages carried out by religious groups but I'm prepared to be enlightened.
.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 4, 2013)

HST said:


> Hang about. My parents married in a registry office. I really can't see any difference between that and a civil relationship ceremony. People in a civil relationship have the same legal rights as people married in a cathedral, a mosque, a synagogue or a temple. If you want a church ceremony it's up to the church, not the state. If it's about the state recognising gay marriages carried out by churches etc then fair enough. I'm not aware of any cases where the state has refused to recognise gay marriages carried out by religious groups but I'm prepared to be enlightened.
> .


If you see no difference between a civil partnership and a secular wedding, then would you object to giving gay couples the same wording in their ceremonies, and legally defining it as marriage? Forget the religious stuff for now - as someone said earlier, religions don't own marriage.


----------



## HST (Feb 4, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> If you see no difference between a civil partnership and a secular wedding, then would you object to giving gay couples the same wording in their ceremonies, and legally defining it as marriage? Forget the religious stuff for now - as someone said earlier, religions don't own marriage.


No objection at all.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 4, 2013)

As for casually red's bizarre arguments... How does gay marriage diminish my marriage to my husband? If anything, by its being a discriminatory institution, I feel that marriage is currently less legitimate than it ought to be.   I kind of feel like an eighties musician playing Sun City. Let's sort out the equality stuff, and then I can be unashamed that I took advantage of something that is denied to others.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 4, 2013)

HST said:


> No objection at all.


But that's all the bill is.   It isn't saying that religions must perform gay marriage... In fact, ISTR it says that the church of England is forbidden from doing so. All it is doing is removing the second-class-citizen distinction of "civil partnership" vs "marriage".


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i dont think you actually have to be all that religious to have a problem with it . Ive no problem with same sex civil partnerships and gay people being afforded equal rights to inheritance, benefits etc . Its only right . I just happen to think that marriage is an institution/sacrament between a man and a woman thats been there for millenia .


 
Quite brave to say what you think around these parts - it's definitely got a (predictable) reaction.

I'm not convinced that everyone who has reservations about gay marriage is some kind of bigot - it's one of those easy cop-outs.  It's true that making gay marriage changes the meaning of marriage for everyone, legally speaking at least, but it feels quite ungenerous to deny it to others as a straight person.

Personally, I don't want to see gay marriage unless straight people are also allowed to have civil partnerships.


----------



## killer b (Feb 4, 2013)

Tbf, CR is a bigot. People calling him out on it are going on previous postings as well as on this thread.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

killer b said:


> Tbf, CR is a bigot. People calling him out on it are going on previous postings as well as on this thread.


 
Understandable in that case (I've not been party to those threads so will stay out of it regarding that), but that would still make it a case of playing the man rather than the ball.

From my very partial knowledge, marriage isn't historically speaking the static institution that the antis portray it as being - I think that would be a valuable discussion to have.  Maybe on another thread since this one is about Tories etc...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

I like the way david cameron seems hellbent on ripping the conservative party about over an issue which is frankly peripheral.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 4, 2013)

I wonder how many of these MPs are really against it and how many are acting at the behest of their constituents, and how many are acting at the behest of their constituency party. Whichever way, I think they're wrong.

BTW I do see a need for there to be a civil partnership which is something other than marriage. Consider two elderly people living together - perhaps a brother and sister or two sisters, or perhaps simply two longstanding friends. Without a civil partnership, one is going to get clobbered with Inheritance Tax when the other dies. But I'm decidedly fuzzy on the details.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

I cannot conceive of an issue on which I would be on the same side as michael gove without considerable concern over my analysis


----------



## scifisam (Feb 4, 2013)

Although I'm unwilling to call the Mums of posters on this thread bigots, it's pretty hard to justify them wanting me and my partner to be banned from marrying without resorting to reasons that are bigoted. "I'm not a bigot - I just think people of your sexuality shouldn't have the same rights."


----------



## Quartz (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I cannot conceive of an issue on which I would be on the same side as michael gove without considerable concern over my analysis


 
To suggest urinals would be taking the piss.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Although I'm unwilling to call the Mums of posters on this thread bigots, it's pretty hard to justify them wanting me and my partner to be banned from marrying without resorting to reasons that are bigoted. "I'm not a bigot - I just think people of your sexuality shouldn't have the same rights."


equality is such a paltry aim


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> They (the sex obsessed oddballs) fan be able to think for themselves and rely on the most astonishingly bad logic and theology in doing so. I am "of faith" myself as it happens. It's no secret that the poor arguments of often otherwise intelligent folk of faith are a lead cause for faith being increasingly scorned.
> 
> Most "Christians" have their sources dictated by an imperialist motivated conference held 1600 years ago. It's bizarre.
> 
> ...


Two quick points - firstly, this is not a question of theology, it's a social question that some choose to dress in religious clothing - and attacking them via that religion will not either get to the root of their motivation or put forward the reasoning as to why discrimination is socially and individually harmful.

Secondly, you seem to have a incredibly crude and reductive understanding of what constitutes theology. It really really is not just what jesus said or did. The catholic churches various dogmas on sexuality for example are not simply repeating what jesus said, they are arguments and positions based on the exercise of 'human reason' and are buttressed by all sorts of logical reasoning and explication - millenia's worth. If you did try and knock these arguments down you would very likely end up flat on your back due to this misunderstanding of how the church developed and defends it's intellectual positions and history - if you don't take it seriously they will destroy you (for example, they would be all over your post above where you talk of followers of jesus, that's jesus who brought the new covenant - but justify your claim by referring to the old covenant).


----------



## weltweit (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I cannot conceive of an issue on which I would be on the same side as michael gove without considerable concern over my analysis


 
What is Gove's view on gay marriage?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 4, 2013)

I could easily argue that marriage is a union between man and woman for the purpose of bringing up a family.

But what difference does it make to that, if a few gay people get married also?

However, I got married in a registry office, it may as well have been a civil partnership!

It makes very little difference to me what gay people do, their getting married will not affect me one iota except that it is aguably more equal that they are permitted to marry.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I like the way david cameron seems hellbent on ripping the conservative party about over an issue which is frankly peripheral.


 
It is rather satisfying to watch.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

weltweit said:


> What is Gove's view on gay marriage?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-to-back-samesex-marriage-plans-8478694.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I could easily argue that marriage is a union between man and woman for the purpose of bringing up a family.
> 
> But what difference does it make to that, if a few gay people get married also?
> 
> ...


what might make rather more difference to you is if the tory party rips itself to shreds over the issue


----------



## Remus Harbank (Feb 4, 2013)

I'm gay, I'm happy with civil partnerships and I don't want the Tories to fight ‘my’ corner to enable me to emulate a straight institution celebrated in organisations that on the whole have abhorred people like me for centuries.

Anyway, this ‘debate’ is a red herring
1) It subliminally stokes homophobia
2) It sets up moral scapegoats for the future (which this economic depression will warrant eventually, they always do when the shtf, and it’s always ‘moral decay of society as a whole’ that's the cause)
3) during this whole ‘debate’ no gay person has ever been asked whether they wanted this.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 4, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Although I'm unwilling to call the Mums of posters on this thread bigots, it's pretty hard to justify them wanting me and my partner to be banned from marrying without resorting to reasons that are bigoted. "I'm not a bigot - I just think people of your sexuality shouldn't have the same rights."


 
It's weird, it's like some kind of religious imposed mental blank, because she's one of the most accepting people I know. The argument would be that should have the same rights - you just shouldn't call the ceremony marriage.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> 3) during this whole ‘debate’ no gay person has ever been asked whether they wanted this.


 
I thought some gay people wanted the right to get married, but am happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I dont oppose it out of fear . I oppose it because i think that marriage symbolises the union between a man and woman , not between 2 people of the same gender, which is something different . Not lesser or bad but different and there should be a distinction . And that taking the serious meaning out of things in life adds to the overall process of nothing stands for fuck all any more . Which overall isnt good for us and isnt safe . It means our rights can go out the window on a whim just as fucking easy . Which they do because they dont stand for fuck all either. Im a human being, not a fucking consumer . I dont give a fuck what the current fads are . That doesnt make me either a bigot or a homophobe.
> I also take the view that those who cant handle disagrremnt on the issue and simply resort to insults such as bigot and homphobe with anyone who disagrees are a bunch of wankers who need seriously reigned in . And for that reason alone - democracy and a stand against 2 bit bullies- this is worth opposing .


 
It makes you both a bigot and a homophobe.

Now fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> I'm gay, I'm happy with civil partnerships and I don't want the Tories to fight ‘my’ corner to enable me to emulate a straight institution celebrated in organisations that on the whole have abhorred people like me for centuries.
> 
> Anyway, this ‘debate’ is a red herring
> 1) It subliminally stokes homophobia
> ...


There's no such things as straight institutions - there are institutions which reflect the historical dominance of a certain way of seeing society, and ways of theorising and expressing that dominance (i.e naturalising it or universalising it on the basis of religion or nature etc), ways that are are slowly being seen for the constructions that they are and so facing social challenges to their dominance and their form. To argue otherwise is really just the flipside of that dominance and asserting a sort of genetic nature to social institutions (and oddly enough, mirrors Casual Observers idea of an unchanging pure essence of marriage).


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> I'm gay, I'm happy with civil partnerships and I don't want the Tories to fight ‘my’ corner to enable me to emulate a straight institution celebrated in organisations that on the whole have abhorred people like me for centuries.
> 
> Anyway, this ‘debate’ is a red herring
> 1) It subliminally stokes homophobia
> ...


 
Don't be so utterly ridiculous, lots of gay people have been demanding this.


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 4, 2013)

I'm gay, and I find it hard to get that worked up about this. It's important, because of the symbolic nature of allowing us access to one of society's most important institutions. On the other hand, I fucking hate weddings.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 4, 2013)

Lets be all honest here, this issue is nothing to do with 'equality' but everything to do with just attacking organized religion. Its patently obvious that even if you take religion out of things then the notion of 'marriage' has evolved in almost every society and civilization as a naturally accepted and publicly recognized union between a man and a woman  with the express purpose of creating an institution in which the ideal environment to raise children, and thus strengthen the society/civilization as a whole. The idea that this can be somehow extended to same sex relationships is just farcical on almost every level discernible and reflects nothing more than the zeitgeist of times. Its a fashion statement, nothing else and nothing more and no gay civil partnership or marriage will ever be seen by the majority of society as equal in terms of value or respect to that of a heterosexual couple because its sterile. It cannot produce anything of any long term lasting value. 

Still once this law goes through (which it will) then the whole 'ban' on the C of E being allowed to carry out these moronic ceremony's can be tested in court and then the real battle begins. But don't expect people of faith to just sit back and let you secularist scum steam roller over them. There really is a sense of a growing and very real opposition and this Tory rebellion is only the start.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> I'm gay, I'm happy with civil partnerships and I don't want the Tories to fight ‘my’ corner to enable me to emulate a straight institution celebrated in organisations that on the whole have abhorred people like me for centuries.


 
It does make me wonder why the Tories of all people have this push on. I think a portion of the leadership support it but it's mostly to do with shoring up support with certain demographics and they probably figured it was one of the cheaper means towards detoxifying their image.

So it's nice to see how it's going so tits-up for them.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Lets be all honest here, this issue is nothing to do with 'equality' but everything to do with just attacking organized religion. Its patently obvious that even if you take religion out of things then the notion of 'marriage' has evolved in almost every society and civilization as a naturally accepted and publicly recognized union between a man and a woman with the express purpose of creating an institution in which the ideal environment to raise children, and thus strengthen the society/civilization as a whole. The idea that this can be somehow extended to same sex relationships is just farcical on almost every level discernible and reflects nothing more than the zeitgeist of times. Its a fashion statement, nothing else and nothing more and no gay civil partnership or marriage will ever be seen by the majority of society as equal in terms of value or respect to that of a heterosexual couple because its sterile. It cannot produce anything of any long term lasting value.
> 
> Still once this law goes through (which it will) then the whole 'ban' on the C of E being allowed to carry out these moronic ceremony's can be tested in court and then the real battle begins. But don't expect people of faith to just sit back and let you secularist scum steam roller over them. There really is a sense of a growing and very real opposition and this Tory rebellion is only the start.


 
This thread really brings them out.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> This thread really brings them out.


 
Yup, I count 4 dissenters that haven't been put off by the name-calling.  Makes you wonder how many timid ones there are.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> Yup, I count 4 dissenters that haven't been put off by the name-calling. Makes you wonder how many timid ones there are.


 
So you agree it's just a "fashion" statement?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> <snip> It cannot produce anything of any long term lasting value.<snip>


 
So are you saying you're a product of gay marriage?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Lets be all honest here, this issue is nothing to do with 'equality' but everything to do with just attacking organized religion. Its patently obvious that even if you take religion out of things then the notion of 'marriage' has evolved in almost every society and civilization as a naturally accepted and publicly recognized union between a man and a woman with the express purpose of creating an institution in which the ideal environment to raise children, and thus strengthen the society/civilization as a whole. The idea that this can be somehow extended to same sex relationships is just farcical on almost every level discernible and reflects nothing more than the zeitgeist of times. Its a fashion statement, nothing else and nothing more and no gay civil partnership or marriage will ever be seen by the majority of society as equal in terms of value or respect to that of a heterosexual couple because its sterile. It cannot produce anything of any long term lasting value.
> 
> Still once this law goes through (which it will) then the whole 'ban' on the C of E being allowed to carry out these moronic ceremony's can be tested in court and then the real battle begins. But don't expect people of faith to just sit back and let you secularist scum steam roller over them. There really is a sense of a growing and very real opposition and this Tory rebellion is only the start.


 
What has any of that got to with attacking organised religion? You say that this is what its all about then post a load of stuff that fails to show how and where it is happening and what motivates these attacks that you think are so obvious to everyone.


----------



## peterkro (Feb 4, 2013)

Quartz said:


> BTW I do see a need for there to be a civil partnership which is something other than marriage. Consider two elderly people living together - perhaps a brother and sister or two sisters, or perhaps simply two longstanding friends. Without a civil partnership, one is going to get clobbered with Inheritance Tax when the other dies. But I'm decidedly fuzzy on the details.


You have a point.I'm agin marriage in principal and see it as an essentially economic contract.Why are the rights available to married people,inheritance,tax benefits etc not available to others,social engineering being a big part.
Hopefully some gay people hold views similar to mine,however if some others want marriage why not? Indeed why not exploit the law in the way straight couples do e.g. lower taxes,sidestep laws regarding nationality etc.
I've heard stories (true or not I have no idea) of straight men taking part in civil ceremonies purely for economic reasons.If you want access to a different place of residence this will also add to your options.
I suppose what I'm saying is ignore their laws and if you can't exploit them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Lets be all honest here,


do you expect anyone to believe anything in the remainder of your post after this opening?


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 4, 2013)

And what about the organised religions that are champing at the bit to start marrying same-sex partners?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> So you agree it's just a "fashion" statement?


 
Where did I say anything like that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> So you agree it's just a "fashion" statement?


i agree you need some remedial reading comprehension help


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Lets be all honest here, this issue is nothing to do with 'equality' but everything to do with just attacking organized religion. Its patently obvious that even if you take religion out of things then the notion of 'marriage' has evolved in almost every society and civilization as a naturally accepted and publicly recognized union between a man and a woman with the express purpose of creating an institution in which the ideal environment to raise children, and thus strengthen the society/civilization as a whole. The idea that this can be somehow extended to same sex relationships is just farcical on almost every level discernible and reflects nothing more than the zeitgeist of times. Its a fashion statement, nothing else and nothing more and no gay civil partnership or marriage will ever be seen by the majority of society as equal in terms of value or respect to that of a heterosexual couple because its sterile. It cannot produce anything of any long term lasting value.
> 
> Still once this law goes through (which it will) then the whole 'ban' on the C of E being allowed to carry out these moronic ceremony's can be tested in court and then the real battle begins. But don't expect people of faith to just sit back and let you secularist scum steam roller over them. There really is a sense of a growing and very real opposition and this Tory rebellion is only the start.


 
oh noes the Church of England congregation, phear them and their well documented zeal


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What has any of that got to with attacking organised religion? You say that this is what its all about then post a load of stuff that fails to show how and where it is happening and what motivates these attacks that you think are so obvious to everyone.


 
Because the very next step will be to challenge the 'ban' that this legislation claims will exempt the C of E from being made to conduct these utterly ridiculous ceremony's. Essentially the notion of a church being forced to conduct them under equality legislation will then be the next thing up for 'debate' and that is when things start getting very very messy.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I like the way david cameron seems hellbent on ripping the conservative party about over an issue which is frankly peripheral.


Perhaps they are using it as a distraction while they vote through some more vile shit?


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> It does make me wonder why the Tories of all people have this push on. I think a portion of the leadership support it but it's mostly to do with shoring up support with certain demographics and they probably figured it was one of the cheaper means towards detoxifying their image.
> 
> So it's nice to see how it's going so tits-up for them.


 
I can assure you, as a gay person, that being allowed to get married will not abate my raging hatred for the Tories.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> Where did I say anything like that.


 
You don't think homophone is a fair description of such statements?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Perhaps they are using it as a distraction while they vote through some more vile shit?


what, the auld 'let's commit corporate suicide so we can force through some repressive nonsense' strategy?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 4, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> oh noes the Church of England congregation, phear them and their well documented zeal


 
Trust me, this is going to bring everybody out because if the 'ban' is repealed then the next target is the rest of us. And its not just Christians either. It will bring out every faith group.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 4, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> This thread really brings them out.


 

its nothing new from stoatboy, hes aa tory bigot


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Still once this law goes through (which it will) then the whole 'ban' on the C of E being allowed to carry out these moronic ceremony's can be tested in court and then the real battle begins. But don't expect people of faith to just sit back and let you secularist scum steam roller over them. There really is a sense of a growing and very real opposition and this Tory rebellion is only the start.


 
This rather reminds me of your _be very afraid you lefty-scum, the EDL are coming and they're going to walk all over you _spiel from a few years back. Did you get a new crystal ball for christmas or something?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> I can assure you, as a gay person, that being allowed to get married will not abate my raging hatred for the Tories.


 
That's good to know, but I don't think that's the main demographic they are trying to placate with this.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> You don't think homophone is a fair description of such statements?


 
You're going to have to give me some kind of clue here...


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This rather reminds me of your _be very afraid you lefty-scum, the EDL are coming and they're going to walk all over you _spiel from a few years back. Did you get a new crystal ball for christmas or something?


 
Lets see shall we ? The fact that you are cross-threading rather then trying to tell me why my assertion was wrong tells me that you are struggling to disagree.

Or do you think that there will be no challenge against the excemption of the C of E from this ?


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> That's good to know, but I don't think that's the main demographic they are trying to placate with this.


 
I don't think one right deed will make up for the absolute shower of shite that has been poured onto us tbh.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> You're going to have to give me some kind of clue here...


 
It's not rocket science. All the arguments against gay marriage have had an unpleasant undertone of homophobia here...if you want to call that name calling, then fine.

I'd leave the patronising posts to Pickman's by the way, he's better at it then you.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Because the very next step will be to challenge the 'ban' that this legislation claims will exempt the C of E from being made to conduct these utterly ridiculous ceremony's. Essentially the notion of a church being forced to conduct them under equality legislation will then be the next thing up for 'debate' and that is when things start getting very very messy.


What i was after was you showing first off _why_ the tories wish to attack organised religion, Then showing _how_ and _where_ this is happening/going to happen (after all, it's obvious that this is what it's about right). What you have offered instead if a little bit of future-gazing based on what you expect to happen _if_ it was an attack on organised religion - without bothering to first establish that this is, in fact, what is happening. So let's do it from the start, what do you see as the tory motivation for attacking organised religion?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> That's good to know, but I don't think that's the main demographic they are trying to placate with this.


That who are trying to placate?


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Trust me, this is going to bring everybody out because if the 'ban' is repealed then the next target is the rest of us. And its not just Christians either. It will bring out every faith group.


Except the faith groups that *want* to perform gay marriages, like the Quakers and Unitarians?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That who are trying to placate?


 
That portion of the Tories that are pushing the gay marriage thing forward (and causing lots of tension in their party in the process).


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 4, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> You don't think homophone is a fair description of such statements?


homophone means words spelled differently but sound the same. Heteronymns are words spelled the same but spoken differently

dunno why its gendered tho


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 4, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> homophone means words spelled differently but sound the same. Heteronymns are words spelled the same but spoken differently
> 
> dunno why its gendered tho


 
N isn't that far from B.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Lets see shall we ? The fact that you are cross-threading rather then trying to tell me why my assertion was wrong tells me that you are struggling to disagree.
> 
> Or do you think that there will be no challenge against the excemption of the C of E from this ?


I think the fact that you now recognise that your post was merely assertion is telling. Of course i challenge the idea that this is a tory attack on organised religion, esp when you offer no evidence or argument as to why and how this is the case.

It's quite straightforward in my opinion, the centre of the tory party are now socially liberal, a liberalism that logically follows from their embrace of neo-liberal style capitalism  where diversity is good for business. In this they have challenged and side-lined the old school socially conservative tories (who have themselves not noticed that world outside has changed and still feel that they need to publicly pretend to be old-school religionists when they really don't) who are now using every issue they can to claw back internal influence over the party by puffing themselves up to a size and influence they think more fitting and useful. The inter-generational conflict (and the legislative mess) within the party has been handled hilariously badly and can largely be explained in these terms without any froth-mouthed religious paranoia.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> It's not rocket science. All the arguments against gay marriage have had an unpleasant undertone of homophobia here...if you want to call that name calling, then fine.
> 
> I'd leave the patronising posts to Pickman's by the way, he's better at it then you.


 
I wasn't trying to patronise you, I just couldn't tell what the wittering fuck you're on about.  You appeared to say, in reference to #111, that I was claiming that either gay marriage, or the move towards it (depending on your reading of Stoat Boy's post - and I'm not sure what that bit meant) was a 'fashion statement'.  So I wondered whether that was what you meant, if so why, and if not what you exactly you meant.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> N isn't that far from B.


 
Oh, now I get it.  Sorry.

 at self


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 4, 2013)

It's simple really.  Either you believe gay people are deserving of the exact same rights as straight people because their sexuality is utterly irrelevant, or you don't believe gay people deserve equality in every way.

If you don't, then you're a bigot and you can fuck off.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Trust me, *this is going to bring everybody out* because if the 'ban' is repealed then the next target is the rest of us. And its not just Christians either. It will bring out every faith group.


 
Perhaps you should have a word with those inveterate, sterile followers of fashion the Quakers; or perhaps you should just stop talking out of your hole.

Religion doesn't own marriage and the demands of a particular religious tradition do not trump the universal human right (if only apparent in aspiration) to equal treatment.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Uh-oh, stoaty and his pals are coming!




> Asked this way, 56% say the economy will be an important issue in how they vote, 42% immigration, 36% health, 28% unemployment and so on down to gay marriage, of which 7% of people say it will be an important issue in deciding their vote. This includes 5% of current Tory voters and 5% of 2010 Tory voters.
> 
> Of course, not all these people who care about the issue are necessarily opposed to it. YouGov asked those 7% who said gay marriage was likely to be an important factor in deciding how they voted whether it would make them more or less likely to vote for a party – 54% said more likely, 44% less likely. In other words three and a bit percent of voters claim they are more likely to vote for a party that supports gay marriage, three and a bit percent claim they are less likely.
> 
> Looking just at Tory voters, that 5% of Tory voters who say it will be an important issue in deciding their vote are mostly people who would be less likely to vote for a party that supported it… but this still equates to just 4% of Tory voters – that is, about 1 percentage point of their current 34 percentage points of support. Hardly a huge election winning or losing issue.


----------



## youngian (Feb 4, 2013)

> Supporters of gay marriage strike me as the most intolerant bunch of cunts ive heard in a long time . Completely unable to accept someone else might have an alternative point of view and can only be a bigot if they disagree.


 
Nick Griffin usually makes the same kind of persecution argument. conservative people have perfectly valid views on economics, social and welfare. Even very unpopular views such as pro fox hunting are argued using facts, figures and logical positions to justify their sport.
I see none of this in the anti gay marriage lobby, like creationists, exist on a different paradigm which is guided by myticism, historically inaccurate nonsense and irrational prejudice, which children of the enlightenment find extremely difficult to grasp.




> Lets be all honest here, this issue is nothing to do with 'equality' but everything to do with just attacking organized religion. Its patently obvious that even if you take religion out of things then the notion of 'marriage' has evolved in almost every society and civilization as a naturally accepted and publicly recognized union between a man and a woman with the express purpose of creating an institution in which the ideal environment to raise children, and thus strengthen the society/civilization as a whole.


 
Marriage has always been a secular institution in which the church can participate. If you are concerned with the constitution and law catching up with a culturally secular country, I don't see why religous people should worry, its hardly in retreat in the US.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> It's simple really. Either you believe gay people are deserving of the exact same rights as straight people because their sexuality is utterly irrelevant, or you don't believe gay people deserve equality in every way.
> 
> If you don't, then you're a bigot and you can fuck off.


 
It's a simple logical fallacy to suggest that because two groups are deserving of equal treatment, then the difference between them must be irrelevant.  It also removes all possibility of tolerance because there's no way to come to terms with, let alone value, the differences between people if you believe they are not there.

If the only available alternative is to hate those who are different then it's probably a reasonable strategy, but as your second sentence makes clear, there will always be an outgroup.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> It's a simple logical fallacy to suggest that because two groups are deserving of equal treatment, then the difference between them must be irrelevant. It also removes all possibility of tolerance because there's no way to come to terms with, let alone value, the differences between people if you believe they are not there.
> 
> If the only available alternative is to hate those who are different then it's probably a reasonable strategy, but as your second sentence makes clear, there will always be an outgroup.


 
Forgive me if I withhold from crying into my cornflakes over bigots and homophobes.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 4, 2013)

i dont think the vast majority of the public care.
Why cant gay people get married if they want to  the arguements against it are
 God doesnt like it not an issue god doesnt exsist
 Ewww gays icky


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Forgive me if I withhold from crying into my cornflakes over bigots and homophobes.


 
If that's your bag then fine, but you can't make any claims to 'tolerance'.  It's probably not that great for your blood pressure either.

My only issue with it is that it means you put up a barrier where you can't even talk with a degree of civilness to those with whom you disagree.  So it limits threads like these to either being an 'aren't we all right-on' circle-jerk or a witch hunt.  Both of which I find kind of tedious.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 4, 2013)

I love how people who are allowed to get married are telling people who aren't allowed to get married that it is stupid and a waste of time.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 4, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> They (the sex obsessed oddballs) fan be able to think for themselves and rely on the most astonishingly bad logic and theology in doing so. I am "of faith" myself as it happens. It's no secret that the poor arguments of often otherwise intelligent folk of faith are a lead cause for faith being increasingly scorned.
> 
> Most "Christians" have their sources dictated by an imperialist motivated conference held 1600 years ago. It's bizarre.
> 
> ...


 
No - grateful though I am for your condescending attitude I think I'll stick to saying what I think thanks very much. I was raised catholic so you can put it down to ignorance and brainwashing if you like.

It's not just about Jesus and religion and power have always gone hand in hand so the idea that your 'imperialist motivated conference' marked some kind of shift is just nonsense.

People of faith who disagree with your wooly, wishy washy new age weirdness aren't all stupid and ignorant. They just disagree with you. I'd wager that my old dear would rip you to shreds in a theological debate yet according to you she's an ignorant puppet unable to think for herself.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> If that's your bag then fine, but you can't make any claims to 'tolerance'. It's probably not that great for your blood pressure either.
> 
> My only issue with it is that it means you put up a barrier where you can't even talk with a degree of civilness to those with whom you disagree. So it limits threads like these to either being an 'aren't we all right-on' circle-jerk or a witch hunt. Both of which I find kind of tedious.


 
Look, I get what you're saying, I do, and I actually do engage in civilised discussion quite a lot of the time on the subject of gay rights, and I don't tell every bigot I meet to fuck off.

But I'm really quite sick of it tbh.  I am absolutely fed up to the back teeth with people telling me that I am not worthy enough to have equal rights because I happen to be shagging a woman and, quelle horreur, I am a woman too.   It is exhausting, depressing and demoralising. 

So yes, sometimes I find it incredibly difficult to say anything more than a 'fuck off'.  Such is life.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I love how people who are allowed to get married are telling people who aren't allowed to get married that it is stupid and a waste of time.


 
Who's saying that?

(though to my mind whether it is stupid and a waste of time is hardly relevant - there are people who don't think women should play golf - that's clearly a bollocks attitude but is unchanged by the fact that golf is a stupid waste of time)


----------



## youngian (Feb 4, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'd wager that my old dear would rip you to shreds in a theological debate.


 
Just as well gay marriage is not a theological debate which is irrelevant to the legal practices of a secular institution.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> People of faith who disagree with your wooly, wishy washy new age weirdness aren't all stupid and ignorant. They just disagree with you.


 
I think you could have maybe phrased that better.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i dont think you actually have to be all that religious to have a problem with it . Ive no problem with same sex civil partnerships and gay people being afforded equal rights to inheritance, benefits etc . Its only right . I just happen to think that marriage is an institution/sacrament between a man and a woman thats been there for millenia .


 
"Millennia"?

1700 years, max, if you want to take the earliest mentions as representing the same thing then as now, and more like 400 years if you get a bit fussy about it!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> If that's your bag then fine, but you can't make any claims to 'tolerance'. It's probably not that great for your blood pressure either.
> 
> My only issue with it is that it means you put up a barrier where you can't even talk with a degree of civilness to those with whom you disagree. So it limits threads like these to either being an 'aren't we all right-on' circle-jerk or a witch hunt. Both of which I find kind of tedious.


 
Which of these two options did stoatboys:



> But don't expect people of faith to just sit back and let you secularist scum steam roller over them.


 
come under?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which of these two options did stoatboys:


 ...


butchersapron said:


> come under?


 
The bit where the witch makes themselves known.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> I'm gay, I'm happy with civil partnerships and I don't want the Tories to fight ‘my’ corner to enable me to emulate a straight institution celebrated in organisations that on the whole have abhorred people like me for centuries.
> 
> Anyway, this ‘debate’ is a red herring
> 1) It subliminally stokes homophobia
> ...


 
I'm fairly sure lots of gay people have been asked. I'm gay and in favour of gay marriage, FTR.

Do you ever want to get married or civilly partnered? Because the only gay people I know who aren't arsed about this have no intentions of ever doing it themselves anyway.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> I'm gay, I'm happy with civil partnerships and I don't want the Tories to fight ‘my’ corner to enable me to emulate a straight institution celebrated in organisations that on the whole have abhorred people like me for centuries.
> 
> Anyway, this ‘debate’ is a red herring
> 1) It subliminally stokes homophobia
> ...


 
 on lots of levels.

1 and 2 sound very much like "we should keep our heads down so as not to upset the bigots" - if everyone adopted that attitude, then rosa parks would have quietly moved to the back of the bus when she was asked...

3 - how about this for a start (found in about 5 seconds)

Quite apart from the number of gay people who have said in various letters to the press / postings on message boards / signing petitions and the like they want at least the right to do marriage, even if they don't want to do so themselves.

And the latter is the point.  I've never (for example) had the slightest urge to serve in the armed forces, but I firmly believe that giving gay people the right to do so was the right thing to do.

Marriage is no more going to be compulsory for gay couples than it is for straight couples - and an increasing proportion of straight couples don't bother with the marriage thing.

On a personal level (and I don't think we've met before, so for the avoidance of confusion, yes I'm gay) I'm an atheist, so have no interest whatsoever in getting any religious body involved in my life thanks all the same.  I'm also not sure I personally even want to go as far as civil partnership.

I also have some sympathy for the argument that "marriage" - especially as it's viewed by at least some religious bodies - is at some level about transfer of property (i.e. the woman) from her father's ownership to her husband's, rather than a true partnership of equals - and therefore marriage is something that straight people, let alone gay people, shouldn't want to touch with a barge pole.

That having been said, I respect the right of people - straight and gay - to have a religious faith (although that won't stop me calling BS if they try to shove elements of it down my throat) and if those people want to have that faith put some sort of ceremonial seal on their relationship, and if their religious body is happy to do so, I don't see why the heck they, and that religious body, should not have that right.


----------



## Remus Harbank (Feb 4, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> on lots of levels.





Puddy_Tat said:


> 1 and 2 sound very much like "we should keep our heads down so as not to upset the bigots" - if everyone adopted that attitude, then rosa parks would have quietly moved to the back of the bus when she was asked...
> 
> 3 - how about this for a start (found in about 5 seconds)
> 
> ...




Ad 1 and 2) I'm taking a realistic view point. Future legislation can go either way, and don't believe for minute that homosexuality has really been accepted in society yet. And bringing Rosa Parks into this discussion muddles the issue a bit.

Ad 3) We have got Civil Partnerships. Gay Adoption is possible. That's all the [legal] equality that's needed. Read this for a more interesting take on the marriage issue.

If a religious establishment wants to hold ceremonies then they should be allowed to do so – however, this is not for the government to interfere with, especially when they come out with some half arsed top-down legislation which effectively bars both CofE and the Catholics from holding ceremonies. That in itself smacks of bigotry. So they are excluding the two biggest religious bodies outright – so what is this all about really?

I'm extremely sceptical when a Bullingdon Boy fights for ‘my’ rights, and so should anyone who is queer and has a couple of grey cells to think with.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 4, 2013)

Nobody is suggesting we all run around extolling Cameron's non existant virtues if gay marriage is passed.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> Ad 1 and 2) I'm taking a realistic view point. Future legislation can go either way, and don't believe for minute that homosexuality has really been accepted in society yet. And bringing Rosa Parks into this discussion muddles the issue a bit.
> 
> Ad 3) We have got Civil Partnerships. Gay Adoption is possible. That's all the [legal] equality that's needed. Read this for a more interesting take on the marriage issue.
> 
> ...


 
The Catholics aren't explicitly banned. They won't be able to do it because individual churches can't go against their organisation's stance, but that's the same for all religions - there's no special rule for the Catholics like there is for the CofE.

Future legislation can go either way, true. However, I'm not sure why you think that giving gay people more rights means that future legislation is likely to take away our rights. That doesn't add up.

I'm pretty happy with civil partnerships too, but I'm even happier with them being changed to being officially called marriage to reflect the reality that they are actually marriage. If you don't want to have one, no-one's forcing you.


----------



## Remus Harbank (Feb 4, 2013)

scifisam said:


> The Catholics aren't explicitly banned. They won't be able to do it because individual churches can't go against their organisation's stance, but that's the same for all religions - there's no special rule for the Catholics like there is for the CofE.





scifisam said:


> Future legislation can go either way, true. However, I'm not sure why you think that giving gay people more rights means that future legislation is likely to take away our rights. That doesn't add up.
> 
> I'm pretty happy with civil partnerships too, but I'm even happier with them being changed to being officially called marriage to reflect the reality that they are actually marriage. If you don't want to have one, no-one's forcing you.




So the Catholics won't be able to do it because they can't go against their organisation's stance? Well the state either forces them to adhere to passed legislation, or it doesn't, in which case said legislation is as effective as a split condom. And that's why all this bruhaha in the press and in Westminster is so counterproductive. The tories don't give a toss about gay equality. That's the problem. They are stoking discord. Just as they do with Europe. Anything to cover their absolute ineptitude regarding the really important issues such as our zombie economy.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> If a religious establishment wants to hold ceremonies then they should be allowed to do so – however, this is not for the government to interfere with, especially when they come out with some half arsed top-down legislation which effectively bars both CofE and the Catholics from holding ceremonies. That in itself smacks of bigotry. So they are excluding the two biggest religious bodies outright – so what is this all about really?


 
I don't quite get why the law is being framed as is, certainly.  I'd prefer something like "religious bodies are free to do this if they want" and leave it for the General Synod etc to sort it out for themselves.

I think that it's a typical poorly thought out fudge to try and appease the anti-gay bits of the CoE and RC churches (it won't) and the "gay community" (it won't)



Remus Harbank said:


> I'm extremely sceptical when a Bullingdon Boy fights for ‘my’ rights, and so should anyone who is queer and has a couple of grey cells to think with.


 
I have said on another thread somewhere round here that I am not entirely convinced by DC's motivations.

On the one hand, it could be him trying to do a "clause 4" to show how much the party has changed (at least as far as the PR is concerned)

On the other hand, I remain open to the possibility that he genuinely believes in equality for gay people - or at least equality for those who want to be suburban, middle class, property owning smug married tory voters. 

I am considerably more sceptical about the gay-friendliness of the likes of Boris Johnson who is on record as comparing gay marriage to marrying your pet dog (at least before the PR people got him 'on message')


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 4, 2013)

Some people would just like to get married, and for it to be called a marriage, not civil partnership.  It's not a complex request.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> So the Catholics won't be able to do it because they can't go against their organisation's stance? Well the state either forces them to adhere to passed legislation, or it doesn't, in which case said legislation is as effective as a split condom. And that's why all this bruhaha in the press and in Westminster is so counterproductive. The tories don't give a toss about gay equality. That's the problem. They are stoking discord. Just as they do with Europe. Anything to cover their absolute ineptitude regarding the really important issues such as our zombie economy.


Do you really think that the centre and half the party decided to support this pro-gay marriage stance in order to provoke the other half to public dissent and discord thus making them appear as split in the eyes of the electorate? Who else would they support gay marriage to sow discord among?


----------



## scifisam (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> So the Catholics won't be able to do it because they can't go against their organisation's stance? Well the state either forces them to adhere to passed legislation, or it doesn't, in which case said legislation is as effective as a split condom. And that's why all this bruhaha in the press and in Westminster is so counterproductive. The tories don't give a toss about gay equality. That's the problem. They are stoking discord. Just as they do with Europe. Anything to cover their absolute ineptitude regarding the really important issues such as our zombie economy.


 
Yes, but the Catholics are nothing special in that, like you were claiming. In the extremely unlikely event that the Pope decided to say he loved the idea of gay marriage and thought there might well have been an Adam and Steve after all and didn't Elton and David just look _darling_ when they tired the knot, Catholic churches wouldn't be prohibited from performing gay weddings.

You do realise the gay marriage bill isn't just about church services, yeah?

The Tories are stoking discord... among their own supporters. Dividing their own party. A bit. They're not actually making new homophobes with this. The frontbenchers want to look cool and modern (different to UKIP), and they don't want to lose votes from waverers who might have switched to Labour or the Lib Dems if they were seen as more progressive.


----------



## Remus Harbank (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do you really think that the centre and half the party decided to support this pro-gay marriage stance in order to provoke the other half to public dissent and discord thus making them appear as split in the eyes of the electorate? Who else would they support gay marriage to sow discord among?


 
As said before their legislation is completely half baked unless you're a Quaker. The Tories _appear_ to be split in the eyes of the _pr__ess_ – this is nothing more than big Punch and Judy show.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> As said before their legislation is completely half baked unless you're a Quaker. The Tories _appear_ to be split in the eyes of the _pr__ess_ – this is nothing more than big Punch and Judy show.


You said they were trying to stoke discord - amongst who? Forget whether the legislation is half-baked ornot, who are they trying to stoke discord between and why?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

They are deliberately provoking their own right wing in order to demonstrate they have changed and are modern and liberal. (like Blair's union/left bashing)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> They are deliberately provoking their own right wing in order to demonstrate they have changed and are modern and liberal. (like Blair's union/left bashing)


I asked Remus who he thinks they are stoking discord between, because to me,  he looked to be suggesting that he thought it was an attempt to sow wider social discord.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 4, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> ...no gay civil partnership or marriage will ever be seen by the majority of society as equal in terms of value or respect to that of a heterosexual couple because its sterile. It cannot produce anything of any long term lasting value.


I'm infertile.  Is my hetero marriage also unequal in terms of value and respect in the eyes of society?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 4, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> I'm infertile. Is my hetero marriage also unequal in terms of value and respect in the eyes of society?


 
But spanglechick, I assume you have consumated your marriage. I believe consumation is a requirement of marriage and can be grounds for divorce if it does not take place. I heard some olf buffer saying that consumation would not apply in the case of same sex marriages, what .. why not?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 4, 2013)

weltweit said:


> But spanglechick, I assume you have consumated your marriage. I believe consumation is a requirement of marriage and can be grounds for divorce if it does not take place. I heard some olf buffer saying that consumation would not apply in the case of same sex marriages, what .. why not?


 
That (i.e. defining just what constitutes 'consumation' in a same sex relationship) is one that the legislators would probably rather not think about...


----------



## scifisam (Feb 4, 2013)

weltweit said:


> But spanglechick, I assume you have consumated your marriage. I believe consumation is a requirement of marriage and can be grounds for divorce if it does not take place. I heard some olf buffer saying that consumation would not apply in the case of same sex marriages, what .. why not?


 
Because consummation is technically defined as penis entering vagina. In same-sex marriages, this would not usually be applicable.

Consummation and fertility aren't quite the same thing, anyway. I wonder if Stoatboy and the like realise that, with their made-up reasons for marriage, they're saying that infertile couples don't count as married?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Because consummation is technically defined as penis entering vagina. In same-sex marriages, this would not usually be applicable.
> 
> Consummation and fertility aren't quite the same thing, anyway. I wonder if Stoatboy and the like realise that, with their made-up reasons for marriage, they're saying that infertile couples don't count as married?


 
We've always accepted marriages that don't or can't lead to children - that has always been the way.  If gay marriage is accepted there will just be a very small addition to the number of marriages that don't lead to children (adoption permitting).  I can't see that there is an argument here.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 4, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No - grateful though I am for your condescending attitude I think I'll stick to saying what I think thanks very much. I was raised catholic so you can put it down to ignorance and brainwashing if you like.
> 
> It's not just about Jesus and religion and power have always gone hand in hand so the idea that your 'imperialist motivated conference' marked some kind of shift is just nonsense.
> 
> People of faith who disagree with your wooly, wishy washy new age weirdness aren't all stupid and ignorant. They just disagree with you. I'd wager that my old dear would rip you to shreds in a theological debate yet according to you she's an ignorant puppet unable to think for herself.


I know loads of people who were raised Catholic who don't give a rats arse if gay people get to call their legally binding couple contract marriage or not. It's not like they will force religious groups who disagree with it to allow them to get married in their church or do you also think that divorcees should be banned from remarrying as the church you were raised in forbids it? Should everyone have to become Catholic as clearly since you were taught it as a child it is the only right way?

Sorry but I think it's clear who suffers from woolly thinking here.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

Just a quick question which may be a misreading of something someone said earlier - but if they bring in gay marriage does that mean there will no longer be civil partnerships?


----------



## scifisam (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> We've always accepted marriages that don't or can't lead to children - that has always been the way. If gay marriage is accepted there will just be a very small addition to the number of marriages that don't lead to children (adoption permitting). I can't see that there is an argument here.


 
It's an argument many people make, though.

Of course, my gay marriage will involve parenting, since I already have a child and we want a second one - which we'd both be the legal parents of, on the birth certificate and everything.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I know loads of people who were raised Catholic who don't give a rats arse if gay people get to call their legally binding couple contract marriage or not. It's not like they will force religious groups who disagree with it to allow them to get married in their church or do you also think that divorcees should be banned from remarrying as the church you were raised in forbids it? Should everyone have to become Catholic as clearly since you were taught it as a child it is the only right way?
> 
> Sorry but I think it's clear who suffers from woolly thinking here.


wtf? 

What do you think that he actually said?


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> wtf?
> 
> What do you think that he actually said?


He implied we were all new age hippies for supporting gay marriage.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> He implied we were all new age hippies for supporting gay marriage.


No he didn't - and he'd be calling himself one if that were the case. What he said was that just because you have the _correct_ position do not assume that everyone else has come to theirs on the basis of ignorance and stupidity and that you would easily be able to demolish their arguments (esp on questions of theology). And i think there is also implication that such defences of gay marriage may well end up doing more harm to the cause then good.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

scifisam said:


> It's an argument many people make, though.
> 
> Of course, my gay marriage will involve parenting, since I already have a child and we want a second one - which we'd both be the legal parents of, on the birth certificate and everything.


 
Well, yeah, there are lots of families like yours and that makes perfect sense.

I'm quite open to hear these arguments against gay marriage but aside from the ones that seem to hinge on homophobia or God (neither of which I am open to), the only one that even seems to make sense as an argument is 'we don't want things to change'.

From my little corner of the autistic spectrum I have a lot of sympathy with those who are made very anxious by change, but you can't ultimately stop change, and this one corrects a small* injustice.

So maybe if there are no better arguments it's worth 'manning up' a bit.

* - relatively speaking, but obviously massive if it directly affects you


----------



## Favelado (Feb 4, 2013)

I'd abolish marriage and it'd be civil partnerships for everyone, gay or straight.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I'd abolish marriage and it'd be civil partnerships for everyone, gay or straight.


 
Hence my question a few posts back. I think I'd prefer civil partnership (not gay btw).

edit: and if I was gay I don't think I'd want an 'auto-upgrade'...


----------



## scifisam (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> Hence my question a few posts back. I think I'd prefer civil partnership (not gay btw).
> 
> edit: and if I was gay I don't think I'd want an 'auto-upgrade'...


 
It does have nearly all the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage, though, except for the church bit, mentioning God in the vows, and being called marriage. Everyone I know in a CP refers to it as marriage anyway. There's not much point in keeping it.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 4, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I'd abolish marriage and it'd be civil partnerships for everyone, gay or straight.


 
I'm largely in favour of that - the legal bit being 'civil partnership' and 'marriage' being an optional thing that religious organisations can offer.



scifisam said:


> It does have nearly all the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage, though, except for the church bit, mentioning God in the vows, and being called marriage. Everyone I know in a CP refers to it as marriage anyway. There's not much point in keeping it.


 
marriage (as things stand now) doesn't have to involve church - 'civil marriage' (i.e. registry office) is at present open just to straight couples (and legally counts as full marriage) so maybe marriage for all is a reasonable enough argument.

As things stand, some churches (etc) won't do marriage for some couples who can have a civil marriage (e.g. where one or both partners is a divorcee - hence Charlie and whatshername being legally married in a council building in Windsor then having a church 'service of blessing' or whatever the CoE's fudge on this is)


----------



## scifisam (Feb 4, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I'm largely in favour of that - the legal bit being 'civil partnership' and 'marriage' being an optional thing that religious organisations can offer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd be pissed off about being denied marriage because I don't believe in God. All countries I know of have marriage, including those with no state religion. Marriage isn't actually religious no matter how much some religious types try to co-opt it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 4, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> On the one hand, it could be him trying to do a "clause 4" to show how much the party has changed (at least as far as the PR is concerned)
> 
> On the other hand, I remain open to the possibility that he genuinely believes in equality for gay people - or at least equality for those who want to be suburban, middle class, property owning smug married tory voters.


Doesn't have to be, and IMO it isn't, an either/or situation.

I think in DC's case both of the reasons you have are true and why he started down this road. In any case he can't back down now.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

scifisam said:


> It does have nearly all the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage, though, except for the church bit, mentioning God in the vows, and being called marriage. Everyone I know in a CP refers to it as marriage anyway. There's not much point in keeping it.


 
Didn't know that (I mean the second bit, I knew about the equivalent legal rights bit).

So does that mean everyone who has a CP now is automatically married once gay marriage comes in?
Because I quite liked the idea of civil partnership for straight couples too.

Like 'I love you and want to be with you forever and everything but I'm keeping the flat cos I need my space and shit'.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 4, 2013)

youngian said:


> Just as well gay marriage is not a theological debate which is irrelevant to the legal practices of a secular institution.


 
Which is precisely my point.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 4, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I know loads of people who were raised Catholic who don't give a rats arse if gay people get to call their legally binding couple contract marriage or not. It's not like they will force religious groups who disagree with it to allow them to get married in their church or do you also think that divorcees should be banned from remarrying as the church you were raised in forbids it? Should everyone have to become Catholic as clearly since you were taught it as a child it is the only right way?
> 
> Sorry but I think it's clear who suffers from woolly thinking here.


 
What are you on about? I'm not opposed to gay marriage.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> I think you could have maybe phrased that better.


 
What's wrong with it?


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 4, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What are you on about? I'm not opposed to gay marriage.


Sorry was over-tasking at the time.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 4, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What's wrong with it?


 
Maybe nothing - maybe that's exactly how you intended to come over.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Lets be all honest here, this issue is nothing to do with 'equality' but everything to do with just attacking organized religion. Its patently obvious that even if you take religion out of things then the notion of 'marriage' has evolved in almost every society and civilization as a naturally accepted and publicly recognized union between a man and a woman with the express purpose of creating an institution in which the ideal environment to raise children, and thus strengthen the society/civilization as a whole. The idea that this can be somehow extended to same sex relationships is just farcical on almost every level discernible and reflects nothing more than the zeitgeist of times. Its a fashion statement, nothing else and nothing more and no gay civil partnership or marriage will ever be seen by the majority of society as equal in terms of value or respect to that of a heterosexual couple because its sterile. It cannot produce anything of any long term lasting value.
> 
> Still once this law goes through (which it will) then the whole 'ban' on the C of E being allowed to carry out these moronic ceremony's can be tested in court and then the real battle begins. But don't expect people of faith to just sit back and let you secularist scum steam roller over them. There really is a sense of a growing and very real opposition and this Tory rebellion is only the start.


What a total crock of shite.

...So where is the other horseman of the trollocalypse? Usually he's weighing in on threads like this a lot sooner than you...


----------



## tbtommyb (Feb 5, 2013)

Some tool was just on R4 arguing against this and came out with the line 'equality legislation, which now rules all our lives'. I really hate people saying that, because it is invariably white middle-class males shocked that they have to consider the views of others.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What i was after was you showing first off _why_ the tories wish to attack organised religion, Then showing _how_ and _where_ this is happening/going to happen (after all, it's obvious that this is what it's about right). What you have offered instead if a little bit of future-gazing based on what you expect to happen _if_ it was an attack on organised religion - without bothering to first establish that this is, in fact, what is happening. So let's do it from the start, what do you see as the tory motivation for attacking organised religion?


 
Its a good question.

Firstly I dont really see this as a 'Tory' attack. Its more about the Tory brand of careerist politicians leading it at the moment. They have more in common, in terms of ambitions and hopes, with their compatriots leading both the Labour and Lib-Dems than they are do with the common or garden Tory and as such have bought fully into the secularist nature of it all now which essentially is anti-organised religion. I know that this careerist class of politicians pays lip service to religion and could even be seen to favor Islam over all others, at least in terms of how it likes to portray itself, but I put that down to more sensitivity over race than anything to do with spiritual matters. The secularist agenda is the one that the corporate paymasters put the most store behind as well so if you want the funding, then you better remember who is paying the piper. And anything which weakens the influence of religion on how our society is run, which once again suits those producing even more and more shiny objects that we dont need.

One of the mainstays of how this careerist class identifys themselves is through this whole equality nonsense, ignoring the very simple fact that the inherent sterility of a same-sex relationships means that society can never truly place equal value on those with hetrosexual relationships. If two gays or lesbians want to have a little ceremony and prance down an aisle in a church or whatever whilst everybody maintains a masquerade of it being marriage, then no real harm done but for society to legislate and somehow try to proclaim that such a relationship has an equal worth to that of a man and woman, well its just the modern equivalence of the Emperors New clothes story and undermines what has been one of the very foundation stones of every civilization and society since history began.

And once this current form of legislation is through then the next round begins which will be about forcing Churches to hold these ceremony's. And that will receive the backing of this venal political class once again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 5, 2013)

amazing, you even managed to expose your islam paranoia- edit it and try to wangle in something about brussels


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy is sounding more and more like untethered with every post on this thread...


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> Stoat Boy is sounding more and more like untethered with every post on this thread...


 
Hey, whatever happenned to untethered, I liked untethered!


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> Stoat Boy is sounding more and more like untethered with every post on this thread...


Shades of gunneradt too.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Just a quick bit on polling from last nights YouGov results which has labour at a 15% lead, their largest since the election - this, two key things, _continued_ public support for gay marriage and what damage it's doing to the tories public image:



> More enlightening are the other figures from YouGov today.* As usual* a majority of people support the introduction of gay marriage (54% to 38%), and as I wrote on Sunday, the issue itself is not one that has particular salience or will move many voters come the general election in two years time. However, the damage that prolonged coverage of Conservative infighting (on gay marriage, and presumably the leadership plot rumours) is clear –* 71% of people see the Conservatives as a divided party, only 10% see them as a united party.* This is a question YouGov have been asking since 2003, and this is *the highest ever proportion of people who have seen them as divided* – more than during the 2005 leadership challenge, or just before IDS was defenestrated.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Hey, whatever happenned to untethered, I liked untethered!


 
He's probably in his cell reciting the catechisms.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 5, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> He's probably in his cell reciting the catechisms.


 
In between flogging himself, no doubt.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> In between flogging himself, no doubt.


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy's ramblings might have some relevance in a precarious society where human survival was a constant struggle - prioritising procreation above all else would be a sensible strategy. But we don't live in such a society. The idea therefore that a relationship between two people has greater worth simply because of the possibility of procreation is absurd. Something that many of the religious and the biologically-determinist types tend to share is the belief that our only point in life is to pass on genes - something I find utterly bleak, and dismissive of all human endeavour.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

I think now that the issue  been made a live issue for the tories it is developing into a crisis for their medium-long term future. There are only two groups among who a majority are against gay-marriage - the over 60s and 2010 tory voters. I think it's safe to assume that there is a sizable crossover here. This presents a number of problems for them - firstly, older people are more likely to vote, they are also more likely to die. An appeal to these demographic will costs votes among the younger electorate and help establish a link in their minds between tories and homophobia, and this group are also far less likely to be bound by traditional loyalties and so be prepared to switch parties. An appeal to the younger bloc will have drive the older voters to UKIP or to sit at home. Both options are potentially damaging, but only one is damaging_ in the longer term_ by cutting off future voters and tory activists.

That means, that now that the issue is a goer Cameron can _only_ come down on the pro-gay marriage side - his party actually has no other option and the centre  (whilst today being instinctively socially liberal - with the usual economic limits that they think are only natural) can see the longer political significance of this despite what they hope will be short term pain. Like europe, i think they may well have ensured it's damaging effect is now magnified.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

I wonder how the gay marriage issue is playing with his attempt to tap into the BME vote?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 5, 2013)

I would think that they will be hoping that once it's done, the issue will fade in significance, particularly given that there is zero chance of it being reversed once done. The tories have survived this kind of societal shift before - with the death penalty, legalisation of abortion, decriminalisation of homosexuality. Wouldn't it have been a similar story each of those times too?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would think that they will be hoping that once it's done, the issue will fade in significance, particularly given that there is zero chance of it being reversed once done. The tories have survived this kind of societal shift before - with the death penalty, legalisation of abortion, decriminalisation of homosexuality. Wouldn't it have been a similar story each of those times too?


The tories were a party that had broad national appeal then and a healthy mass activists base. Today they have an activist base that is dying off without being replaced and pretty much zero appeal among the electoral groups that are growing in significance - they face demographic marginalisation as a number of their key strategists realise. This has to be looked at as part of dealing with that rather than as an issue on its own.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Feb 5, 2013)

The media haven't been good at explaining what is going to change in law.  I'm still not sure?

Although this is a bit political issue today I think in a years time it will be well off the agenda.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The tories were a party that had broad national appeal then and a healthy mass activists base. Today they have an activist base that is dying off without being replaced and pretty much zero appeal among the electoral groups that are growing in significance - they face demographic marginalisation as a number of their key strategists realise. This has to be looked at as part of dealing with that rather than as an issue on its own.


I find it difficult to believe that a large swathe of gay people will suddenly vote Tory if this goes through though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I find it difficult to believe that a large swathe of gay people will suddenly vote Tory if this goes through though.


No one has suggested that they will. What's suggested is that traditional and historical associations with homophobia do not go down well with younger socially liberal voters who the tories are already doing appallingly badly with and who they are trying to offer a softer image to.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I find it difficult to believe that a large swathe of gay people will suddenly vote Tory if this goes through though.


 
Well, this one certainly won't! 

It's not only about that, though: it's about carving out a socially liberal identity for the Tory party because the old social-conservative demographic, the blue-rinse brigade, is dying off.  It's a bit of a political gamble, in that some of them may be lost to UKIP in the short term - although I suspect Cameron's banking on the threat of UKIP splitting the Tory vote in a few marginals and letting Labour in keeping them loyal - but in the long run it's probably the only viable strategy they have.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No one has suggested that they will. What's suggested is that traditional and historical associations with homophobia do not go down well with younger socially liberal voters who the tories are already doing appallingly badly with and who they are trying to offer a softer image to.


 
I don't think it will work somehow


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 5, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> Well, this one certainly won't!
> 
> It's not only about that, though: it's about carving out a socially liberal identity for the Tory party because the old social-conservative demographic, the blue-rinse brigade, is dying off. It's a bit of a political gamble, in that some of them may be lost to UKIP in the short term - although I suspect Cameron's banking on the threat of UKIP splitting the Tory vote in a few marginals and letting Labour in keeping them loyal - but in the long run it's probably the only viable strategy they have.


I really hope it takes more than one policy to counteract the shit they've done. I think they are largely going for a 'poison the well' policy, making so many dire changes that if Labour get back in it will take them an entire term to fix the mess that's been made while the country falls apart around them. 

That or they really are batshit crazy.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I really hope it takes more than one policy to counteract the shit they've done. I think they are largely going for a 'poison the well' policy, making so many dire changes that if Labour get back in it will take them an entire term to fix the mess that's been made while the country falls apart around them.


 
I don't think anyone seriously believes that gay marriage in isolation is going to save the Tories' bacon at the next election.  It's part of a wider long-term strategy of positioning the party as economically and socially liberal.

It is true, though, that they're in a frantic rush to make changes ahead of an election in 2015 that they almost certainly can't win, but which by then will be difficult or impossible for Labour to reverse - even insofar as they want to, which is isn't very far since they quietly agree with a lot of what the Tories have done on health and education, among other things.


----------



## dylans (Feb 5, 2013)

The only real difference between a civil partnership and a marriage is a word. To those of us who believe in equal civil rights that word is important because it takes away the stigma of a two tier institutional system and offers the same institutional rights to all citizens regardless of sexuality. To us civil partnerships are second rate marriages and the word itself signifies its second class status. 

However those who oppose same sex marriage, in order to be consistent, should really be honest and come out (hahah) against civil partnerships. Because if marriage is a "sacred institution" and if marriage is "only between a man and a woman" and if the only real difference between a marriage and a civil union is a word then it follows they should be opposed to the institution whatever its called and not merely to the word.

Therefore those (such as the Church of England) who make the argument that civil partnerships are enough, are really being dishonest because it is not the word marriage they are opposed to extending to same sex couples but the institution itself and that institution (civil partnerships) already exists.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 5, 2013)

dylans said:


> However those who oppose same sex marriage, in order to be consistent, should really be honest and come out (hahah) against civil partnerships. Because if marriage is a "sacred institution" and if marriage is "only between a man and a woman" and if the only real difference between a marriage and a civil union is a word then it follows they should be opposed to the institution whatever its called and not merely to the word.


 
The CoE could also argue from what you say that since civil partnerships are the same besides the use of a single word then there is no injustice in the first place and so nothing worth correcting.


----------



## dylans (Feb 5, 2013)

8ball said:


> The CoE could also argue from what you say that since civil partnerships are the same besides the use of a single word then there is no injustice in the first place and so nothing worth correcting.


They could and do argue this but the fact that they initially opposed civil partnerships (to the extent of trying to wreck it in the HOL) demonstrates the dishonesty behind this argument.

(just found out that Ian Duncan Smith also voted against civil partnerships)


----------



## 8ball (Feb 5, 2013)

dylans said:


> They could and do argue this but the fact that they initially opposed civil partnerships (to the extent of trying to wreck it in the HOL) demonstrates the dishonesty behind this argument.
> 
> (just found out that Ian Duncan Smith also voted against civil partnerships)


 
They also (those arguing against gay marriage) don't actually feel the only difference between civil partnership and marriage is a word.  They'll bung out all manner of contradictory noise out there in the battle to get what they want, though.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Nadine Dorries speaking now 

"Would the minister tell us that this Bill isn't inspired by Mr Peter Tatchell, a man who has said he wants to turn the world upside down?"


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Nadine Dorries speaking now
> 
> "Would the minister tell us that this Bill isn't inspired by Mr Peter Tatchell, a man who has said he wants to turn the world upside down?"


----------



## youngian (Feb 5, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> I don't think anyone seriously believes that gay marriage in isolation is going to save the Tories' bacon at the next election. It's part of a wider long-term strategy of positioning the party as economically and socially liberal.


 
And its a cost free issue to pitch itself in the centre, rather than a disastorous Romney shambles strategy to placate the right.
Interesting seeing UKIP getting in a twist over this. Farage set out his stool as a libertarian but can't turn away Brigadier Arthur Foxhunter fuming over gay marriage.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

youngian said:


> And its a cost free issue to pitch itself in the centre, rather than a disastorous Romney shambles strategy to placate the right.


 
Thing is, it isn't completely cost-free in the short term, although I'm sure that once it's passed into law it will fade away pretty quickly as an issue.  People got into a similar lather over civil partnerships and the lowering of the age of consent, but now only a tiny minority of hardliners would reverse either.  Even so, it may lose the Tories some votes in the next couple of years.  Presumably they're calculating that that's a price worth paying for whatever longer-term benefits they think will accrue from it.



> Interesting seeing UKIP getting in a twist over this. Farage set out his stool as a libertarian but can't turn away Brigadier Arthur Foxhunter fuming over gay marriage.


 
UKIP aren't in a twist really, though.  Their opposition to gay marriage is a similarly calculated move - to mop up disaffected social conservatives.  It won't work in the long run because that demographic is mainly older and its significance will dwindle away, but then UKIP isn't nearly as well rooted a political force as the Conservative Party and needs to establish itself now rather than waiting.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Some right Tory twats in this debate:

"What makes the pro lobby better than our distinguished forebares, who never proposed such a thing?"

"the Sec of State said there will be no requirement for teachers to to teach about gay marriage, but she ominously added that we don't expect our teachers to be discriminatory about anything!"


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> It makes you both a bigot and a homophobe.
> 
> Now fuck off.


 
bollocks


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

8ball said:


> Yup, I count 4 dissenters that haven't been put off by the name-calling. Makes you wonder how many timid ones there are.


 
how the fuck is anyone supposed to discuss an issue were if you dont support it your immediately labeled a bigot and homophobe and told to fuck off. Your not supposed to have an opinion, just comply with the liberal trend . The brits have gone from Thatcherism to fucking Tatchellism .
According to the hysterical wankers on this site im also a racist, and some sort of rape supporter too . Its fucking ridiculous .


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

8ball said:


> Quite brave to say what you think around these parts - it's definitely got a (predictable) reaction.
> 
> I'm not convinced that everyone who has reservations about gay marriage is some kind of bigot - it's one of those easy cop-outs. It's true that making gay marriage changes the meaning of marriage for everyone, legally speaking at least, but it feels quite ungenerous to deny it to others as a straight person.
> 
> Personally, I don't want to see gay marriage unless straight people are also allowed to have civil partnerships.


 
are we to accept now that civil partnerships are a load of old bollocks that dont mean anything ? sounds like it .


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Some right Tory twats in this debate:


 only surprised no-one has said "we made a mistake in decriminalising gay sex - it's a slippery slope until its compulsory"


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

killer b said:


> Tbf, CR is a bigot. People calling him out on it are going on previous postings as well as on this thread.


 
no im not you fucking wanker


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> are we to accept now that civil partnerships are a load of old bollocks that dont mean anything ? sounds like it .


 
Did you oppose those when they were introduced?


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> Did you oppose those when they were introduced?


 
certainly not . I was happy to see them introduced and thought it extremely unfair that gay partners whod been together for years had no benefits or inheritance rights when a partner died .

why the fuck would i oppose it ?


----------



## Favelado (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> only surprised no-one has said "we made a mistake in decriminalising gay sex - it's a slippery slope until its compulsory"


 
Fuck it. I'll give it a try once.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> certainly not . I was happy to see them introduced and thought it extremely unfair that gay partners whod been together for years had no benefits or inheritance rights when a partner died .


 
Curious, then, that those who did deployed most of the arguments you're using now.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> Curious, then, that those who did deployed most of the arguments you're using now.


 
are you suggesting i came down from the same spaceship ? Or that im part of some overarching anti gay conspiracy ?


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> According to the hysterical wankers on this site im also a racist, and some sort of rape supporter too . Its fucking ridiculous .


 
If it makes you feel better, I've always thought you were just a tosser.


----------



## peterkro (Feb 5, 2013)

I watched a bit of the debate,some git was waffling on about slippery slopes and polyamore and how people would soon be marrying animals.It's a slippery slope I tells ye.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> are you suggesting i came down from the same spaceship ? Or that im part of some overarching anti gay conspiracy ?


 
No, I'm just suggesting that you're talking unmitigated bollocks.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 5, 2013)

Has no one mentioned that Richard Eddy - local golliwog enthusiast, the face of the 'caring Conservatives' in Bristol and until 2010 leader of the Tory group in the City Council - has given in his papers over the issue? For shame.



> Councillor Richard Eddy, chairman of the Bristol South Conservative Association, has written to senior party chiefs saying his “conscience compels me to resign the office”.


 
http://www.bristol247.com/2013/02/05/senior-tory-resigns-over-camerons-gay-marriage-obsession-47335/


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:
			
		

> how the fuck is anyone supposed to discuss an issue were if you dont support it your immediately labeled a bigot and homophobe and told to fuck off. Your not supposed to have an opinion, just comply with the liberal trend . The brits have gone from Thatcherism to fucking Tatchellism .
> According to the hysterical wankers on this site im also a racist, and some sort of rape supporter too . Its fucking ridiculous .



Well, you most certainly are a rape apologist, and you do speak with a mouthful of soil which, even if it only has a little blood in it still isn't very nice.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Fiona Bruce waffling on about oppressed hotel owners forced to have all these gay people getting married in their hotels.


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> and some sort of rape supporter too


oh yeah, i'd forgotten about that one. thanks for reminding me.


----------



## pissflaps (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> how the fuck is anyone supposed to discuss an issue were if you dont support it your immediately labeled a bigot and homophobe and told to fuck off. Your not supposed to have an opinion, just comply with the liberal trend . The brits have gone from Thatcherism to fucking Tatchellism .
> According to the hysterical wankers on this site im also a racist, and some sort of rape supporter too . Its fucking ridiculous .


 
you're.


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 5, 2013)

Ben Summerskill  @*BenSummerskill* 
Is it the unique sanctity of his first, or second, marriage that Sir Roger Gale MP is seeking to defend?


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

The idea that if you're opposed to the bill you're simply "supporting the institution of marriage" and not a bigot is laughable.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Ah, the bill is anti-children, I hadn't realised that.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

According to that twunt, calling someone a "bigot" or a "homophobe" is rude and hateful.


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> According to that twunt, calling someone a "bigot" or a "homophobe" is rude and hateful.


it probably is tbf. i don't have any problem with that though.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well, you most certainly are a rape apologist,


 
Hang on, what's this in relation to?


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Hang on, what's this in relation to?


Assange allegations


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

William McCrae blabbing on about the Lord Jesus is a great argument for the end of British rule in Northern Ireland.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Assange allegations


 
Ah, right. Gotcha.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well, you most certainly are a rape apologist, and you do speak with a mouthful of soil which, even if it only has a little blood in it still isn't very nice.


 
please fuck up


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> No, I'm just suggesting that you're talking unmitigated bollocks.


 
it may come as a surprise to you , but as far as the world is concerned outside the little brixton bubble of regular crack cocaine enemas and compulsory wolfbagging its perfectly normal to regard marriage as something between a man and a woman . Its not an exactly controversial view or anything out of the ordinary , much less something that renders one a bigot or hate monger. The  arrogant intolerance of the liberal zealots and their belief in the moral superiority of their values over all others is what we see everyday from wankers such as Blair and the clintons, an arroagnce that reduces the majority of the world to backward and lesser and in need of being put straight.
Thanks to this shit most people with even mild beliefs in either roman catholicism, eastern orthodox christianity , protestantism or islam is going to be pronounced as morally and legally out of step, backward and in need of re education and reform . Simply because of some half arsed cosmopolitan ,liberal hobby horse .


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2013)

Just heard a clip of Margot James - a vice chair of the Tory party - spelling it out quite clearly on the news, or at least spell the point out for a certain faction: she was saying that it was an essential part of continuing to modernise the party, and if that didn't happen they could end up like the Republicans, who (she explicitly claimed) lost in the US because of their "socially conservative agenda". You antiquated bastards are going to lose us the next election.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Assange allegations


 
allegations ? oh sorry, i thought he was convicted already .


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 I say begat.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Thanks to this shit most people with even mild beliefs in either roman catholicism, eastern orthodox christianity , protestantism or islam is going to be pronounced as morally and legally out of step, backward and in need of re education and reform . Simply because of some half arsed cosmopolitan ,liberal hobby horse .


 
Except they're not. It won't affect them in any way.


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it may come as a surprise to you , but as far as the world is concerned outside the little brixton bubble of regular crack cocaine enemas and compulsory wolfbagging its perfectly normal to regard marriage as something between a man and a woman . Its not an exactly controversial view or anything out of the ordinary , much less something that renders one a bigot or hate monger. The arrogant intolerance of the liberal zealots and their belief in the moral superiority of their values over all others is what we see everyday from wankers such as Blair and the clintons, an arroagnce that reduces the majority of the world to backward and lesser and in need of being put straight.
> Thanks to this shit most people with even mild beliefs in either roman catholicism, eastern orthodox christianity , protestantism or islam is going to be pronounced as morally and legally out of step, backward and in need of re education and reform . Simply because of some half arsed cosmopolitan ,liberal hobby horse .


there's a strong majority in favour (50-odd to 30-odd against). that's a massive bubble.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Fiona Bruce waffling on about oppressed hotel owners forced to have all these gay people getting married in their hotels.


 
My heart bleeds, truly.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> allegations ? oh sorry, i thought he was convicted already .


No. He's done a runner. Had it away on his toes. Done a bunk.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it may come as a surprise to you , but as far as the world is concerned outside the little brixton bubble of regular crack cocaine enemas and compulsory wolfbagging its perfectly normal to regard marriage as something between a man and a woman . Its not an exactly controversial view or anything out of the ordinary , much less something that renders one a bigot or hate monger. The arrogant intolerance of the liberal zealots and their belief in the moral superiority of their values over all others is what we see everyday from wankers such as Blair and the clintons, an arroagnce that reduces the majority of the world to backward and lesser and in need of being put straight.
> Thanks to this shit most people with even mild beliefs in either roman catholicism, eastern orthodox christianity , protestantism or islam is going to be pronounced as morally and legally out of step, backward and in need of re education and reform . Simply because of some half arsed cosmopolitan ,liberal hobby horse .


 
Oh really.  Even you can do better than that.  Opinion polls far from confined to the 'Brixton bubble' consistently show a majority in favour of gay marriage, and that includes plenty of people with religious beliefs of one kind or another.  This shtick about it being foisted on an unwilling populace by a metropolitan elite just doesn't wash.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> articul8 I say begat.


Well go forth and multiply


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well go forth and multiply


Gadzooks up yer arse


----------



## scifisam (Feb 5, 2013)

Bit weird waiting to see if a load of old people say I'm allowed to marry my GF. I thought the tradition was just to ask the father, not everyone else's fathers.


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it may come as a surprise to you , but as far as the world is concerned outside the little brixton bubble of regular crack cocaine enemas and compulsory wolfbagging its perfectly normal to regard marriage as something between a man and a woman . Its not an exactly controversial view or anything out of the ordinary , much less something that renders one a bigot or hate monger. The  arrogant intolerance of the liberal zealots and their belief in the moral superiority of their values over all others is what we see everyday from wankers such as Blair and the clintons, an arroagnce that reduces the majority of the world to backward and lesser and in need of being put straight.
> Thanks to this shit most people with even mild beliefs in either roman catholicism, eastern orthodox christianity , protestantism or islam is going to be pronounced as morally and legally out of step, backward and in need of re education and reform . Simply because of some half arsed cosmopolitan ,liberal hobby horse .


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/26/voters-back-gay-marriage-poll don't worry because the poll is reported by the guardian you can ignore it. 
I lived in Brixton for a year once. Didn't seem a bastion of any particular liberalism to me, when did it change?


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 5, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Bit weird waiting to see if a load of old people say I'm allowed to marry my GF. I thought the tradition was just to ask the father, not everyone else's fathers.


 
Bizarre isn't it.  Although I am learning some interesting bits of history I suppose.


----------



## elbows (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it may come as a surprise to you , but as far as the world is concerned outside the little brixton bubble of regular crack cocaine enemas and compulsory wolfbagging its perfectly normal to regard marriage as something between a man and a woman . Its not an exactly controversial view or anything out of the ordinary , much less something that renders one a bigot or hate monger. The arrogant intolerance of the liberal zealots and their belief in the moral superiority of their values over all others is what we see everyday from wankers such as Blair and the clintons, an arroagnce that reduces the majority of the world to backward and lesser and in need of being put straight.
> Thanks to this shit most people with even mild beliefs in either roman catholicism, eastern orthodox christianity , protestantism or islam is going to be pronounced as morally and legally out of step, backward and in need of re education and reform . Simply because of some half arsed cosmopolitan ,liberal hobby horse .


 
You may have a valid point or two lurking in there somewhere, though rather soiled. But your stance lurches into absurdity because you attempt to paint a range of attitudes that really have changed across quite a broad section of society over the last 30-40 years or more, as something thats just the project of a very narrow liberal, cosmopolitan clique. Well you are wrong, and even if you arent a full-blown bigot you are quite happy to throw around the language of bigots and demonstrate an urge to remain stuck in the 1970's. You are not the only one, but despite various religions slowing down progress I see very real changes in each subsequent generation, things really are accepted and normalised in a way you stubbornly refuse to admit, and that makes your stance increasingly irrelevant. Squeal about it all you like, rant about enemas and wolfbagging, attempt to marginalise stuff and pretend those who you oppose are a tiny little minority. The very fact there is even a vote on same-sex marriage today is sufficient to show that any claim you make to occupy the sensible common ground is laughable, you are decades out of step on this. You arent alone but if you think that any eventual demise of the neo-liberal agenda will automatically roll all this other stuff back to a stage you are more comfortable with, well I think you will be disappointed. Gibber about liberals all you like, those who do not agree with you on this cannot simply be dismissed with such a label, and there are plenty of people who avoid being economic liberals without falling into a pit of reactionary social conservatism.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> how the fuck is anyone supposed to discuss an issue were if you dont support it your immediately labeled a bigot and homophobe and told to fuck off.


 
It's hardly a productive way of discussing anything, I agree.  

I've tried to be civil to all involved and I've not really heard a counter-argument that doesn't rely on God, bigotry or a primal fear of change, though.  Calling people hysterical wankers isn't much more productive than calling people bigots.


----------



## youngian (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> compulsory wolfbagging


 
Had to Google that one. My I do live a sheltered life.


----------



## xes (Feb 5, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> Oh really. Even you can do better than that. Opinion polls far from confined to the 'Brixton bubble' consistently show a majority in favour of gay marriage, and that includes plenty of people with religious beliefs of one kind or another. This shtick about it being foisted on an unwilling populace by a metropolitan elite just doesn't wash.


That's just the excuse that freaks like CR use to bolster their fucked up opinions. "oh, you're forcing your way of life on ours, you think your way of life is more important" And other such absolute fucking cop out arguments. But it's what we are to expect of such fucking cretins. Those who are too fucking thick to see that it's not actually about them, at all, nor does it affect their lives, at all. But that's ok, cos we is like forcing it on them with our gayness, and soon the WHOLE WORLD will be gay amd shagging animals and chairs.

Fucking idiots.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

8ball said:


> It's hardly a productive way of discussing anything, I agree.
> 
> I've tried to be civil to all involved and I've not really heard a counter-argument that doesn't rely on God, bigotry or a primal fear of change, though. Calling people hysterical wankers isn't much more productive than calling people bigots.


 
when its in response to repeatedly being called a bigot im afraid its necessary . Otherwise it appears youve accepted the bigot tag . Where i an actual bigot i wouldnt give a fiddlers, but the fact is im not and i take personal exception to being labelled as such .


----------



## Corax (Feb 5, 2013)

180 Tories to vote against gay marriage.
3,600,000 gays to vote against Tories.

Gays win.


----------



## xes (Feb 5, 2013)

oh, and marriage can be joining 2 things together. Ask a joiner, or a metal worker. You twonk.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when its in response to repeatedly being called a bigot im afraid its necessary . Otherwise it appears youve accepted the bigot tag . Where i an actual bigot i wouldnt give a fiddlers, but the fact is im not and i take personal exception to being labelled as such .


 
So, since I'm not calling you a bigot, do you have any arguments against this that don't fall under the categories I just mentioned?


----------



## youngian (Feb 5, 2013)

elbows said:


> The very fact there is even a vote on same-sex marriage today is sufficient to show that any claim you make to occupy the sensible common ground is laughable, you are decades out of step on this.


 
And the fact that you are not even answering rational arguments but a mock victimhood rant about oppression from those big city liberal trendies, validates your points.

It is the sort of frustration of playground bullies who leave school and find themselves very lonely.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Hang on, what's this in relation to?


(To this:



> all those years of feminist empowerment,research, education and activism and she cant even tell a rapist to get the fuck out of her bed and keeps letting him into it . An educated aware and empowered woman becomes totally infantilised after a single encounter with assange . Bollocks to that . Not remotely credible.


)


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2013)

I am a fan of marriage.

But I don't see how letting gay people marry spoils it in any way for me?


----------



## elbows (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when its in response to repeatedly being called a bigot im afraid its necessary . Otherwise it appears youve accepted the bigot tag . Where i an actual bigot i wouldnt give a fiddlers, but the fact is im not and i take personal exception to being labelled as such .


 
I'm surprised you are so sensitive to being called a bigot, given what you have said over the years on rather a lot of different posts.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that when you object to being described as a bigot, its because you have a narrow definition of what unacceptable bigotry is. So there may be kinds of economic, political & racial bigotry which you oppose with every fibre of your being, but certain social, gender and sexual attitudes are far less clear cut as far as you are concerned, you think your stance is normal and those who dont share those views are freaks, and you dont think that makes you a bigot. I'm sure I've seen all manner of threads where you pop up and make a range of remarks, often to do with gay stuff, but also well beyond that into quite deep social conservatism. If I recall correctly you were going mad in the naked rambler thread about him being a monster who damages children by flaunting his naked penis and that he is a menace deserving of no sympathy.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Yes it's a slippery slope Richard Drax, redefining marriage will lead to redefining children, who knows where we will end up.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Parliament's great right now, it's like a "shows us whether you're a cunt or a reasonable human being" session.

I liked David Lammy's speech earlier.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 5, 2013)

Dictating what type of relationships people can and can't have sounds like the terrifying Nanny State we've all been warned about.

Government must get out of the way of people's lives. Oh, except if you're pregnant and thinking about an abortion. Or you fancy people with the same type of danglies as you. Then it's imperative we intervene.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

8ball said:


> So, since I'm not calling you a bigot, do you have any arguments against this that don't fall under the categories I just mentioned?


 
I made my point . I view marriage as an instituion/sacrament that pertains solely to a mixed gender couple . I view it as inevitable that this legalisation will eventuallly result in court challenges to any religious faiths refusal to go along with the liberal agenda, because logic dictates that once the state has approved it anyone refusing to accomodate it will be acting in a discriminatory manner . I see it as inevitable that freedom of conscience and religious beliefs and practice will come under attack and compliance will be legally forced on people by the forces of liberalism.
In pretty much the same way these smug social engineering fucks have almost banned cigarettes . Personal freedoms and beliefs and the right to hold them will inevitably comeunder sustained attack . And anyone who doubts that need only look at the hysterical - indeed obligatory -insults being thrown around against those who dont support it . The liberals simply create a moral panic and then dispense with with any free or reasoned argument .


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

elbows said:


> If I recall correctly you were going mad in the naked rambler thread about him being a monster who damages children by flaunting his naked penis and that he is a menace deserving of no sympathy.


 
i didnt call him a monster . I simply voiced the opinion that he shouldnt be walking about in public with his cock out in non designated nudist areas where children might encounter him . I dont believe for one minute that makes  me an accomplice of adolf hitler.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Parliament's great right now, it's like a "shows us whether you're a cunt or a reasonable human being" session.
> 
> I liked David Lammy's speech earlier.


they're all cunts, regardless of how they vote on this.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Parliament's great right now, it's like a "shows us whether you're a cunt or a reasonable human being" session.
> 
> I liked David Lammy's speech earlier.


 
so cameron and osborne arent cunts now ? And tony blair isnt either ? Uisng this as a yard stick is  childish . You can easily be a social liberal and a complete and utter cunt .


----------



## elbows (Feb 5, 2013)

Actually Casually Red is sort of good for me in a way. Despite not even being born till 1975, there are a range of things about the old 1970s ways of politics, economics, tv, film etc, that I am rather fond of. But somehow Casually Red manages to beat the drum for all the terrible shit from that era that I am so glad is generally discredited, whether it be attitudes towards women, gays, or authoritarian saviours of the proletariat like Gaddafi & sons. Its good to be reminded of this crap so that I dont drown in phoney golden age nostalgia or cry for lost things that are not worth the tears. Some progress has sucked, but some has been rather nice, and perhaps it takes a goof like Casually Red to remind me that the stench of neo-liberal horror shouldnt be allowed to mask the meaningful progress thats occured in the same timeframe.

And get over being called a bigot, I was under the impression that you were sometimes a bit concerned about becoming a sort of nazi in your old age so you should probably consider the bigot label as part of the same phenomenon rather than simply go off on the people who dare to throw the term in your direction. Its quite normal to get a bit set in your ways as you age but thats still no excuse, challenge yourself.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> court challenges to any religious faiths refusal to go along with the liberal agenda, because logic dictates that once the state has approved it anyone refusing to accomodate it will be acting in a discriminatory manner . I see it as inevitable that freedom of conscience and religious beliefs and practice will come under attack and compliance will be legally forced on people by the forces of liberalism. In pretty much the same way these smug social engineering fucks have almost banned cigarettes.


 
Zero evidence for any of this. Nothing will happen. 
Do you see gay Jews winning compensation from Orthodox temples which refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies? I don't. 
Have sex discrimination cases against religious bodies such as mosques or male-run seminaries succeeded? No. Does religious sexual discrimination continue? Yes.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> In pretty much the same way these smug social engineering fucks have almost banned cigarettes . Personal freedoms and beliefs and the right to hold them will inevitably comeunder sustained attack . And anyone who doubts that need only look at the hysterical - indeed obligatory -insults being thrown around against those who dont support it . The liberals simply create a moral panic and then dispense with with any free or reasoned argument .


 
You accuse us of moral panic? There will be no change for straight people. There is not going to be any change to your personal freedoms. Your beliefs will come under attack but that's politics. You can always argue back.

As for cigs, well there wasn't much freedom in having to smoke everyone else's tabs whether you wanted to or not. Smokers can still smoke. Non-smokers now have a choice too. That's freedom. Sorry for digression.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I view marriage as an instituion/sacrament that pertains solely to a mixed gender couple.


 
Which part of Katie Price's recent marriage was "sacrament" exactly?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

Favelado said:


> You accuse us of moral panic? There will be no change for straight people. No reduction in freedoms for you and there is not going to be any change to your personal freedoms. Your beliefs will come under attack but that's politics. You can always argue back.
> 
> As for cigs, well there wasn't much freedom in having to smoke everyone else's tabs whether you wanted to or not. Smokers can still smoke. Non-smokers now have a choice too. That's freedom. Sorry for digression.


Quite. Since 2000, 11 countries have legalised gay marriage, not one of them has followed it up by foisting anything on religious institutions.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I view it as inevitable that this legalisation will eventuallly result in court challenges to any religious faiths refusal to go along with the liberal agenda, because logic dictates that once the state has approved it anyone refusing to accomodate it will be acting in a discriminatory manner . I see it as inevitable that freedom of conscience and religious beliefs and practice will come under attack and compliance will be legally forced on people by the forces of liberalism.


 
How will religious faith be forced to accommodate same sex marriage? How will freedom of conscience, religious belief and religious practice come under attack?

Don't be vague, let's have details.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

elbows said:


> I'm surprised you are so sensitive to being called a bigot, given what you have said over the years on rather a lot of different posts.
> 
> Perhaps you should consider the possibility that when you object to being described as a bigot, its because you have a narrow definition of what unacceptable bigotry is. So there may be kinds of economic, political & racial bigotry which you oppose with every fibre of your being, but certain social, gender and sexual attitudes are far less clear cut as far as you are concerned, you think your stance is normal and those who dont share those views are freaks, and you dont think that makes you a bigot..


 
it doesnt make me a bigot . Theres a difference between being personally socially conservative and a hate monger or someone whod argue for bullying and discrimination against a minority , a serious difference between the two concepts . As far as im concerned on a purely personal level an actual bigot is nothing less than a bully . I despise bullies and bullying with every fibre of my being, including right on liberal ones . I cant stand to see another person personally humiliated, even if i fucking hate them . That goes for the political and personal sphere . Bigotry is not part of my personal make up . Slag me off for being socially conservative, fair enough . But absolutely nowhere do i advocate hatred or discrimination against anyone . Thats what actual bigots do .
And if im being judged on every last word and syllable then let everyone else be as well .


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Quite. Since 2000, 11 countries have legalised gay marriage, not one of them has followed it up by foisting anything on religious institutions.


 
yet


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 5, 2013)

You actively believe gay people should not be allowed to get married.

What could possibly be more discriminatory?


----------



## Favelado (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> yet


 
That's not good enough. There's 12 years' worth of evidence in from 11 different sources and none of it backs your claim. That's a defeated argument if ever there was one.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 5, 2013)

I still have not heard any argument from those against this that explains how it affects them ? How does this affect any hetrosexual people in any way ? Seeing as the vast majority of weddings are civil ceremonies not sure why the religious are getting their knickers in a twist..............

only reason i can see for people getting into such a state is that the bigoted will no longer be able to use the lack of equality as a back up for their argument.............if the state accepts and makes legal same sex marriage they will come unstuck when telling their kids homosexuality is wrong won't they


----------



## Favelado (Feb 5, 2013)

Fair play to Casually Red for trying to answer 8 different posters at once. It's not easy.


----------



## elbows (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Zero evidence for any of this. Nothing will happen.
> Do you see gay Jews winning compensation from Orthodox temples which refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies? I don't.
> Have sex discrimination cases against religious bodies such as mosques or male-run seminaries succeeded? No. Does religious sexual discrimination continue? Yes.


 
Indeed, and the government went out of its way to ban the church of england from performing same-sex marriage ceremonies to avoid these sorts of cans of worms.

I suspect this isnt good enough as far as the churches are concerned not because of freedom or legal issues, but because religions think that the very concept of marriage is part of their domain. Its one of the traditions that is a major theoretical source of their power, their apparent relevance. Well they've proven woefully incapable of keeping up in an era of relatively rapid change, and they are in a mess as a result. Tough titties, they actually lost their monopoly and authority a long time ago, they can cling to it through the people that still believe but they will struggle to apply it to those who left their sphere of influence, and they will only get into more of a mess by trying to have it otherwise. Get those bishops out of the house of lords while we are at it.


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it doesnt make me a bigot . Theres a difference between being personally socially conservative and a hate monger or someone whod argue for bullying and discrimination against a minority , a serious difference between the two concepts . As far as im concerned on a purely personal level an actual bigot is nothing less than a bully . I despise bullies and bullying with every fibre of my being, including right on liberal ones . I cant stand to see another person personally humiliated, even if i fucking hate them . That goes for the political and personal sphere . Bigotry is not part of my personal make up . Slag me off for being socially conservative, fair enough . But absolutely nowhere do i advocate hatred or discrimination against anyone . Thats what actual bigots do .
> And if im being judged on every last word and syllable then let everyone else be as well .


Poofter


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Fair play to Casually Red for trying to answer 8 different posters at once. It's not easy.


 
talk about  clusterfucked


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Given that most of them 8 posters are making substantially the same criticisms then a few well aimed and well argued returns would serve to score a point against them all at once would it not? Beating numbers is not that difficult if you're coming from a well-informed and defensible position.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

Did they just vote yes?  Was it a free vote?

I'm a bit out of the loop.  What's next?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> I still have not heard any argument from those against this that explains how it affects them ? How does this affect any hetrosexual people in any way ? Seeing as the vast majority of weddings are civil ceremonies not sure why the religious are getting their knickers in a twist..............
> 
> only reason i can see for people getting into such a state is that the bigoted will no longer be able to use the lack of equality as a back up for their argument.............if the state accepts and makes legal same sex marriage they will come unstuck when telling their kids homosexuality is wrong won't they


 
Under the analysis of the right, fertile marriage within nuclear families is the one and only solution to the problem of human socialisation. Social problems:- terrorism, poverty, vandalism, school indiscipline, childhood obesity, school bullying, depression and loneliness must be brought down to some aspects of the decline of the nuclear family ie the rise of other,non-married or divorced families. Since homosexual partnership involves the importation of a baby from elsewhere - it must be resisted and delayed for as long as possible - to give the traditional nuclear family a chance to survive. 
Modern lunacy but there we are.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> yet


Ok, let's try a different approach, shall we? Are Catholic churches currently legally obliged to marry non-Catholic heterosexual couples?


----------



## xes (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I made my point . I view marriage as an instituion/sacrament that pertains solely to a mixed gender couple .


And this (is one of the things which..) makes you a cunt.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

8115 said:


> Did they just vote yes? Was it a free vote?
> 
> I'm a bit out of the loop. What's next?


passed first reading with 175 votes against


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

8115 said:


> Did they just vote yes? Was it a free vote?
> 
> I'm a bit out of the loop. What's next?


 
It was...seems most of the opposition has come from inside the Tory party.


----------



## RedDragon (Feb 5, 2013)

That's higher than I was expecting which is depressing.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 5, 2013)

I think, and I could be wrong, but it's a yes on the proviso that this next vote gets a no.  

So in other words, if this vote says yes to further consideration, it'll be another two days before the bill is passed, if they vote no, then the bill has been passed tonight.

I think that's how it's working at any rate.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

Oh. I thought that meant it had gone through.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 5, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Oh. I thought that meant it had gone through.


 
I could be wrong though.  I hope I am!


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Oh. I thought that meant it had gone through.


 
It has, read the news. Next the committee stage.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> It has, read the news. Next the committee stage.


 
I had...purenarcotic made me wonder if I'd read it wrong though.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> It has, read the news. Next the committee stage.


 
I thought the further consideration thing made it hang in the balance for the next two days. I don't really understand this vote bit tbh.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

It never goes through straight away.

Is there, first reading, committees, second reading (also votes on amendments), house of lords.

I think that's right.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

No it's not, because this is the second reading.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> I think, and I could be wrong, but it's a yes on the proviso that this next vote gets a no.
> 
> So in other words, if this vote says yes to further consideration, it'll be another two days before the bill is passed, if they vote no, then the bill has been passed tonight.
> 
> I think that's how it's working at any rate.


Nah there's months and months of committee stuff then the lords and so on yet.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 5, 2013)

Cheers guys.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

8115 said:


> No it's not, because this is the second reading.


...then committee stage then report stage then third reading - and that's just the commons.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

Is it fair to say though it has gone through? I know the Lords can block it, but if they do it will show them up once again as a completely outdated idea.


----------



## Looby (Feb 5, 2013)

This result will determine if there will be a further 2 days of consideration.

It's not through yet.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

when do we get the list of mps who voted against?


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2013)

Did I jst see this right? Tory Riger Gale calling for civil unions to he allowed vetween brothers and sisters?!?

Really chasing the rural votes then...


----------



## Corax (Feb 5, 2013)

I think I won my mum round to the 'for' side earlier.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

Corax said:


> I think I won my mum round to the 'for' side earlier.


 
I'm still working on it.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

chilango said:


> Did I jst see this right? Tory Riger Gale calling for civil unions to he allowed vetween brothers and sisters?!?
> 
> ...


 
And onto the next liberal hobby horse .


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> And onto the next liberal hobby horse .


 
I don't think I've ever heard any arguments for this...far from a liberal "hobby horse"


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> And onto the next liberal hobby horse .


what?


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> I don't think I've ever heard any arguments for this...far from a liberal "hobby horse"


 
well Roger Gale appears to be making one . And why not ? Sure wouldnt it only be some sort of medieval superstitious taboo that discriminates against people who love each other..or something .


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

Was he being ironic?  As in, what's next?


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

Yes.

Also, This is Kent 

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Sir-Rog...sex-marriage/story-18059626-detail/story.html


----------



## agricola (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well Roger Gale appears to be making one . And why not ? Sure wouldnt it only be some sort of medieval superstitious taboo that discriminates against people who love each other..or something .


 
Isnt he making an argument that you should be allowed to marry a hobby horse?

Also in one of the more meaningless coincidences, it seems there were exactly the same number of Tory rebels on this as there were Labour rebels against the last Iraq vote in 2003.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Is it fair to say though it has gone through? I know the Lords can block it, but if they do it will show them up once again as a completely outdated idea.


That wouldn't stop them. I'm not sure they will block it though. Well, obviously some of them will want to but it could still go through.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Galloway votes for, was that expected?


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2013)

8115 said:


> Was he being ironic?  As in, what's next?



He mutteredsomething about it nit being about incest but about property rights.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well Roger Gale appears to be making one . And why not ? Sure wouldnt it only be some sort of medieval superstitious taboo that discriminates against people who love each other..or something .


 
No...I think that's simple genetic common sense, but nice to see your equating homosexuality with incest.

I suppose it will lead to noncery next.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 5, 2013)

As expected... the Daily Mail comments section is funny as fuck!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> And onto the next liberal hobby horse .


Remember what i said about well-informed well-argued positions? Gale is a far righter, not a liberal and he was seeking to undermine the idea of any gay relationship by putting it on the same civil level as incest.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

Edit: Butchers has corrected that one.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

If this goes through, will places that have a marriage licence be legally obliged to offer same sex marriage?  Is there going to be a load of equalities vs. religious freedoms cases?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

8115 said:


> If this goes through, will places that have a marriage licence be legally obliged to offer same sex marriage? Is there going to be a load of equalities vs. religious freedoms cases?


 
No...I thought that was clear from the start.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> No...I thought that was clear from the start.


 
I haven't been concentrating.


----------



## Corax (Feb 5, 2013)

I'd smash her back doors in.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

Corax said:


> I'd smash her back doors in.


 
Is she a liberal though?


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> No...I think that's simple genetic common sense, but nice to see your equating homosexuality with incest.


 
my apologies, it makes common genetic sense .


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> my apologies, it makes common genetic sense .


 
So you don't see this as a complete red herring then? There are good reasons why people closely related shouldn't breed. None of which applies to homosexuals.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> So you don't see this as a complete red herring then? There are good reasons why people closely related shouldn't breed. None of which applies to homosexuals.


 
so marriage is about breeding afterall ? And not solely about 2 people who love each other being seen as equal to everyone else in society  ?


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Gale is a far righter, not a liberal and he was seeking to undermine the idea of any gay relationship by putting it on the same civil level as incest.


 
It's the same argument made by people like Rick Santorum in the US - "If you let gay couples marry then you must surely allow polygamy/incest/bestiality" - and it already sounds as dated as the arguments against repealing anti-miscegenation laws a generation ago.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> so marriage is about breeding afterall ? And not solely about 2 people who love each other being seen as equal to everyone else in society ?


 
I don't see why you have this as a problem. Should infertile men and women - people unable to breed - not be able to get married? Presumably every post-menopausal woman would be barred.

In my mind, marriage should be abolished, civil partnerships that can be made and unmade easily (for any type of nonrelated couple) - without divorce lawyers is a way to go, alongside full economic emancipation for women and socialised equal childcare.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I don't see why you have this as a problem. Should infertile men and women - people unable to breed - not be able to get married? Presumably every post-menopausal woman would be barred.
> .


 
why are you even asking me this ? Im not the one whos just claimed marriage is about breeding and that adults who love each other should be banned from entering into marriage or civil partnerships on that basis  



> In my mind, marriage should be abolished, civil partnerships that can be made and unmade easily (for any type of nonrelated couple) - without divorce lawyers is a way to go, alongside full economic emancipation for women and socialised equal childcare


 
your certainly entitled to your opinion, its perfectly legitmate and not without merit .


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Parliament's great right now, it's like a "shows us whether you're a cunt or a reasonable human being" session.


 
I disagree.

On this particular issue, David Cameron would show up in the "reasonable human being" category

That doesn't mean he's not a cunt


----------



## cantsin (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Because the very next step will be to challenge the 'ban' that this legislation claims will exempt the C of E from being made to conduct these utterly ridiculous ceremony's. Essentially the notion of a church being forced to conduct them under equality legislation will then be the next thing up for 'debate' and that is when things start getting very very messy.


yep, the 94 % of people in this country who never attend church/any other place of worship on a regular basis are quaking in their boots you deluded, irrelevant fart.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I disagree.
> 
> On this particular issue, David Cameron would show up in the "reasonable human being" category
> 
> That doesn't mean he's not a cunt


 
I didn't say this was the only issue determining cuntishness.

Simply that there were quite a few MPs nailing their flags firmly to the "I'm a cunt mast".


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2013)

It'll be dogs and cats living together, next.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> I didn't say this was the only issue determining cuntishness.
> 
> Simply that there were quite a few MPs nailing their flags firmly to the "I'm a cunt mast".


along with a  few posters on here - CR, ffs....


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 5, 2013)

Corax said:


> I'd smash her back doors in.


 
are you sure it's not a drag queen liberal hobby horse?


----------



## dylans (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> so marriage is about breeding afterall ? And not solely about 2 people who love each other being seen as equal to everyone else in society ?


Marriage is about whatever those getting married want it to be about. For some that may mean children, for many it doesn't. I don't think there is any single definition of what marriage is "for" that can be applied to an institution that people enter for many diverse reasons. The bottom line is they love each other, want to be with each other and want that union to have some legal basis. 

As for incest. Its comparing apples and oranges to compare same sex marriage with incest but follow your own logic through. You said earlier that you supported civil partnerships right? Well the same fallacious comparison could be made to civil partnerships.That they are the slippery slope to incestuous civil partnerships or bestial civil partnerships.In fact I am sure exactly this argument was made by those who opposed civil partnerships too.

So this begs the question why then do you claim to support the legalisation of civil partnerships? And if you (quite rightly) respond tha it is absurd to make this comparison in regards to civil partnerships then why is it any less absurd to make it in reference to marriage?

If you seriously believe that offering equal marriage rights to gay people is in any way comparable to incest or bestiality or polygamy or whatever other silly comparison people make, then at least be consistent and oppose civil partnerships too. As it is, all you are doing is opposing a word.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

cantsin said:


> yep, the 94 % of people in this country who never attend church/any other place of worship on a regular basis are quaking in their boots you deluded, irrelevant fart.


 
Ever heard about being graceful in victory ? Congratulations, you have won. Labour guaranteed a victory in the next election and a Tory party which is about to embark on a vicious civil war. Happy days. All with the utterly bizarre idea of a supposed Conservative Prime Minister being the one who has driven this. Oh well. C'est la vie.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It'll be dogs and cats living together, next.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> I didn't say this was the only issue determining cuntishness.
> 
> Simply that there were quite a few MPs nailing their flags firmly to the "I'm a cunt mast".


 
fair enough



FridgeMagnet said:


> It'll be dogs and cats living together, next.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2013)

CR are you actually arguing this ffs. Take a look at yourself. Jesus.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 5, 2013)

FILTH !!!!!


(not you froggy by the way)


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It'll be dogs and cats living together, next.


 
Catlover (co-carer for three) gets very worried ....


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Labour guaranteed a victory in the next election and a Tory party which is about to embark on a vicious civil war.


 
they should be careful what they wish for, cos they might get it. Labour-tories in for decades , extreme right as the electoral alternative . Because of an issue nobody even campaigned on .

I suppose here in Ireland Im a lot more used to people having a referendum on this type of thing , rather than the way they do it in westminster. Strikes me as well authoritarian.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> why are you even asking me this ? Im not the one whos just claimed marriage is about breeding and that adults who love each other should be banned from entering into marriage or civil partnerships on that basis


 
I think that's a result. Casually Red does support marriage being an option for homosexual couples as well - same baseline as for heterosexual couples. Right?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> they should be careful what they wish for, cos they might get it. Labour-tories in for decades , extreme right as the electoral alternative . Because of an issue nobody even campaigned on .


 
Not sure if it will be for decades. I cannot imagine the current Tory party staying together for much longer now and I suspect that they will look to get rid of Dave hopefully very quickly now. Or at least I hope they do.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 5, 2013)

How did Hague vote today? 2000 seems a long time ago. 



> Conservative leader William Hague has underlined his support for the controversial Section 28 ban on promoting homosexuality.
> Mr Hague is opposed to the government's plans to repeal the ban, saying it was guilty of contempt for parents and tax-payers.


 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/619366.stm


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> CR are you actually arguing this ffs. Take a look at yourself. Jesus.


 
whats "this" ?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 5, 2013)

Am I the only one to find it utterly hilarious, the way that touchstone issues of social liberalism and equality bring out the same pavlovian revert-to-type reactions in Tory MPs, for all Cameron's spinning to the contrary? It's not just all those against it, it's the way the whole issue of Gay Marriage gets them to say such thunderingly stupid things in their opposition. It's as if they're determined to prove how much of a bunch of bigoted dinosaurs they really are.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Ever heard about being graceful in victory ? Congratulations, you have won. Labour guaranteed a victory in the next election and a Tory party which is about to embark on a vicious civil war. Happy days. All with the utterly bizarre idea of a supposed Conservative Prime Minister being the one who has driven this. Oh well. C'est la vie.


 
"graceful in victory " ? the victory will be when we dont have to any longer even listen to the irrelevant dribblings of the tiny remaining rump of bigots and mysto-cretins ( and CR ) - that day is getting closer, but we're not there yet.

Re: the Tory party falling apart, unfortunately not true, this could be useful for them long term in terms of starting a much needed repositioning process, and much less painfully than the eltroral meltdown that is forcing the US Repubs to rethink the demographic/political timebomb ticking away. And in the short term , the idiot brigade tend to live in strong Tory majority seats , and the 'liberal' wing in more marginal one's,along with gay/floating voters that could now be on board , so this could well have very little net effect electorally ( certainly compared to the economic probs ) - you havent even managed to get this right basically.

Give up.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> How did Hague vote today? 2000 seems a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/619366.stm


 
that was before he was caught out


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

cantsin said:


> "graceful in victory " ? the victory will be when we dont have to any longer even listen to the irrelevant dribblings of the tiny remaining rump of bigots and mysto-cretins ( and CR ) - that day is getting closer, but we're not there yet.
> 
> Re: the Tory party falling apart, unfortunately not true, this could be useful for them long term in terms of starting a much needed repositioning process, and much less painfully than the eltroral meltdown that is forcing the US Repubs to rethink the demographic/political timebomb ticking away. And in the short term , the idiot brigade tend to live in strong Tory majority seats , and the 'liberal' wing in more marginal one's,along with gay/floating voters that could now be on board , so this could well have very little net effect electorally ( certainly compared to the economic probs ) - you havent even managed to get this right basically.
> 
> Give up.


 
If there is not a serious attempt to oust Cameron from within the Tory ranks in the next 6 months then I will be giving up. Because a Conservative party leadership should not, in any circumstances, be putting through legislation that sees that numbers of their own MP's voting against and having to rely on the support of the opposition to put it through.  And if a Parliamentary Conservative party allows that to happen without looking to remove that leadership then its only worthy of utter contempt.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I made my point . I view marriage as an instituion/sacrament that pertains solely to a mixed gender couple.


 
Yes, and it still is. The vote today was concerned with changing that. Trivial observation rather than an argument as such.



Casually Red said:


> I view it as inevitable that this legalisation will eventuallly result in court challenges to any religious faiths refusal to go along with the liberal agenda, because logic dictates that once the state has approved it anyone refusing to accomodate it will be acting in a discriminatory manner .


 
'Eventually' is a long time. And it will need further laws on top of this one to make it stick. Did you find any evidence of this happening so far in the countries that have legalised gay marriage? If it has not happened in any of these countries, are they somehow flouting the dictates of logic?



Casually Red said:


> I see it as inevitable that freedom of conscience and religious beliefs and practice will come under attack and compliance will be legally forced on people by the forces of liberalism.


 
That's a statement of faith, so I won't be counting it as an argument any more than the other faith-based stuff (well, they are arguments, but not ones that can be argued against, so I won't).



Casually Red said:


> In pretty much the same way these smug social engineering fucks have almost banned cigarettes . Personal freedoms and beliefs and the right to hold them will inevitably comeunder sustained attack . And anyone who doubts that need only look at the hysterical - indeed obligatory -insults being thrown around against those who dont support it . The liberals simply create a moral panic and then dispense with with any free or reasoned argument .


 
This bit, on the other hand, I have a degree of sympathy with. I think changing the law on this is the right thing to do but it has no more to do with freedom or democracy than Saddam Hussein's occasional gracious freeing of the odd political prisoner. I think it's incidental to the rights or wrongs of this particular issue.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> they should be careful what they wish for, cos they might get it. Labour-tories in for decades , extreme right as the electoral alternative . Because of an issue nobody even campaigned on .
> 
> I suppose here in Ireland Im a lot more used to people having a referendum on this type of thing , rather than the way they do it in westminster. Strikes me as well authoritarian.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> If there is not a serious attempt to oust Cameron from within the Tory ranks in the next 6 months then I will be giving up. Because a Conservative party leadership should not, in any circumstances, be putting through legislation that sees that numbers of their own MP's voting against and having to rely on the support of the opposition to put it through. And if a Parliamentary Conservative party allows that to happen without looking to remove that leadership then its only worthy of utter contempt.


 
Who would you prefer as leader? Boris still has a while to go as mayor.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Who would you prefer as leader? Boris still has a while to go as mayor.


 
Boris is dead to me ever since he vetoed the adverts on the buses about the gays who can be cured. It was a disgusting bit of political censorship. I will wait and see who emerges from this debacle with some credit. Its all about those who take the lead in the coming weeks and launch the coup.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Boris is dead to me ever since he vetoed the adverts on the buses about the gays who can be cured. It was a disgusting bit of political censorship.


 
Don't you think it was an insult to gay people, to claim that they can be 'cured', as well as being a load of old bollocks.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Boris is dead to me ever since he vetoed the adverts on the buses about the gays who can be cured. It was a disgusting bit of political censorship. I will wait and see who emerges from this debacle with some credit. Its all about those who take the lead in the coming weeks and launch the coup.


Marvellous, triple dip recession, expanding public debt, plummeting real incomes, and the thing these clowns get upset about is something that doesn't affect them in the slightest


----------



## cantsin (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> If there is not a serious attempt to oust Cameron from within the Tory ranks in the next 6 months then I will be giving up. Because a Conservative party leadership should not, in any circumstances, be putting through legislation that sees that numbers of their own MP's voting against and having to rely on the support of the opposition to put it through. And if a Parliamentary Conservative party allows that to happen without looking to remove that leadership then its only worthy of utter contempt.


good luck with it all, and goodbye.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Tory roll of shame http://t.co/TQjtX5qp

My Tory MP voted for bless his little cotton socks.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Don't you think it was an insult to gay people, to claim that they can be 'cured', as well as being a load of old bollocks.


 
The advert passed all the criteria that is required and the money had been paid. Boris pulled them purely for his own political considerations. It was a disgusting and blatant piece of political censorship. Whether you thought it insulting or not was not the point.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> passed first reading with 175 votes against


Much higher than I expected, I thought when it came down to it the right wing would realise that they can't afford to look like a disunited party atm. Obviously crediting them with too much intelligence.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> My Tory MP voted for bless his little cotton socks.


 
As did mine.  But then she always votes exactly how she's told so no brownie points for her.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> they should be careful what they wish for, cos they might get it. Labour-tories in for decades , extreme right as the electoral alternative . Because of an issue nobody even campaigned on .
> 
> I suppose here in Ireland Im a lot more used to people having a referendum on this type of thing , rather than the way they do it in westminster. Strikes me as well authoritarian.


 
lols, not even a grain of consistency from you, 'liberal this , liberal that' one minute, then's it's all 'freedom of conscience' ,'authoritarian' and 'referendum' the next - just a load of bigoted old bollocks, and all the 'liberal' name calling in the world wont hide it.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

I notice Gordon Brown didn't vote...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> I notice Gordon Brown didn't vote...


That would involve actually turning up at parliament.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 5, 2013)

john redwood voted against.

at least some things are dependable.

I wonder if he mentioned the sanctity of marriage as well?


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That would involve actually turning up at parliament.


 
Yeah I can't remember the last time I saw him speak there, not that I pay close attention to every day's business.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 5, 2013)

chilango said:


> Did I jst see this right? Tory Riger Gale calling for civil unions to he allowed vetween brothers and sisters?!?
> 
> Really chasing the rural votes then...


 
IIRC the Tories attempted to amend the civil partnerships bill to allow siblings to enter into them   This was on the grounds that civil partnerships gave extra rights to same sex couples which couples of the opposite sex and same sex siblings do not. Of course it was a stupid position, they were opposed to gay marriage because marriage is between a man and woman and were opposed to civil partnerships because it gave extra rights to same sex couples.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2013)

The giant libdem guinea pig voted against.



> The four who opposed it were: Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed), Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley), John Pugh (Southport), Sarah Teather (Brent Central).


----------



## Quartz (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it may come as a surprise to you , but as far as the world is concerned outside the little brixton bubble of regular crack cocaine enemas and compulsory wolfbagging its perfectly normal to regard marriage as something between a man and a woman .


 
Being in the majority doesn't make you right. You can be in a minority of one and still be right.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 5, 2013)

Combustible said:


> IIRC the Tories attempted to amend the civil partnerships bill to allow siblings to enter into them This was on the grounds that civil partnerships gave extra rights to same sex couples which couples of the opposite sex and same sex siblings do not.


 
Right idea; wrong reason. I wrote earlier in the thread about elderly relatives living together and being clobbered by Inheritance Tax when one dies.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Being in the majority doesn't make you right. You can be in a minority of one and still be right.


_Some_ people can be. Not everyone.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 5, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> It's weird, it's like some kind of religious imposed mental blank, because she's one of the most accepting people I know. The argument would be that should have the same rights - you just shouldn't call the ceremony marriage.


 
That sounds kind of childish: 'You can have the same rights as us when it comes to this: you just can't call it by the  same name we use, so that we can continue to think of you as being different in a whole bunch of ways'.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Being in the majority doesn't make you right. You can be in a minority of one and still be right.


Of course in this case, CR is both in the minority and wrong. Good work.


----------



## elbows (Feb 5, 2013)

My tedious scrote of a tory MP voted against.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> The advert passed all the criteria that is required and the money had been paid. Boris pulled them purely for his own political considerations. It was a disgusting and blatant piece of political censorship. Whether you thought it insulting or not was not the point.


 
So if I paid my money I could have an advert that said black people are inferior...because that's the line your going down here.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 5, 2013)

What the fuck is wolfbagging?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 5, 2013)

Favelado said:


> What the fuck is wolfbagging?


 
Like wolfwhistling, but with a bag.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 5, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Like wolfwhistling, but with a bag.


 
I thought it was trying to catch a wolf in a burlap sack.


----------



## dylans (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Boris is dead to me ever since he vetoed the adverts on the buses about the gays who can be cured. It was a disgusting bit of political censorship. I will wait and see who emerges from this debacle with some credit. Its all about those who take the lead in the coming weeks and launch the coup.


That's a curious point of principle. Would you defend adverts offering other miracle "cures" such as woo woo pills for curing cancer or snake oil for curing HIV or claims of miraculous prayer healings for paralysis etc?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> So if I paid my money I could have an advert that said black people are inferior...because that's the line your going down here.


 
No because it would not have passed the vetting procedure. Which is the point. The ad was deemed suitable by those whose job it is to make that decision. Boris intervened and had it withdrawn using his own power of veto. It was an act of political censorship. It really was that very simple.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 5, 2013)

So basically standing up for his conscience on what was right? Shit am I going to have to admire the man now?


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Much higher than I expected, I thought when it came down to it the right wing would realise that they can't afford to look like a disunited party atm. Obviously crediting them with too much intelligence.


It seems it was an actual majority of Tories who voted against. Good to see they're still the party for bigots. 


Early voting lists show that 136 Conservatives opposed the bill.

Of the remaining Conservative MPs, 127 were in favour, 35 did not vote, and five registered an abstention by voting both in favour and against.


----------



## dylans (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> It seems it was an actual majority of Tories who voted against. Good to see they're still the party for bigots.
> 
> 
> Early voting lists show that 136 Conservatives opposed the bill.
> ...


No prizes for guessing which way the DUP MPs voted


----------



## 8ball (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> It seems it was an actual majority of Tories who voted against.


 
Well, no, but more voted 'against' than 'for'.

Knives are going to be out for Cameron.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

SNP entirely absent


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

8ball said:


> Knives are going to be out for Cameron.


 
They have to be. And hopefully soon. Always said that the biggest threat to this coalition came from within the Tory ranks rather than the Lib Dems having any spine.


----------



## dylans (Feb 5, 2013)

Ian Duncan Smith voted for it despite voting against civil partnerships in 2004.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2013)

Knives are always out for Cameron. This is an instance of him knifing back.


----------



## elbows (Feb 5, 2013)

Favelado said:


> What the fuck is wolfbagging?


 
The definition available when googling the term appears not to be incompatible with the institute of marriage  You'll have to look it up to make any sense of this post though.



> The *Dunmow Flitch Trials *exist to award a flitch of bacon to married couples from anywhere in the world, if they can satisfy the Judge and Jury of 6 maidens and 6 bachelors that in _'twelvemonth and a day'_, they have _'not wisht themselves unmarried again'_.​


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i didnt call him a monster . I simply voiced the opinion that he shouldnt be walking about in public with his cock out in non designated nudist areas where children might encounter him . I dont believe for one minute that makes me an accomplice of adolf hitler.


 
You mean in this post? 



> personally id shoot the cunt


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 5, 2013)

dylans said:


> Ian Duncan Smith voted for it despite voting against civil partnerships in 2004.


 
He knows he's facing eternal damnation whatever he does from now on. Probably tossed a coin.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 5, 2013)

This has been a fucking awful day for the Tories but a great day for my semi.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> No because it would not have passed the vetting procedure. Which is the point. The ad was deemed suitable by those whose job it is to make that decision. Boris intervened and had it withdrawn using his own power of veto. It was an act of political censorship. It really was that very simple.


 
Maybe he felt they hadn't done their job properly.  What if they'd passed a racist advert?

I don't know why people try and debate this topic, it's like nailing jelly to the ceiling.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

8115 said:


> Maybe he felt they hadn't done their job properly. What if they'd passed a racist advert?
> 
> I don't know why people try and debate this topic, it's like nailing jelly to the ceiling.


 
And what if my granny had wheels instead of feet ?

The ad was vetted and deemed suitable. Boris comes in and makes a political decision to remove it. Its censorship. Now you can either say you dont have a problem with politicians censoring adverts on the sides of buses or you think its wrong but it is a question of censorship, no matter what.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> And what if my granny had wheels instead of feet ?
> 
> The ad was vetted and deemed suitable. Boris comes in and makes a political decision to remove it. Its censorship. Now you can either say you dont have a problem with politicians censoring adverts on the sides of buses or you think its wrong but it is a question of censorship, no matter what.


 
The vetting is a political process itself.


----------



## RedDragon (Feb 5, 2013)

*The full list of MPs voting for or against gay marriage.*

BBC News


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 5, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> *The full list of MPs voting for or against gay marriage.*
> 
> BBC News


 
So Hague voted for. He's been on a journey.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 5, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> So Hague voted for. He's been on a journey.


 
It was only four years ago that Cameron voted against equal rights for lesbian couples, insisting that doctors should be able to identify a suitable "father figure" before giving fertility treatment to them. It could be a journey or it could deciding to play the piano instead of the trombone.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2013)

Do you think Cameron hopes this is his Clause 4 moment?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 5, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Do you think Cameron hopes this is his Clause 4 moment?


 
Not really. More his Oscar Schindler moment.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2013)

He's made a large number of his political enemies look like antiquated idiots, in public, damned not only by his own spin but by theirs. I imagine he's pretty happy.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 5, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> So basically standing up for his conscience on what was right? Shit am I going to have to admire the man now?


 
with Boris, I think it's was more likely to be standing up for what his PR adviser told him was right...



bi0boy said:


> It was only four years ago that Cameron voted against equal rights for lesbian couples, insisting that doctors should be able to identify a suitable "father figure" before giving fertility treatment to them. It could be a journey or it could deciding to play the piano instead of the trombone.


 
Yes - within a few weeks of his conference speech about family being any combination of gender couple...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> And what if my granny had wheels instead of feet ?
> 
> The ad was vetted and deemed suitable. Boris comes in and makes a political decision to remove it. Its censorship. Now you can either say you dont have a problem with politicians censoring adverts on the sides of buses or you think its wrong but it is a question of censorship, no matter what.


 
Never mind censorship, allowing the ad to run would amount to an act of psychological violence against gay people. If not allowing people to go around beating up gays in the street amounts to stifling their right to creative expression then I'm still absolutely fine with it.

Saying you can cure homosexuality is not an opinion, it's a lie.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Never mind censorship, allowing the ad to run would amount to an act of psychological violence against gay people.


 
About half the ads I see on billboards amount to an act of psychological violence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 5, 2013)

8ball said:


> About half the ads I see on billboards amount to an act of psychological violence.


 
I quite agree, and I'm all for banning them too. All adverts in public spaces in fact. But if we have to start with banning the ones consisting entirely of lies and outright bigotry then that'll have to do.


----------



## where to (Feb 5, 2013)

RedDragon said:
			
		

> The full list of MPs voting for or against gay marriage.
> 
> BBC News



Worth noting, Galloway voted for g/m.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> He's made a large number of his political enemies look like antiquated idiots, in public, damned not only by his own spin but by theirs. I imagine he's pretty happy.


You stop them cleaning their moats on the public purse, you stop them claiming for duck houses - this could be the one that finally kills off a few of the backwoodsmen in their sleep tonight.  Keeping everything crossed.


----------



## T & P (Feb 5, 2013)

Phone-ins on the wireless have been very entertaining today as well, with the sort of loons one could expect to hear from all coming out of the woodwork to vent their anger. Tomorrow should be even better.


----------



## little_legs (Feb 6, 2013)

Sarah Teather's statement


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 6, 2013)

little_legs said:


> Sarah Teather's statement


 
So another cunt dressing it up in nice language.



> My concern, however, is that by moving to a definition of marriage that no longer requires sexual difference, we will, over time, ultimately decouple the _definition_ of marriage from family life altogether. I doubt that this change will be immediate. It will be gradual, as perceptions of what marriage is and is for shift. But we can already see the foundations for this shift in the debate about same-sex marriage.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 6, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> So Hague voted for. He's been on a journey.


 
hypocrisy could easily be a public interest defence in any privacy case, he's just planning ahead


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 6, 2013)

little_legs said:


> Sarah Teather's statement


 
Should go in the why the lib-dems are shit thread.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 6, 2013)

just realised i never got round to posting this on the thread


----------



## elbows (Feb 6, 2013)

> My concern, however, is that by moving to a definition of marriage that no longer requires sexual difference, we will, over time, ultimately decouple the _definition_ of marriage from family life altogether.


 
What a crock of shit that perhaps hints at her true reservations, albeit in a thoroughly feeble manner. People go on about humans having screwed up attitudes towards sex but I think what we are seeing here are some very screwed up attitudes towards the entire concept of family life, family values, strong families and all the foaming that goes with it. By fretting about some mysterious future decoupling she's not protecting anything other than a very narrow kind of traditional thinking, the likes of which had previously been obscured by her apparent stance towards gay equality. But when push comes to shove she's been forced to show that she hasnt really got her head round this stuff at all, and I do not find her explanation remotely credible. Pathetic and of benefit to nobody, a doomed position that does nothing to slow the trends towards marriage being irrelevant that she frets about as if thats what actually leaves children exposed to the horrors of insecure and wobbly relationships. If thats how she and others think the world works then why havent they proposed some new hideous penalties for getting divorced?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 6, 2013)

belboid said:


> SNP entirely absent


Hmmm, what reasoning did they give?


----------



## ymu (Feb 6, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> So the Catholics won't be able to do it because they can't go against their organisation's stance? Well the state either forces them to adhere to passed legislation, or it doesn't, in which case said legislation is as effective as a split condom. And that's why all this bruhaha in the press and in Westminster is so counterproductive. The tories don't give a toss about gay equality. That's the problem. They are stoking discord. Just as they do with Europe. Anything to cover their absolute ineptitude regarding the really important issues such as our zombie economy.


All religions are exempted from those elements of equalities legislation which conflict with religious doctrine and have been since equalities legislation came into existence.

This bill has nothing to do with religion.*

Currently, the state does not recognise gay marriage, which has the _de facto_ effect of banning any religion from performing gay marriages whether they want to or not. When this bill becomes law, the state will recognise gay marriages and religions will be free to marry gay people if they want to. They will remain as free as they have always been to determine who may or may not marry within their faith.

And yes, of course it's a bit of political theatre. None of these fuckers give a toss, do you think that'll change any time soon? Just be thankful that they're tying themselves in knots whilst increasing freedoms for once.


*except for the bit where they ban the C of E from joining in. They're basically granting religious freedom to all faiths apart from the C of E.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> All religions are exempted from those elements of equalities legislation which conflict with religious doctrine and have been since equalities legislation came into existence.



Not really, no. There are certain exemptions but they don't get a magic pass.


----------



## ymu (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Not really, no. There are certain exemptions but they don't get a magic pass.


Can you summarise the details for our paranoid friends then? Can they be forced to marry teh gays when this bill becomes law?


----------



## ymu (Feb 6, 2013)

Never mind. Found this:



> The exemption allows a religious organisation to impose restrictions on its membership, participation in its activities, the use of any goods, facilities or services it provides, and the use of its premises.
> 
> Any restriction can only be imposed by reference to a person’s religion or belief or sexual orientation.  In relation to religion or belief, the restriction is only permitted if it is imposed because of the purpose of the organisation or to avoid causing offence to members of that religion or belief.
> 
> ...


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> Can you summarise the details for our paranoid friends then? Can they be forced to marry teh gays when this bill becomes law?



In terms of equalities legislation (nowadays mainly the Equality Act 2010):



> The exemption allows a religious organisation to impose restrictions on its membership, participation in its activities, the use of any goods, facilities or services it provides, and the use of its premises.
> 
> Any restriction can only be imposed by reference to a person’s religion or belief or sexual orientation.  In relation to religion or belief, the restriction is only permitted if it is imposed because of the purpose of the organisation or to avoid causing offence to members of that religion or belief.
> 
> In relation to sexual orientation, the restriction is only permitted where it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation or in order to avoid conflict with the strongly held convictions of members of the particular religion or belief.  If, however, an organisation contracts with a public body to carry out an activity, then it cannot discriminate because of sexual orientation in relation to that activity.



Yes, the exemption applies at the moment in relation to same sex marriage where that's contrary to a religion's particular doctrine. Yes, the exemption can be amended and/or removed if the bill is passed - this government has already removed provisions/amended the Equalities Act and it can do so again.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Oh, I see you found the same summary.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Am I the only one to find it utterly hilarious, the way that touchstone issues of social liberalism and equality bring out the same pavlovian revert-to-type reactions in Tory MPs, for all Cameron's spinning to the contrary? It's not just all those against it, it's the way the whole issue of Gay Marriage gets them to say such thunderingly stupid things in their opposition. It's as if they're determined to prove how much of a bunch of bigoted dinosaurs they really are.


 
Boris Johnson actually said something that made sense on the radio yesterday when he said the problem really was the huge decline in political membership across the main parties meant that they didn't really represent public opinion anymore. He claimed that both this issue and fox hunting were examples of how things that the public weren't bothered about had become important internally with the dwindling party membership.

Tories aren't going to either haemorage/gain or lose voters on this issue. Far right aren't going to do well out of it either.Europe, immigration and the recession  is the key for that.


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 6, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> *The full list of MPs voting for or against gay marriage.*
> 
> BBC News


Nadine Dorries is an independent?!

Oh  Yeah. OK.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 6, 2013)

elbows said:


> Pathetic and of benefit to nobody, a doomed position...


 
I thought you'd started to describe the former darling of the LibDems herself, then...


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 6, 2013)

mrs quoad said:


> Nadine Dorries is an independent?!


 
Her deeply-held principles were incompatible with membership of the parliamentary tory party. As was her television schedule.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No - grateful though I am for your condescending attitude I think I'll stick to saying what I think thanks very much. I was raised catholic so you can put it down to ignorance and brainwashing if you like.


 
I do not consider people ignorant or brainwashed based on their upbringing. that would be ignorant. I was raised Anglican FWIW, but in my experience most "Christians" do indeed base their knowledge of JC's purported teachings on a very limited range of texts, which by todays standards are as close to arbitary as makes no difference. It is not a logical position.

You were condescending in assuming I knew less about the faith than the bigoted blaspheming phobes within the faith.

"It's not just about Jesus and religion and power have always gone hand in hand"

Very true.

"so the idea that your 'imperialist motivated conference' marked some kind of shift is just nonsense."

It's highly significant beyond being any kind of shift, I think you're missing or obfuscating my point, though it doesn't much bother me.

"People of faith who disagree with your wooly, wishy washy new age weirdness aren't all stupid and ignorant."

No shit. How would it be wooly and wishy washy to think people who disagreed with me are "ignorant"? Are you confused? I have some strong principals that are actually far from wishy washy, but that's by the by - semi-random guesswork about my opinions seems to be your vibe and I'm wooly enough not to mind that either.

"I'd wager that my old dear would rip you to shreds in a theological debate..."


Maybe so. Chances are we won't find out in this life. If we're pulling parental rank I suppose my retired fathers status as a respected Philosophy academic and leading Anglo Catholic theologian may figure in the overall equation. I'll grant I'm not as orthodox as him, though he shares my position on Jesus and homosexuality - how could he not? 

"yet according to you she's an ignorant puppet unable to think for herself."

Where did I mention her or call her anything like that? Nowhere. I hope her logical faculties surpass yours by some distance.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

_Moving forward..._


----------



## Santino (Feb 6, 2013)

What the hell does this mean?




			
				Colin Hart (campaign director of the anti-equal marriage group Coalition for Marriage) said:
			
		

> We have consistently warned the legislation contains no safeguards for those who work in the public sector.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Two quick points - firstly, this is not a question of theology, it's a social question that some choose to dress in religious clothing - and attacking them via that religion will not either get to the root of their motivation or put forward the reasoning as to why discrimination is socially and individually harmful.


 
I agree. But they use theology as a blag, therefore a counter argument based on theology is legitimate and useful in unmasking the blag.

"Secondly, you seem to have a incredibly crude and reductive understanding of what constitutes theology. It really really is not just what jesus said or did. The catholic churches various dogmas on sexuality for example are not simply repeating what jesus said, they are arguments and positions based on the exercise of 'human reason' and are buttressed by all sorts of logical reasoning and explication - millenia's worth. If you did try and knock these arguments down you would very likely end up flat on your back due to this misunderstanding of how the church developed and defends it's intellectual positions and history - if you don't take it seriously they will destroy you (for example, they would be all over your post above where you talk of followers of jesus, that's jesus who brought the new covenant - but justify your claim by referring to the old covenant)."

It is not reductive to purport that Christianity claims Jesus as it's overwhelmingly prime teacher, or that nowhere in any scripture in or out of Nicea approved canon is there any opinion attributed to him regarding this matter.

The only means by which people can construct a "Christian" case against homosexuality or equal marriage is via contortions, exaggerations, disembling and other usual smokescreen tactics.

You say it's way more complex than what Jesus said. It has to be for theses Christians to justify their bigotry. It doesn't make that complexity remotely sound.

In one way it is simple : The notion that Jesus may have objected vehemently to same sex relations without any attributed quotes from him on the subject in any known scripture is simply absurd.

That they have to reach so far outside his teachings to prop up such vehement views makes them look rather silly.

it's not just a question of Catholicism (Roman or otherwise) - Evangelicals and other protestants can be highly homophobic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 6, 2013)

I would guess it means the poor public servants who will be forced to carry out gay weddings and could lose their jobs if they refuse.

at  Santino


----------



## sihhi (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Boris Johnson actually said something that made sense on the radio yesterday when he said the problem really was the huge decline in political membership across the main parties meant that they didn't really represent public opinion anymore. He claimed that both this issue and fox hunting were examples of how things that the public weren't bothered about had become important internally with the dwindling party membership.


 
Your general point is wholly correct about a general lack of interest in the marriage issue.

But don't fall for Boris and his "perceptions". He is only saying that fox hunting and gay marriage aren't worth bothering about, because he personally didn't see why fox hunting was an issue (ie should have stayed legal, anti-hunting people should be punished) or why partnership for gays, marriage for straights is not good enough. (It chimes with what the DUP are saying: the public don't much care, why is this part of parliamentary time even though it was not in the Queen's Speech.)

Johnson is Grade A hypocrite. If you've read his earlier views they are openly pro-hunting and openly anti-partnership rights for same-sex couples, pro-section 28 etc. If these things aren't crucial, then surely he should be in favour of parliament zapping them, not moaning when they finally happen. Look at the figures in the final vote - 400-175 that's one issue where the Commons (unlike others - cuts, armaments, transport, energy etc) *is* broadly in line with the public in favour of legal marriage status being available for same-sex partners. Johnson is talking his usual brand of airy waffle.

As for his complaint that people are detached from parliamentary politics, his neoliberalism is responsible - again the mark of hypocrite.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Bit more on teathers hypocrisy  political incoherence and opportunism:

A former Liberal Democrat minister has been criticised for voting against gay marriage, despite her website declaring the local party is “taking PRIDE in delivering Equal Marriage”
...

A post on the Sarah Teather and Brent Lib Dems website from January 25 promoted the idea that "equal marriage will strengthen the important tradition of marriage"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...espite-website-declaring-pride-in-policy.html


----------



## doddles (Feb 6, 2013)

As an atheist, unmarried person who has been in a stable, monogamous relationship with the same person for 18 years, without feeling the need or desire to enter into marriage or civil union, I see the granting of equal marriage rights to gays as a blatant attack on unmarried couples everywhere.

They are eroding the institution of Non-Marriage by forcing people to get married. First it was the religions that forced religious heterosexual couples to get married (or burn in the fires of hell). Now the government is getting in on the act with gay couples. Not only is this a deliberate attempt to reduce the size of our Non-Marriage congregation. It's also a poorly disguised effort to redefine Non-Marriage. The definition of Non-Marriage should be up to the Non-Married to define. The pushers of marriage have no right to redefine our institution.

It is, I fear, the thin edge of the wedge. How long before the government starts forcing atheists everywhere to marry? Are all Godless Non-Married pairs going to be forced out of their mutually beneficial and loving unmarried relationships? Will atheist heterosexual men be pushed into marrying muslim homosexual women in synagogs on Christmas Day? Where will it end?


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 6, 2013)

Hear ! Hear !

I'm in favour of taxing happy couples too.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

This was in the times today


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bit more on teathers hypocrisy political incoherence and opportunism:
> 
> A former Liberal Democrat minister has been criticised for voting against gay marriage, despite her website declaring the local party is “taking PRIDE in delivering Equal Marriage”
> ...
> ...


 
Rank hypocrisy.
Doesn't she want to join Labour?


----------



## youngian (Feb 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I view marriage as an instituion/sacrament that pertains solely to a mixed gender couple . I view it as inevitable that this legalisation will eventuallly result in court challenges to any religious faiths refusal to go along with the liberal agenda, because logic dictates that once the state has approved it anyone refusing to accomodate it will be acting in a discriminatory manner . I see it as inevitable that freedom of conscience and religious beliefs and practice will come under attack and compliance will be legally forced on people by the forces of liberalism.


 

There's a lot of ifs and buts in that, but as a matter of interest are you C of E? and if it is forced on them, would you prefer disestablishment from the state?

I don't care about the rules of voluntary private institutions, like Mosques, Methodist Chapels and Catholic churches, but I would warm to foisting gay marriage on the Anglicans if it forces them to threaten to become a private institution and take their legislating bishops and feudal flummery with them.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 6, 2013)

In a way I have a kind of respect for those who voted against, they stuck with their weird principles rather than abandoning them in the name of a re-branding PR exercise.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Or, they stuck with pretending to have these sort of views in order to  appear principled and keep things sweet with a handful of local party activists.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Or, they stuck with pretending to have these sort of views in order to appear principled and keep things sweet with a handful of local party activists.


 
Yeah, there would have been a few of those too to be fair.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This was in the times today


 
No more exclusives in the Times from Hague then...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 6, 2013)

8ball said:


> In a way I have a kind of respect for those who voted against, they stuck with their weird principles rather than abandoning them in the name of a re-branding PR exercise.


 
as in out and proud bigots rather than in the closet?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 6, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> as in out and proud bigots rather than in the closet?


 
They may be bigots but they ain't hypocrites with it.

It's not exactly the moral high ground, but it beats a lot of the others.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 6, 2013)

8ball said:


> They may be bigots but they ain't hypocrites with it.
> 
> It's not exactly the moral high ground, but it beats a lot of the others.


 
In all seriousness (and see my comment somewhere about Boris Johnson's (publicly stated) views on gay marriage having changed considerably - and I suspect more the result of intervention from his PR people than any genuine change of heart) I kinda agree with you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 6, 2013)

8ball said:


> They may be bigots but they ain't hypocrites with it.
> .


Sarah Teather is. Pretending to support equal rights then voting against. Strange how her principles pop out so selectively.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sarah Teather is. Pretending to support equal rights then voting against. Strange how her principles pop out so selectively.


 
I don't know anything about her - did she have something personal to gain by voting against?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 6, 2013)

8ball said:


> I don't know anything about her - did she have something personal to gain by voting against?


Doesn't appear to. Just has uncontrollable principles that rear up inside her every now and then. She appears able to suppress them most of the time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 6, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> In all seriousness (and see my comment somewhere about Boris Johnson's (publicly stated) views on gay marriage having changed considerably - and I suspect more the result of intervention from his PR people than any genuine change of heart) I kinda agree with you.


With politicians like Johnson, I think it's a mistake to look at them as if they believed anything. They exist to be elected, and say what is necessary to achieve that aim. It's easier to understand (and predict) people like him if you look at them like that.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't appear to. Just has uncontrollable principles that rear up inside her every now and then. She appears able to suppress them most of the time.


 
I read her 'justification' and couldn't make any sense of it to be honest.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> With politicians like Johnson, I think it's a mistake to look at them as if they believed anything. They exist to be elected, and say what is necessary to achieve that aim. It's easier to understand (and predict) people like him if you look at them like that.


 
Dunno.

I think BJ and his ilk genuinely believe in the natural supremacy of old etonians...


----------



## articul8 (Feb 6, 2013)

8ball said:


> I don't know anything about her - did she have something personal to gain by voting against?


 
She claims to be a catholic whose been searching her conscience, and came out with a long and barely coherent diatribe about marriage being a space for having kids.

But she's in a marginal so everything she says or does has also to be seen in that light.   Brent has big Irish and eastern european population, plus black churches quite influential and big hindu and muslim populations too.  I assume she thinks that voting against will keep the faith community sweet. 

This was her website yesterday BTW:


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 6, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Dunno.
> 
> I think BJ and his ilk genuinely believe in the natural supremacy of old etonians...


Ah yes, true. He certainly believes in the rightness of his privilege.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2013)

Evidence of the 'win-win' nature of this vote emerging here:-



> _However, the damage that prolonged coverage of Conservative infighting (on gay marriage, and presumably the leadership plot rumours) is clear – * 71% of people see the Conservatives as a divided party*, only 10% see them as a united party. This is a question YouGov have been asking since 2003, and this is *the highest ever proportion of people who have seen them as divided* – more than during the 2005 leadership challenge, or just before IDS was defenestrated._


----------



## paolo (Feb 6, 2013)

I'd be interested to see what the %ge no vote would be from Tory voters vs the  %ge we've just witnesses of Tory MPs.

Basically to see how out of touch they are with their own supporters.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

paolo said:


> I'd be interested to see what the %ge no vote would be from Tory voters vs the %ge we've just witnesses of Tory MPs.
> 
> Basically to see how out of touch they are with their own supporters.


They're largely in-line as it goes - 54% of 2010 tory voters oppose vs similar figs for MPs as judged by voting last night. (pdf)


----------



## paolo (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They're largely in-line as it goes - 54% of 2010 tory voters oppose vs similar figs for MPs as judged by voting last night. (pdf)



Ah ok - cheers for the link.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This was in the times today


I wonder if Rupert will apologise on twitter for this one.


----------



## Lea (Feb 7, 2013)

I think that gay people should be able to marry. However, I don't think that the Church should be forced to hold gay weddings. I think that they should have the independence to decide. Decision made because of the meaning of the sacrament of holy matrimony (a union of man and woman in marriage) but not because they think that homosexuality is wrong. Maybe another sacrament should be introduced?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 7, 2013)

Lea said:


> I think that gay people should be able to marry. However, I don't think that the Church should be forced to hold gay weddings. I think that they should have the independence to decide.


 
Broadly (apart from government making the decision for CoE not to do gay weddings) that's what is happening. 

I've not quite followed the background as to why the CoE gets its "no" enshrined in law and the others are allowed to say "no" for themselves - not sure if this was pressure from CoE or what.

Personally, I'd prefer dis-establishment of the CoE, and letting them make the decision for themselves and turfing the Bishops out of the Lords, but that's possibly another argument.

I'm not sure about the idea that some people (mainly antis) are floating about religious bodies getting taken to court if they don't.   At present, they are free to have a policy that they won't marry divorcees and not sure anyone's ever challenged that in court.

Personally, I'm not sure I can see the point in taking legal action to force a religious body (which isn't the same thing as a religion or faith) to carry out a ceremony it doesn't believe in for people it doesn't approve of.  I don't see it the same as provision of goods and services.

I'm sure many of us would however have something to say if a hypothetical religious body refused to do mixed race marriages on the grounds that it considered them not to be natural, but again I'd feel slightly uneasy about the law getting involved...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2013)

Lea said:


> I think that gay people should be able to marry. However, I don't think that the Church should be forced to hold gay weddings. I think that they should have the independence to decide. Decision made because of the meaning of the sacrament of holy matrimony (a union of man and woman in marriage) but not because they think that homosexuality is wrong. Maybe another sacrament should be introduced?


 
I don't think anyone would want to get married in a place that didn't want to marry them. Nor do I think there's any real way to force churches to marry people, or any willingness to actually try. The whole 'forcing' thing is a non issue.


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

There was another thread on this where I'm sure I had a lightbulb moment about why they've banned the C of E from performing gay marriages whilst allowing other religions the freedom to choose. Might have been something to do with disestablishment (avoiding legal momentum for).

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that they will try to force any religion to marry gay people within the timeframe required for religion itself to die a natural death. Theoretically possible, politically impossible. It's a complete red herring. The religious intervention in this debate is pure religious chauvinism on the grounds that they know The Truth and must rescue us heathens from ourselves.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 7, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Hmmm, what reasoning did they give?


 
They don't vote on legislation that doesn't apply to Scotland. They are putting similar legislation through the Scottish Parliament.


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 7, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Boris is dead to me ever since he vetoed the adverts on the buses about the gays who can be cured. It was a disgusting bit of political censorship. I will wait and see who emerges from this debacle with some credit. Its all about those who take the lead in the coming weeks and launch the coup.


 
jesus


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 7, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Saying you can cure homosexuality is not an opinion, it's a lie.


 
Not only that, it equates it with an illness, which it's not.


----------



## T & P (Feb 7, 2013)

fractionMan said:


> jesus


 Fortunately for the country, Stoat Boy's views are a in a small minority. Deliciously, that such views persevere in the Conservative Party will at least serve to ensure they have about as much a chance of winning the next election as Abu Hamza. By all means let the far right wing of the Tories take command of the party. Best thing that could happen


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2013)

fractionMan said:


> Not only that, it equates it with an illness, which it's not.


 
Not since 1973, anyway.


----------



## Tankus (Feb 7, 2013)

Has anyone mentioned the EU aspect of this (18 pages ,,started to lose the will to live by number 8, sorry )...and why this agenda is on the political horizon in EU several country's at the same time ?

#mce_temp_url# .....
*EU aims at recognizing same-sex “marriage” in all 27 Member States*



> Paragraph 40 wants to give civil documents, including marriage, to be given de facto legal effect throughout the EU by requiring Member States to grant “all social benefits and other legal effects attached to it”. This could mean that Member States would be forced to indirectly recognize same-sex unions as equal to marriage even if such recognition does not exist in the respective country’s legal system.


Perhaps hes getting this out of the way (and Hollande in France) so it doesn't get merged and convoluted into an anti Euro fudger against imposition , Two tory somewhat incendiary issues at the same time would make a real furnace within his party and possibly be the call for his removal ......

__________________


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

8ball said:


> Not since 1973, anyway.


No. It never has been.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> No. It never has been.


 
That would depend on your opinion of the American Psychiatric Association...


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

Tankus said:


> Has anyone mentioned the EU aspect of this (18 pages ,,started to lose the will to live by number 8, sorry )...and why this agenda is on the political horizon in EU several country's at the same time ?
> 
> #mce_temp_url# .....
> *EU aims at recognizing same-sex “marriage” in all 27 Member States*
> ...


AFAICT that is about recognising marriages which are recognised by other EU states regardless of what the law is in that state. It becomes necessary as soon as any one state recognises gay marriage.


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

8ball said:


> That would depend on your opinion of the American Psychiatric Association...


No, it would not. Scientists once believed that the earth was flat. That does not mean it was ever true.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> No, it would not. Scientists once believed that the earth was flat. That does not mean it was ever true.


 
Which scientist was this?


----------



## Tankus (Feb 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> AFAICT that is about recognising marriages which are recognised by other EU states regardless of what the law is in that state. It becomes necessary as soon as any one state recognises gay marriage.





> During the Plenary Session of the European Parliament, scheduled for the 24th of November, the assembly will vote on the "Report on civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law aspects of the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Program".


Its on a timetable


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

8ball said:


> Which scientist was this?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

Tankus said:


> Its on a timetable


And?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth


 
None, then.

Fair enough.


----------



## Tankus (Feb 7, 2013)

this bit 


Tankus said:


> Perhaps hes getting this out of the way (and Hollande in France) so it doesn't get merged and convoluted into an anti Euro fudger against imposition , Two tory somewhat incendiary issues at the same time would make a real furnace within his party and possibly be the call for his removal ......
> __________________


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

8ball said:


> None, then.
> 
> Fair enough.


Only if you think science arose out of the blue sometime in the 19th century. It didn't. Philosophy arose from theology and science arose from philosophy. If ancient civilisations had no science, how did they manage to build pyramids and massive stone buildings that still (partially) stand today and sewers and all that amazing stuff. They even had primitive batteries, ffs!


----------



## dylans (Feb 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> No, it would not. Scientists once believed that the earth was flat. That does not mean it was ever true.


8ball is correct. The idea that scholars in the middle ages believed the Earth was flat is a myth as is the idea that Columbus disproved it. Knowledge of the Earth's sphericity  goes way back to at least the 4th Century BCE

Stephen Jay Gould


> there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology.


http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/historicalmyths/a/histmyths7.htm


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

Fair enough. Silly me for choosing an obvious reference. Choose any example you like where scientists have been proved wrong and mentally insert. If you're stuck for inspiration, almost any published paper that is more than twenty years old should do the trick.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 7, 2013)

youngian said:


> There's a lot of ifs and buts in that, but as a matter of interest are you C of E? and if it is forced on them, would you prefer disestablishment from the state?
> 
> I don't care about the rules of voluntary private institutions, like Mosques, Methodist Chapels and Catholic churches, but I would warm to foisting gay marriage on the Anglicans if it forces them to threaten to become a private institution and take their legislating bishops and feudal flummery with them.


 
Im more culturally RC than some sort of holy joe . But i see your point.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> Only if you think science arose out of the blue sometime in the 19th century. It didn't. Philosophy arose from theology and science arose from philosophy. If ancient civilisations had no science, how did they manage to build pyramids and massive stone buildings that still (partially) stand today and sewers and all that amazing stuff. They even had primitive batteries, ffs!


 
I;ve been to the pub in the interim and it's gone a bit hazy but I think I ws making some point about how recently it was regarded as an illness etc. something something.

I've forgotten the finer points but you can be right if you want.

Flawed as your argument still so obviously is.


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)




----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> because it symbolises the union between a man and a woman, which has always been pretty important to humanity . And seen by the vast majority of humanity as pretty important . Why should they want to get married in a church for example ? Just because straight people do ?


 
Had I not already permanently abandoned the Conservative party, due to the ineptitude and policies of the current administration, this would have done it.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

As has been said on this thread, it wont affect me, that is correct, as I will not recognise this as marriage. You can call a lump of coal a gold nugget, but it is not. You can call the union of two people of the same sex marriage, but it is not, and never will be.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

It will be by mid 2014.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 9, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Maybe they might have found a region that isn't full of bigots and happen to have faith?
> 
> And we're not debating what might be...we're talking about the current bill and homophobes opposition to it.
> 
> Edit: I've no idea why people would want to get married in a church, but that's because I'm not religious.


 
You could not be more wrong, I am not a homophobe, or any other kind of sexuality ' phobe ', people are as God made them. To attempt to smear those who are opposed to same sex marriage as homophobes is both wrong and lazy thinking. You fall into the trap of thinking that because you have no religious belief, neither does anyone else.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> You could not be more wrong, I am not a homophobe, or any other kind of sexuality ' phobe ', people are as God made them. To attempt to smear those who are opposed to same sex marriage as homophobes is both wrong and lazy thinking. You fall into the trap of thinking that because you have no religious belief, neither does anyone else.


_Why_ is it wrong to do so?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 9, 2013)

Don't you work for HMRC, Sas? Could be an issue not recognising gay marriages for tax purposes.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Had I not already permanently abandoned the Conservative party, due to the ineptitude and policies of the current administration, this would have done it.
> 
> Marriage is between a man and a woman.
> 
> As has been said on this thread, it wont affect me, that is correct, as I will not recognise this as marriage. You can call a lump of coal a gold nugget, but it is not. You can call the union of two people of the same sex marriage, but it is not, and never will be.


It's got nothing to do with you and how your religion defines marriage. This is about the state recognising gay marriage, which therefore gives those religions which do want to recognise gay marriages the freedom to do so also.

I'm quite surprised that you object to greater religious freedom. I thought you were quite live and let live on sectarian issues. I guess I was mistaken.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 9, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> You can call a lump of coal a gold nugget, but it is not. You can call the union of two people of the same sex marriage, but it is not, and never will be.


 
Yeah, they used to say something similar about putting the terms 'intra-marital' and 'rape' together.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 9, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> <snip>Marriage is between a man and a woman.<snip>


 
As xes has already said to marry just means to join two things together, doesn't have to be man and woman. I usually think of him as a bit of a foaming gibberer but he was bang on with that. The institution of marriage though is just a man made thing & there's no reason whatsoever for it's definition not being possible to change over time.

I don't reckon you're being homophobic though. Not that you'll be arsed what I reckon, like


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 9, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Don't you work for HMRC, Sas? Could be an issue not recognising gay marriages for tax purposes.


 
That is a bridge that will be crossed when it is encountered. It will make no difference to my treatment of the person, I treat everybody scrupulously equally. I will not address any man as Mrs, but it isn't an issue, as gender neutral language is available.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 9, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> As xes has already said to marry just means to join two things together, doesn't have to be man and woman. I usually think of him as a bit of a foaming gibberer but he was bang on with that. The institution of marriage though is just a man made thing & there's no reason whatsoever for it's definition not being possible to change over time.
> 
> I don't reckon you're being homophobic though. Not that you'll be arsed what I reckon, like


 
I would be concerned if you regarded me as homophobic, because I'm not. People are as God created them, and I treat everyone in exactly the same manner.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's got nothing to do with you and how your religion defines marriage. This is about the state recognising gay marriage, which therefore gives those religions which do want to recognise gay marriages the freedom to do so also.
> 
> I'm quite surprised that you object to greater religious freedom. I thought you were quite live and let live on sectarian issues. I guess I was mistaken.


 
No, not really. Civil Partnerships are absolutely equal in law to marriage, as they should be. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my view, that is not to say that I don't respect the contrarian view, I simply do not agree with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> No, not really. Civil Partnerships are absolutely equal in law to marriage, as they should be. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my view, that is not to say that I don't respect the contrarian view, I simply do not agree with it.


To you? Fuck you.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 9, 2013)

8ball said:


> Yeah, they used to say something similar about putting the terms 'intra-marital' and 'rape' together.


 
You are off on a bit of a tangent there, aren't you? Rape is rape, and the law should never have decreed that a man could not rape his wife. It was a nasty bit of legislation that took a long time to be repealed. No one who loved their wife would ever have done that, I cannot think of anything more demeaning that any man could do to his wife.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 9, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> I treat everyone in exactly the same manner.


 
You don't though, because you just said that you'd treat two people of the same sex who are married as if they weren't married.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> No, not really. Civil Partnerships are absolutely equal in law to marriage, as they should be. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my view, that is not to say that I don't respect the contrarian view, I simply do not agree with it.


They're not equal because they cannot be performed by a religious organisation. Why do you object to the Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Judaism performing gay marriage? Why do your religious sensibilities trump theirs?


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> That is a bridge that will be crossed when it is encountered. It will make no difference to my treatment of the person, I treat everybody scrupulously equally. I will not address any man as Mrs, but it isn't an issue, as gender neutral language is available.


Why would gay marriage require you to address a man as Mrs?

Why would you need to use gender neutral language when referring to a gay man or woman?

You say you're not homophobic, but have you actually thought that through?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 9, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> You are off on a bit of a tangent there, aren't you? Rape is rape, and the law should never have decreed that a man could not rape his wife. It was a nasty bit of legislation that took a long time to be repealed. No one who loved their wife would ever have done that, I cannot think of anything more demeaning that any man could do to his wife.


 
Not really a tangent at all - the definition of marriage has changed a lot over the years - with the original definition being one tied up with ownership and property, the notion that a man could rape _his_ wife was nonsensical.  That piece of legislation was perfectly in keeping with the definition at the time and what happened is that the definition slowly changed to the degree where the law looked absurd.

 Including a very small number of same-sex unions seems like a much smaller change in definition, relatively speaking.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 9, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sarah Teather is. Pretending to support equal rights then voting against. Strange how her principles pop out so selectively.


 


articul8 said:


> She claims to be a catholic whose been searching her conscience, and came out with a long and barely coherent diatribe about marriage being a space for having kids.


Hmmm the sanctity of marriage and her conscious never stopped her getting her leg over with another woman's husband.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 10, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> Hmmm the sanctity of marriage and her conscious never stopped her getting her leg over with another woman's husband.


These sorts of considerations never seem to feature in the mental landscape of smug arseholes who consider themselves to be above the standards that they hold the rest of us to. "But I'm fucking IMPORTANT!" type exceptionalism seems to scream forth from the actions of rank hypocrites like Nadine Dorries, John Major, David Mellor, Chris Huhne, Sarah Teather etc etc etc. It almost seems to follow with tedious inevitability that when some tight-arsed public figure pontificates about issues of morality in ordinary people's lives, they are hiding some grubby personal secret(s) that completely contravenes the shit they are so insincerely spouting to the rest of us...


----------



## scifisam (Feb 10, 2013)

"I'm not homophobic, I just think that gay people shouldn't have the right to marriage and I think that gay men want to be called Mrs. But I don't condone beating anyone up, so I'm not homophobic."


----------



## fogbat (Feb 10, 2013)

To me marriage is sacred union between a man and a woman of the same race. You can call a lump of coal a gold nugget, but it is not.


----------



## fogbat (Feb 10, 2013)

fogbat said:


> To me marriage is sacred union between a man and a woman of the same race. You can call a lump of coal a gold nugget, but it is not.


I am not a racist, or any other kind of bigot, and an attempt to smear me as such is dishonest.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> To me, marriage is between a man and a woman. .


Not for much longer. The contrarians have won.  You have to deal with people in your job, don't you? You'll be dealing with married gays and having to treat them as such soon enough. You've lost this one - society and the law will recognise gay marriage, so you might as well be saying that you don't recognise marriages that didn't take place in a church for all the good it will do you.

In 10 years' time, I'm sure the majority of people will be wondering what the fuss was about. Marriage will be between two people who love each other and want that to be recognised by society. End of.

The day's probably not too far off when most people won't bat an eyelid at the idea of gay parents either. Great stuff.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> It's a commonplace thing to say, but the liberal left has won hands down in social and cultural terms. Most of the changes it pushed for in society are irreversible no matter how large the opposition. *The latter are generally passive anyway* apart from a relative handful of demented obsessives and tame online and media opportunist reactionaries.


Bit in bold is important, I think. My mum is an example. She's quite homophobic - thinks gay sex is 'not natural' (has something of a disgust reaction to it, basically) - but at the same time would not be rude to someone because they were gay and would probably try to accommodate them. Ask her in an opinion poll whether she supports gay marriage, and I'm pretty sure she'd say no, but she's not actually bothered about it - she doesn't really think much about it at all. Perhaps she'll tut at the tv when they report the law change. But then she'll be commenting on how lovely some gay marriage looked.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Why are equal gay rights reinforced by the marketisation of society? I agree that the maketisation of society is in full swing still. But I see the important battles being lost over this at the moment being in education, health care, housing, pensions, public services generally.

Are equal gay rights a capitalist issue?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> The social changes the liberal left has won are actually reinforced by the marketisation of society


 
Now I see why the five facepalm limit was done away with.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 10, 2013)

fogbat said:


> I am not a racist, or any other kind of bigot, and an attempt to smear me as such is dishonest.



It's always useful when people tell you they're not a homophobe/racist/bigot isn't it. So easy to get confused otherwise.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It's always useful when people tell you they're not a homophobe/racist/bigot isn't it. So easy to get confused otherwise.


I have a list that I tell new people I meet. I'm not a sexist, a homophobe, a racist, a bigot or a paedophile (only say this last one if there are children there, obv).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> When capital didn't have its own way entirely, society was far more conservative.


The communist societies of Eastern Europe were very socially conservative. North Korea is one of the most socially conservative places on the planet. Social conservatism is a form of control - strictly limiting the permitted ways of living your life. But the opposite of totalitarianism isn't capitalism. There are bits of the US that are extremely socially conservative by our standards, yet capital still has its way there.


----------



## Dandred (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> *People are as God created the*m, and I treat everyone in exactly the same manner.


 

Like Hitler? Well done god!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not for much longer. The contrarians have won.  You have to deal with people in your job, don't you? You'll be dealing with married gays and having to treat them as such soon enough. You've lost this one - society and the law will recognise gay marriage, so you might as well be saying that you don't recognise marriages that didn't take place in a church for all the good it will do you.
> 
> In 10 years' time, I'm sure the majority of people will be wondering what the fuss was about. Marriage will be between two people who love each other and want that to be recognised by society. End of.
> 
> The day's probably not too far off when most people won't bat an eyelid at the idea of gay parents either. Great stuff.


 
I don't think that you have read what I said. I will NOT recognise this as marriage, because it is not. You can something anything you like, but it does not make it so. In company with millions of others, I will not ever recognise this travesty as marriage.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

Dandred said:


> Like Hitler? Well done god!


 
Do you understand the concept of ' free will '? If you don't, and your post would indicate that, then there is little point in discussing this with you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> Never said it was. The Communist-ruled societies weren't totalitarian in any meaningful sense for most of their histories anyway. Their social conservatism was reinforced by attitudes that became frozen in time when the Communists came to power and shut down open debate.


There are degrees of totalitarianism. Most of them were some distance along that line. Sure, everyday life was normal most of the time, but criticise the regime and you were in trouble. Varying degrees of trouble depending on when or where, but trouble nonetheless. That's pretty much a definition of totalitarianism for me - the suppression by law of dissent.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> I don't think that you have read what I said. I will NOT recognise this as marriage, because it is not. You can something anything you like, but it does not make it so. In company with millions of others, I will not ever recognise this travesty as marriage.


 
I've been wondering about various objections to same-sex marriage and collecting up the arguments into little buckets - bigotry, religion, fear of change etc.

I'm not convinced that all the people who object to this are bigoted, but I think in this post your use of language says a lot.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

fogbat said:


> To me marriage is sacred union between a man and a woman of the same race. You can call a lump of coal a gold nugget, but it is not.


 
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman of the same species. Very few marriages are sacred unions*, and race is irrelevant, apart from it being virtually impossible to marry someone of the same race, unless you marry your sister, which is somewhat frowned upon.

*There are many marriages in church, by people who do not believe in God, and are not Church attenders. Once they are married, they seldom attend Church again.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> That's authoritarianism. Those societies were certainly authoritarian, and prejudices that were worn down in the west remain rampant in them now partly due to those frozen decades.


I'd define it as totalitarian in that it attempts to control permissible thoughts. Authoritarian is what I'd reserve for somewhere like Singapore with its rules about chewing gum and death penalty for drug possession.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> I've been wondering about various objections to same-sex marriage and collecting up the arguments into little buckets - bigotry, religion, fear of change etc.
> 
> I'm not convinced that all the people who object to this are bigoted, but I think in this post your use of language says a lot.


 
It is my honestly and sincerely held belief. A belief that I have held for more than half a century.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Very few marriages are sacred unions*, and race is irrelevant, apart from it being virtually impossible to marry someone of the same race, unless you marry your sister, which is somewhat frowned upon.


 
Poor Sass - last of his kind in so many ways.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman of the same species.


Not any more, it isn't. 

You don't get to decide what marriage is, sas. Marriage is an act that takes place in a society. You have your say in the collective, but you don't get to decide yourself.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> It is my honestly and sincerely held belief. A belief that I have held for more than half a century.


 
Is it a belief you have examined or just something you hold onto because it is already in your head?

I honestly and sincerely believed for ages that those things cheerleaders wave have some kind of Yiddish-sounding name. Turns out I was wrong.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd define it as totalitarian in that it attempts to control permissible thoughts. Authoritarian is what I'd reserve for somewhere like Singapore with its rules about chewing gum and death penalty for drug possession.


 
Singapore and me have that in common, I detest chewing gum, and would have those who spit it out on the pavement, birched, if I could.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> Is it a belief you have examined or just something you hold onto because it is already in your head?
> 
> I honestly and sincerely believed for ages that those things cheerleaders wave have some kind of Yiddish-sounding name. Turns out I was wrong.


 
Your question is somewhat offensive. I have given it thought, both now and previously.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Singapore and me have that in common, I detest chewing gum, and would have those who spit it out on the pavement, birched, if I could.


I don't like it either. But I dislike the idea of there being a law against it even more. Living in a good society means putting up with some less than ideal behaviour because the draconian measures that would be needed to stop it would make everything worse.

I don't like laws enforcing politeness, generally. I hate rudeness, but the law is not the right way to stop it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> But for much of those years, especially towards the end, the Communist governments didn't seriously try to control peoples' thoughts. Once perestroika was underway, much of the Soviet population became disorientated by hearing many of their leaders saying openly in the media stuff that they used to put people in prison for.


yes, yes. different times and places. Certain ideas were off-limits, though, even still, in most communist countries for most of the time. To take Cuba as an example, if you are an intellectual in Cuba and you are criticising certain policies from the starting position of wanting to make the revolution work better, you can get away with a fair bit if you're careful (the films of Tomás Gutierrez Alea are a good example). But as soon as you step over from that to questioning the legitimacy of the revolution, you are likely to face jail. That's totalitarian.

By contrast, the UK is not totalitarian, or at least mostly is not. The mainstream media, education systems and culture are in many ways just as narrow in their debates and assumptions as Cuba's. But you don't get locked up for coming out with different ideas. Marginalised, yes, but not arrested. There have been elements of totalitarianism creeping in with Blair - the girl jailed for her poems in praise of suicide bombers, for instance. But they really are tiny elements compared to somewhere like Cuba.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Your question is somewhat offensive. I have given it thought, both now and previously.


 
What you're saying is offensive to many so I guess we're all going to have to man up a bit.

So in the past when marriage was different to how it is now, when, for example, a 50 year old man could marry a 12 year old girl, then that was wrong.  When marriage was essentially a transfer of property then that was wrong too.  So those changes were right and this one is wrong.

So what is basically behind that aside from the fact that the definition of marriage has been fairly stable for a while and that coincides with much of your adult life.  What is behind this beyond the fear of change?


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman of the same species. Very few marriages are sacred unions*
> 
> *There are many marriages in church, by people who do not believe in God, and are not Church attenders. Once they are married, they seldom attend Church again.


 
If your belief that a marriage should be between a man and a woman doesn't stem from the fact that you believe all marriages are sacred unions as prescribed certain Christians, where does it come from?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> An interesting feature of the times is that while society becomes more liberal, we are inundated by petty restrictions-often supported most vociferously by those who are liberal in their outlook.


 
yes, that has been happening. I smoke, but I agree with the smoking ban. Other things, though, such as the constant nagging from automated voices, do my head in. If in doubt, leave people alone.

And the new crb check regime is also a heavy dose of centralised control over our everyday lives.

We always have to guard against having our freedoms taken from us. Govts like controlling people. You can see why.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 10, 2013)

Personally I'm glad that someone has done the analysis with regards the risk of being crushed by my fellow citizens, and I trust the professionals much more than Joe public.


----------



## xes (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> I don't think that you have read what I said. I will NOT recognise this as marriage, because it is not. You can something anything you like, but it does not make it so. In company with millions of others, I will not ever recognise this travesty as marriage.


genuine 1950s values lols 

newflash


It don't matter what you think
do daa do daa
It don't matter what you think
do do do daa dey

*does the cancan*


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 10, 2013)

Have we decided what "marriage" actually is ?
As a single 52 year old from a somewhat dysfunctional nuclear family with codependent parents, it#s a mystery to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> And that control freakery is reflected in the attitudes of both those who support the cult of 'rights' and those who oppose it, with the former completely unable to recognise their own strident, often hysterical, intolerance of opposing views.
> 
> Maybe control freakery is the future.


Hmmm. I agree generally about the spurious value of much talk about rights. All too often it can mean achieving some kind of equality in law and that then being the end of it - but that assumes that the law is legislating for an equitable society. It's a legal codification of what you can expect as a minimum, which is good in many ways, but it often acts as a legal codification of what people can expect to give, too. A bit like having a minimum wage. Sure, it raises some people's pay, but long-term, it inevitably produces a mass of people earning exactly minimum. Set it too low, and it can be counterproductive. Same thing with rights - where we don't have the right to housing or work or education, among other things, our rights are set far too low.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2013)

Plus, of course, we are being filmed wherever we go. It's kind of scary how quickly we've all become used to that idea. I remember when cameras were first introduced to trains and I felt deeply uncomfortable. Now, I don't think about them. But it's not good. Not good at all. It also has the effect of making people think it is someone else's job to keep order. In a sane society, that would be the responsibility of all of us - I actually think we're infantilised by the surveillance society.

But smoking's stinky. I don't mind that particular ban. I was opposed before it came in, but now I think it was the right thing to do.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Your question is somewhat offensive. I have given it thought, both now and previously.


 
That was actually an extremely polite question.

And you don't get to tell someone off for being offensive when you've called my future marriage a "travesty."

MY marriage. Not some theoretical boogeyman, but a real human being. Bet you wouldn't say any of this to my face with other people around, where you can see their facial expressions.


----------



## xes (Feb 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Plus, of course, we are being filmed wherever we go. It's kind of scary how quickly we've all become used to that idea. I remember when cameras were first introduced to trains and I felt deeply uncomfortable. Now, I don't think about them. But it's not good. Not good at all. It also has the effect of making people think it is someone else's job to keep order. In a sane society, that would be the responsibility of all of us - I actually think we're infantilised by the surveillance society.


introduce things like that slowly, and people will get used to anything.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> Why does it matter, though, if somebody else thinks it's a travesty when you don't and the law says it's OK?


 
Oh, I'm not crying on my GF's shoulder because of Sas's disapproval, obviously not. But only sociopaths can completely disregard other people's opinions.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Plus, of course, we are being filmed wherever we go. It's kind of scary how quickly we've all become used to that idea. I remember when cameras were first introduced to trains and I felt deeply uncomfortable. Now, I don't think about them. But it's not good. Not good at all. It also has the effect of making people think it is someone else's job to keep order. In a sane society, that would be the responsibility of all of us - I actually think we're infantilised by the surveillance society.
> 
> But smoking's stinky. I don't mind that particular ban. I was opposed before it came in, but now I think it was the right thing to do.


 
People stopped caring about camera's in public places because they didn't really have much effect on their lives. I know they system is far from perfect, but taken in balance, it's not something I object to that much if it helps stop anti social twats.

I know it's got a totalitarian feel to it, but some would argue, so does banning private ownership of guns.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't like it either. But I dislike the idea of there being a law against it even more. Living in a good society means putting up with some less than ideal behaviour because the draconian measures that would be needed to stop it would make everything worse.
> 
> I don't like laws enforcing politeness, generally. I hate rudeness, but the law is not the right way to stop it.


 
I take it that you have never had a shoe ruined, by standing in the gooey mess, that cretins have discarded on the pavement?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> yes, that has been happening. I smoke, but I agree with the smoking ban. Other things, though, such as the constant nagging from automated voices, do my head in. If in doubt, leave people alone.
> 
> And the new crb check regime is also a heavy dose of centralised control over our everyday lives.
> 
> We always have to guard against having our freedoms taken from us. Govts like controlling people. You can see why.


 
Quite. I have a feeling that UK gun laws are as much a control mechanism as a promotion of public safety.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> An interesting feature of the times is that while society becomes more liberal, we are inundated by petty restrictions-often supported most vociferously by those who are liberal in their outlook. In a major railway station the other day, I was struck by the attempts to make people go up one set of steps towards the platforms and another when coming away from them-and this after more than a century of people toing-and froing any old how without anything bad happening. Outside the main doors was the usual army of smokers, as you now can't smoke on a platform even though it's in the open air-again after decades of people doing it and nothing disastrous happening. I don't often stay in hotels, but it now seems impossible to get a room where you're allowed to smoke. Not an issue for me but again, outside the doors you get the usual ridiculous army of people hurriedly puffing away in the cold and rain after decades of them doing what they're going to do anyway in comfort and privacy.
> 
> Society is now run by people-of all mainstream political persuasions-who seem to think all the nastiness can be removed from life by petty control freakery.


 
Once again, this year we will be staying in the Amstel Bastion in Amsterdam. It isn't the greatest hotel, and it involves a twenty minute tube journey to get into town, but it does have rooms where you can smoke. They have had our business for the last five years purely for that reason.

I would say, if you stay there don't leave anything behind. I got my camera stolen by one of their domestic staff last year.  Thankfully, I had pulled the pics off the card onto my laptop the night before to burn them onto a CD for my mate.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> Really? It's always seemed to me that most people disregard the opinions of others to some extent. How could you not?
> 
> There's always going to be somebody who opposes gay marriage (or whatever.) Why worry when you've won anyway?


 
I suspect it is because they haven't won. To ' win ' requires acceptance, and with a large percentage of the population not accepting, it is if a victory at all, a limited one.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 10, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> People stopped caring about camera's in public places because they didn't really have much effect on their lives. I know they system is far from perfect, but taken in balance, it's not something I object to that much if it helps stop anti social twats.
> 
> I know it's got a totalitarian feel to it, but some would argue, so does banning private ownership of guns.


 
Cameras don't stop anti social behaviour though. Fuck all to do with gay marriage, like.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Have we decided what "marriage" actually is ?
> As a single 52 year old from a somewhat dysfunctional nuclear family with codependent parents, it#s a mystery to me.


 
 Well, if we go to the source, marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Funnily enough, it specifically states ' a man and a woman '.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 10, 2013)

Jack Coffee said:


> Not gay equal rights in particular. It's just part of the general erosion of social conservatism. All those losing battles will erode it further still, the end result being a collection of individuals impotent in the face of a capital that rules largely through granting the rights that everybody screams for and making money out of them.


 
What actually _was_ the Playhouse? I remember the building but it was long since boarded up, was it a cinema or a theatre or some kind of music hall or what?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, if we go to the source, marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Funnily enough, it specifically states ' a man and a woman '.


What is "the source", in your opinion?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 10, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> What is "the source", in your opinion?


 
I think he might mean this. 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/marriage-bible-verses/


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 10, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> I think he might mean this.
> 
> http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/marriage-bible-verses/


maybe he does, but you certainly couldn't argue the bible was "the source" of marriage. Not unless you were totally ignorant, or have a drastically different understanding of the word "source" to the rest of us.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 10, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> maybe he does, but you certainly couldn't argue the bible was "the source" of marriage. Not unless you were totally ignorant, or have a drastically different understanding of the word "source" to the rest of us.


 
Don't Christians think the bible is the source of everything?


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Singapore and me have that in common, I detest chewing gum, and would have those who spit it out on the pavement, birched, if I could.


Kinky fucker


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

jannerboyuk said:


> Kinky fucker


 
Not really, I wouldn't pay to watch.  My venerable blue suede shoes succumbed to a big wadge of chewing gum that someone had discarded onto the pavement.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2013)

Och well, I have my view, others have theirs. So be it mote.


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm not sure what's worse. The old tories or the new ones.


----------



## magneze (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, if we go to the source, marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Funnily enough, it specifically states ' a man and a woman '.


The Bible doesn't mention the word marriage, if that's your source.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 10, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Not really, I wouldn't pay to watch.  My venerable blue suede shoes succumbed to a big wadge of chewing gum that someone had discarded onto the pavement.


 
What colour trousers could one possibly wear blue shoes with?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 10, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Don't Christians think the bible is the source of everything?


well, I'm led to believe that only the properly out there ones are biblical literalists (an oxymoron of course, as you couldn't be any such thing without being a hypocrite).


----------



## Nylock (Feb 11, 2013)

fractionMan said:


> I'm not sure what's worse. The old tories or the new ones.


They're as bad as each other....


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 11, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> What colour trousers could one possibly wear blue shoes with?


Red surely?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 12, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> You don't though, because you just said that you'd treat two people of the same sex who are married as if they weren't married.


 
Are you genuinely intellectually challenged, trolling, or seeking information?

In the course of my work, I deal with people who owe money to HMRC. One of the things I do is decide whether people are given time to pay, or are sent for legal redress. I can agree time to pay, without referring to anyone else, up a quarter of a million pounds. My decision on whether to give time, or to refer, is not based on on gender, religion, sexuality or marital status, it is based on whether, after questioning, I believe that the person has the will and the ability to repay the money within the time frame. No more, no less.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 12, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Are you genuinely intellectually challenged, trolling, or seeking information?
> 
> In the course of my work, I deal with people who owe money to HMRC. One of the things I do is decide whether people are given time to pay, or are sent for legal redress. I can agree time to pay, without referring to anyone else, up a quarter of a million pounds. My decision on whether to give time, or to refer, is not based on on gender, religion, sexuality or marital status, it is based on whether, after questioning, I believe that the person has the will and the ability to repay the money within the time frame. No more, no less.


 
Sure you may find your work doesn't conflict with your beliefs. I'm still not sure who you'll call Mr and who you'll call Mrs though.

However you've said you will refuse to recognise same-sex marriage as marriage. How will you implement this in social situations?

Someone may ask, your new neighbours, the gay couple, are they married? Presumably you'll tell them, no, their so-called marriage is not marriage at all, but a hideous and ungodly fakery. That's really no different to me saying, that Sasaferrato bloke, no he's not an ex-soldier at all, he's a former mercenary and probably an accessory to murder. That would be disrespectful to you, because I'd be treating you based on my personal beliefs about the nature of war.


----------



## Lea (Feb 12, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Sure you may find your work doesn't conflict with your beliefs.


 
First thing I thought of was Matthew the tax collector!


----------



## weltweit (Feb 12, 2013)

magneze said:


> The Bible doesn't mention the word marriage, if that's your source.


But it does mention Sodom and and Gomorrah in Genesis.


----------



## Lea (Feb 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> But it does mention Sodom and and Gomorrah in Genesis.


 What has Sodom and Gomorrah got to do with marriage? I thought that chapter told the story of people in those towns as being sinners and thus God destroyed those towns.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 12, 2013)

Lea said:


> What has Sodom and Gomorrah got to do with marriage? I thought that chapter told the story of people in those towns as being sinners and thus God destroyed those towns.


Not with marriage no but the judgement of Sodom has been viewed to have been because of promiscuity and homosexuality (hence the UK Sodomy laws). Poor Lot's wife is all I can think, she only looked back and was petrified.


----------



## magneze (Feb 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Not with marriage no but the judgement of Sodom has been viewed to have been because of promiscuity and homosexuality (hence the UK Sodomy laws). Poor Lot's wife is all I can think, she only looked back and was petrified.


Nothing to do with marriage, or the definition of it though.


----------



## Lea (Feb 12, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, if we go to the source, marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Funnily enough, it specifically states ' a man and a woman '.


 I don't have a source but isn't the sacrament of holy matrimony a union between man and woman in marriage. Anyway, that's according to Christianity and in particular the Catholic Church.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Not with marriage no but the judgement of Sodom has been viewed to have been because of promiscuity and homosexuality (hence the UK Sodomy laws). Poor Lot's wife is all I can think, she only looked back and was petrified.


'Has been viewed to have been' is not the same as 'clearly states' afaik. 

For all we know they were merked by god for listening to boy bands and wearing zips.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 12, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> ....
> For all we know they were merked by god for listening to boy bands and wearing zips.


Well, I agree, that would be quite enough!!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Not with marriage no but the judgement of Sodom has been viewed to have been because of promiscuity and homosexuality (hence the UK Sodomy laws). Poor Lot's wife is all I can think, she only looked back and was petrified.


Or because of their lack of manners. Really.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 12, 2013)

Lea said:


> I don't have a source but isn't the sacrament of holy matrimony a union between man and woman in marriage. Anyway, that's according to Christianity and in particular the Catholic Church.


But what would the current definition of one religious sect have to do with how we define our national, civil laws?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Not with marriage no but the judgement of Sodom has been viewed to have been because of promiscuity and homosexuality (hence the UK Sodomy laws). Poor Lot's wife is all I can think, she only looked back and was petrified.


 

she was turned to salt, not stone


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Not with marriage no but the judgement of Sodom has been viewed to have been because of promiscuity and homosexuality (hence the UK Sodomy laws). Poor Lot's wife is all I can think, she only looked back and was petrified.


 
the sin of sodom wasn't really anything to do with being gay tbh.


----------



## Kippa (Feb 12, 2013)

I am a bit curious about position that the relgious folk are taking.  If you have a man and a woman then that is good, but if it is woman and woman or man and man then it is bad.  Picking away at the logic and generally fucking about,  what if you had a bisexual man marrying a bisexual female, how would that go from the religious point of view?  Technically they are both gay, but because it is a man and a woman would that marriage be alright and would accept a gay marriage in that context?  Or would they not accept the marriage even though they are male and female, because they are both gay?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 12, 2013)

Not all religious folk. Movement for Reform Judaism have supported it. Although they are in some ways a bit of a Jewish version of the Church of England.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 12, 2013)

The Quakers (society of friends) are well up for it.


----------



## paolo (Feb 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> she was turned to salt, not stone



Turned to stone was ELO.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Feb 12, 2013)

Two xian tits at work cant believe the ruling, neither able to understand why gay people are gay.   

I argued with one of them, who is also a conspiraLoon, had my adrenaline pumping proper.  It went along the lines of :

(1) Keep your [sexual] business at home, in your bedroom (how it doesn't even matter if you are mating with a goat, ....)
(2) European Christians are tired of being trodden over for their tolerance and how the Europxians are rising in a wave against this sort of thing
(3) This is no good for humanity as it will not survive this sort of _lifestyle_
(4) Gays adopting kids can be confusing for this kid.   Kid might always _become gay.  _Choice of lifestyle

Fascinating pricks in life.  (/nopuns)


----------



## Lea (Feb 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the sin of sodom wasn't really anything to do with being gay tbh.



Agreed. Just read that chapter and my interpretation is that the sin was violating the guests and not homosexuality itself.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 12, 2013)

Lea said:


> Agreed. Just read that chapter and my interpretation is that the sin was violating the guests and not homosexuality itself.


 
What do they have to say about guests who like to be violated?


----------



## Lea (Feb 12, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> What do they have to say about guests who like to be violated?


doesn't say anything but from the tone of Lot it seemed that he wanted to protect his guests. Doesn't seem to suggest that the guests were up for it.


----------



## Lea (Feb 12, 2013)

Kippa said:


> I am a bit curious about position that the relgious folk are taking.  If you have a man and a woman then that is good, but if it is woman and woman or man and man then it is bad.  Picking away at the logic and generally fucking about,  what if you had a bisexual man marrying a bisexual female, how would that go from the religious point of view?  Technically they are both gay, but because it is a man and a woman would that marriage be alright and would accept a gay marriage in that context?  Or would they not accept the marriage even though they are male and female, because they are both gay?


But they are bisexual not gay. I thought there was a difference.


----------



## Lea (Feb 12, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> But what would the current definition of one religious sect have to do with how we define our national, civil laws?


nothing. Was just thinking that civil and religious weddings can be kept separate. Just saying that maybe a civil wedding would be more suitable whereas a religious wedding might not be appropriate because of the definition of the sacrament.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 13, 2013)

Lea said:


> But they are bisexual not gay. I thought there was a difference.


 
depends who you ask.

From some religious perspectives, there are no 'homosexual people' just 'homosexual acts' and as long as you don't do the latter, you're fine.  In which case a bi man and a bi woman marrying would be perfectly OK as long as they don't commit adultery or do naughty things with anyone of the same sex (adultery is only adultery as long as it's with someone of the opposite sex)



Lea said:


> Was just thinking that civil and religious weddings can be kept separate. Just saying that maybe a civil wedding would be more suitable whereas a religious wedding might not be appropriate because of the definition of the sacrament.


 
as said above, the proposed change in the law is allowing same-sex civil weddings (as opposite sex couples currently can), and will allow religious bodies - who decide through whatever their own decision making process is that they want to - to do same-sex weddings.  Except the C of E who won't be allowed to even consider it.

Different Christian denominations have varying views about what constitutes a 'sacrament', for example confession / penance.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2013)

More revealing stumbling when Tories try to explain that whole 'marriage is for creating safe family environment for bringing up kids' thang.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/15/gay-couples-children-welsh-secretary



> Conservative anti-gay prejudice was under scrutiny again on Friday after the Welsh secretary, David Jones, was forced to backtrack on an assertion that gay couples "clearly" cannot provide a "warm and safe environment" in which to raise children.


 


> He said: "I was asked on the Face to Face programme why I voted against the same-sex marriage proposals. I replied that I had done so on the basis that I took the view that marriage is an institution that has developed over the centuries so as to provide a safe and warm environment for the upbringing of children.
> "I made the point of stressing that I was fully supportive of committed same-sex relationships. I also strongly approve of civil partnerships.
> "I did not say in the interview that same-sex partners should not adopt children and that is not my view.
> "I simply sought to point out that, since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite-sex partners."




The obvious flaw in his explanation being the conflation of the act of first seeding new life with the multi-year process of bringing the children up.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 16, 2013)

indeed.

presumably he also thinks marriage should be reserved for couples who are able to, and intend to procreate biologically rather than adopt...

that's a fairly major bit of logical gymnastics, even for a tory...


----------



## 8ball (Feb 16, 2013)

The whole thing hinges on mitochondria.  Basically, there are either no mitochondria, or two kinds of mitochondria that could get into a fight with each other.  This is the taboo that no one is brave enough to broach.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 16, 2013)

Gay parents can't actually produce children, so they get them by stealing yours, just like cuckoos or wasps.

Gay parents are genetically unable to tell the difference between their child and a toaster, which makes bathtime very dangerous.

Gay parents can't get sufficient paternity leave to ensure that their children don't climb into threshing machines or get eaten by leopards.

Gay parents like to adorn their walls with bright and colourful framed paintings that can fall and crush a child.

Gay parents can't lure an attacking dragon into a trap with their combined brute force and buxomly charms. This is a particular problem in Wales.

For every child raised by a gay, there is one less job for wolves. And where will those wolves go? Your bins.

Who is keen on gay parents now, eh? Certainly not science.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 4, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Boris Johnson actually said something that made sense on the radio yesterday when he said the problem really was the huge decline in political membership across the main parties meant that they didn't really represent public opinion anymore. He claimed that both this issue and fox hunting were examples of how things that the public weren't bothered about had become important internally with the dwindling party membership.
> 
> Tories aren't going to either haemorage/gain or lose voters on this issue. Far right aren't going to do well out of it either.Europe, immigration and the recession is the key for that.


I think Johnson is probably right; but do you mean by your last 2 sentences, that it's simply not a big enough issue for the people the far right hopes to recruit from (compared to the unfolding economic shitstorm that directly affects them)?​


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 7, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> I think Johnson is probably right; but do you mean by your last 2 sentences, that it's simply not a big enough issue for the people the far right hopes to recruit from (compared to the unfolding economic shitstorm that directly affects them)?​


Yes I did.


----------



## RedDragon (Mar 7, 2013)

It was a pressing issue - do we as a nation want to look more repressed than either France or Spain.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 7, 2013)

mauvais said:


> Gay parents can't actually produce children, so they get them by stealing yours, just like cuckoos or wasps.
> 
> Gay parents are genetically unable to tell the difference between their child and a toaster, which makes bathtime very dangerous.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Mar 7, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> It was a pressing issue - do we as a nation want to look more repressed than either France or Spain.


 
Don't give them ideas. Gay marriage will become seen as some foreign thing with added sombreros and garlic.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 7, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> It was a pressing issue - do we as a nation want to look more repressed than either France or Spain.


 
Yes, if there's one thing the English upper classes have always avoided at all costs, it has to be looking repressed.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 8, 2013)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Don't give them ideas. Gay marriage will become seen as some foreign thing *with added sombreros and garlic*.


 
Plenty'd vote for that though!


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

What's this all about then? Kill the Bill or save the bill? Which is it? UKIP looking over Cameron;s shoulder would suggest the former.

Government pleads with Labour to save gay marriage bill



> Downing Street issued a stark warning that the bill to legalise gay marriage will run into grave trouble – and cost the taxpayer an extra £4bn – if the Labour party joins forces with Tory opponents to vote in favour of granting civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.
> 
> As David Cameron was accused by the Conservative Grassroots group of showing "utter contempt" for party activists by pressing ahead with plans to equalise marriage, Labour sources voiced fears that No 10 appeared to be trying to find ways of killing the bill.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What's this all about then? Kill the Bill or save the bill? Which is it? UKIP looking over Cameron;s shoulder would suggest the former.
> 
> Government pleads with Labour to save gay marriage bill


 


> Downing Street issued a stark warning that the bill to legalise gay marriage will run into grave trouble – and cost the taxpayer an extra £4bn – if the Labour party joins forces with Tory opponents to vote in favour of granting civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.


 
Or, put another way, vote with me (and the rump of tories that I command), or see formal equality founder.

Personally, i hope that Labour actually just troop through the divisions and get the bill through. Cameron's authority is already shot; they don't need a defeat on this to secure more damage. In fact, getting gay marriage and his homosceptic loons even more frothy round the gills looks like a win-win to me.


----------



## 8ball (May 19, 2013)

£4 billion!??!  Exactly where is that money going?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Or, put another way, vote with me (and the rump of tories that I command), or see formal equality founder.
> 
> Personally, i hope that Labour actually just troop through the divisions and get the bill through. Cameron's authority is already shot; they don't need a defeat on this to secure more damage. In fact, getting gay marriage and his homosceptic loons even more frothy round the gills looks like a win-win to me.


Something else here, sure of it. Must be some way for both.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

8ball said:


> £4 billion!??! Exactly where is that money going?


The figure is under challenge, but pension rights appears to be the answer.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Something else here, sure of it. Must be some way for both.


 
Both? How'dya mean?


----------



## 8ball (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The figure is under challenge, but pension rights appears to be the answer.


 
As in the Government having to treat gay spouses equally when it comes to being widowed?  They must be expecting one fuckload of marriages.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

This seems to be the thing - survivors pensions.


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2013)

4 billion over how long?


----------



## 8ball (May 19, 2013)

killer b said:


> 4 billion over how long?


 
Doesn't say in the link (btw thanks Butch), but unless they mean per year there's some disingenuity going on.


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2013)

If they'd meant a year, they'd have said a year. As they dont, its meaningless.


----------



## 8ball (May 19, 2013)

killer b said:


> If they'd meant a year, they'd have said a year. As they dont, its meaningless.


 
So you think they just made up a number since all numbers become meaningless unless a time period is stated?

Then on what grounds can anyone be disputing the number?


----------



## RedDragon (May 19, 2013)

Wasn't labour's point the figure had increased by £1 billion in 5 days. 

Some Tories will certainly be getting their knickers in a twist tomorrow night, which is always a good thing.


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2013)

I have saved myself £5b by giving up smoking   (over the next 1.6 million years)


----------



## Quartz (May 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Or, put another way, vote with me (and the rump of tories that I command), or see formal equality founder.


 
Is this the same David Cameron who was banging on about gay rights so recently?



> Personally, i hope that Labour actually just troop through the divisions and get the bill through. Cameron's authority is already shot; they don't need a defeat on this to secure more damage. In fact, getting gay marriage and his homosceptic loons even more frothy round the gills looks like a win-win to me.


 
I don't really care about that side. Sometimes, it's nice to see politicians do the right thing.


----------



## Mungy (May 20, 2013)

My mate Jesus, if he was here today, walking the earth and not dust on the ground cos some bastards nailed him to a tree, would be quite happy for same sex marriages to take place, because for the simple reason he would have moved on from all these practices* of a society from 2 fucking thousand years ago. He would have continued to evolve with society and would not be trying to drag us back to some intolerant society where stoning people seemed a good idea. He was about love and compassion, they are the integral parts of his cult and he would have continued to strike out in that direction had he not been cut down in his prime.


*never sure which practise to use


----------



## JimW (May 20, 2013)

killer b said:


> I have saved myself £5b by giving up smoking  (over the next 1.6 million years)


Feh, I've saved myself twice as much by abandoning my plans to build a base on Mars by 2020.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This seems to be the thing - survivors pensions.


So their argument against equality is it will cost more?

Nice.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2013)

It appears that Labour have actually seen sense over this issue. As I understand it, there'll be helping to get the bill through by voting against the, wrecking,tory homosceptic amendment and instead tabling their own that will pin down the government to immediate work to close the inequality regarding heterosexual access to civil partnership status.


> *• Labour has come to the rescue of the gay marriage bill by signalling that its MPs will not support the amendment tabled by the Conservative MP Tim Loughton saying the bill should include provisions allowing heterosexuals to enter civil partnerships.* The surprise announcement came from Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary and equalities minister, on the World at One and it means that Loughton's amendment, which was widely seen as a wrecking amendment, will probably be defeated. MPs have a free vote, but originally Labour indicated that its MPs would support Loughton. However Cooper said that the party was going to instead table a rival amendment and that, as a result, she would be advising MPs not to support Loughton's.
> We would urge the government, we would urge the Liberal Democrats, we would urge backbenchers of all parties to support this [Labour] amendment as a way of allowing the bill to progress without the Tim Loughton amendment but also allowing an immediate consultation to start on the opposite-sex civil partnerships. And on that basis, we would recommend to people not to support the Tim Loughton amendment, but we do need a sensible response from the government as well.​Maria Miller, the culture secretary, has already tabled an amendment to the bill (New Clause 16, or NC16) saying there should be a review of civil partnership legislation after five years. The Labour amendment is an amendment to NC16. It says the review should take place as soon as possible, not after after years, and that it should include a full public consultation.


 
Good.


----------



## 8ball (May 20, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> So their argument against equality is it will cost more?
> 
> Nice.


 
Same as every argument against equality ever, really.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> It appears that Labour have actually seen sense over this issue. As I understand it, there'll be helping to get the bill through by voting against the, wrecking,tory homosceptic amendment and instead tabling their own that will pin down the government to immediate work to close the inequality regarding heterosexual access to civil partnership status.
> 
> 
> Good.


I knew there was some way. So they tories get to tear themselves apart, the leg gets passed and the gap over hetero CP gets filled - or at least reviewed. (Not to say it'll ever happen).


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

Hmmm..this is a manuscript amendement (written in and with no prior knowledge of, simply read out by speaker)  - that's maybe bad politics. Have to see.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Hmmm..this is a manuscript amendement (written in and with no prior knowledge of, simply read out by speaker) - that's maybe bad politics. Have to see.


 
Not really up on these nuances; so what's it mean?

I'm thinking that No.10 will be thinking that their luck is out atm....


> 2.45pm BST
> Here's the full text of the John Bercow statement.
> I wish to report to the House that the rooms of a Member were searched yesterday pursuant to a warrant issued by the Circuit Judge in Preston Crown Court on 16 May. The warrant related to the investigation of a serious arrestable offence.
> I should remind Members, as did my predecessor in 2008, that the precincts of Parliament are not a haven from the law. In accordance with the Protocol issued by my predecessor on 8 December 2008 on the execution of search warrants within the precincts of the House of Commons, I considered the warrant personally and was advised by Officers of the House that there were no lawful grounds on which it would be proper to refuse its execution.
> ...


 
This does start to feel like the dog days of major's administration, when the tories appeared to have the 'reverse midas' touch.


----------



## marty21 (May 20, 2013)

Cameron could always 'do a Major' and resign the leadership to run again against one of the swivel eyed loon faction - more of a gamble for Cameron, he is even less popular than Major was when he did it over Europe (The Tories just love to fight over that )  I get the impression that he is more electable than any of the swivel eyed loons stalking him atm so he might win a leadership election


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Not really up on these nuances; so what's it mean?
> 
> I'm thinking that No.10 will be thinking that their luck is out atm....
> 
> ...


It means that anyone can say they haven't had time to study the amendment as it's just literally been read to them, so they couldn't possibly vote for it under those circumstances - it could be used as a wrecker.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It means that anyone can say they haven't had time to study the amendment as it's just literally been read to them, so they couldn't possibly vote for it under those circumstances - it could be used as a wrecker.


 
Oh right; thanks.

So not the straight-forwardly positive move that it might first of appeared? That would be a pity; they really don't need to piss around with the petty politicking right now; the tories are doing a good enough job of that themselves. Labour really should do all they can to ensure that this bill progresses. Not only is it the 'right' thing to do, but down the line it will accelerate the disintegration of the tories.


----------



## sihhi (May 20, 2013)

marty21 said:


> Cameron could always 'do a Major' and resign the leadership to run again against one of the swivel eyed loon faction - more of a gamble for Cameron, he is even less popular than Major was when he did it over Europe (The Tories just love to fight over that ) I get the impression that he is more electable than any of the swivel eyed loons stalking him atm so he might win a leadership election


 
I suspect never gonna happen, but I'd love a 'back or sack me' moment from Cameron.


----------



## kebabking (May 20, 2013)

marty21 said:


> Cameron could always 'do a Major' and resign the leadership to run again against one of the swivel eyed loon faction - more of a gamble for Cameron, he is even less popular than Major was when he did it over Europe (The Tories just love to fight over that ) I get the impression that he is more electable than any of the swivel eyed loons stalking him atm so he might win a leadership election


 
its a possibility - its got potential for Cameron because, while it may not look like it, most of his MP's and party - despite not rating him either as a conservative or as a politician - know that the swivel-eyed loons are an electoral disaster (or, even more of an electoral disaster). the gamble however is how far it goes: if its just Cameron vs some headbanger obsessing about 'the gays' and Europe, then Cameron wins by a landslide, however, if it goes wider than that and anyone in the parliamentary party can put themselves forward, then Cameron is in deep trouble - there are cabinet ministers with far better reputations for 'soundness' and competence than him, who are liked better than him, and who don't carry the 'notting-hill, never-had-a-real-job, everything-he-touches-turns-to-shit' label, and who the party thinks don't have the 'voter repellent' found on the euro-loon right-wing.

Camerons problem is having an election while being able to choose the candidates. if he can, he's safe - if he can't, he's fucked.


----------



## marty21 (May 20, 2013)

kebabking said:


> its a possibility - its got potential for Cameron because, while it may not look like it, most of his MP's and party - despite not rating him either as a conservative or as a politician - know that the swivel-eyed loons are an electoral disaster (or, even more of an electoral disaster). the gamble however is how far it goes: if its just Cameron vs some headbanger obsessing about 'the gays' and Europe, then Cameron wins by a landslide, however, if it goes wider than that and anyone in the parliamentary party can put themselves forward, then Cameron is in deep trouble - there are cabinet ministers with far better reputations for 'soundness' and competence than him, who are liked better than him, and who don't carry the 'notting-hill, never-had-a-real-job, everything-he-touches-turns-to-shit' label, and who the party thinks don't have the 'voter repellent' found on the euro-loon right-wing.
> 
> Camerons problem is having an election while being able to choose the candidates. if he can, he's safe - if he can't, he's fucked.


 true but they need to have certain swivel eyed tendancies to be attractive to that part of the party

I haven't seen much from gay tories about this - apart from Nick Herbert who was interviewed this morning on BBC Breakfast - and no one seems to have asked the question , why are Tories against gay Tories getting married?


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

marty21 said:


> true but they need to have certain swivel eyed tendancies to be attractive to that part of the party
> 
> I haven't seen much from gay tories about this - apart from Nick Herbert who was interviewed this morning on BBC Breakfast - and no one seems to have asked the question , why are Tories against gay Tories getting married?


Because they think it will drive people to UKIP, thus costing them their seat - personally they don't give a shit,


----------



## marty21 (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because they think it will drive people to UKIP, thus costing them their seat - personally they don't give a shit,


it would be hilarious if it drove gay Tories to UKIP tbf


----------



## Streathamite (May 20, 2013)

marty21 said:


> I haven't seen much from gay tories about this - apart from Nick Herbert who was interviewed this morning on BBC Breakfast - and no one seems to have asked the question , why are Tories against gay Tories getting married?


Because most tories have hangups over all matters sexual which could keep a psychotherapist in gainful employment for life.
What with them all being the products of elite public schools, and all
e2a; their collective mindset dates back to the fifties.
The _eighteen_-fifties, that is


----------



## marty21 (May 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Because most tories have hangups over all matters sexual which could keep a psychotherapist in gainful employment for life.
> What with them all being the products of elite public schools, and all
> e2a; their collective mindset dates back to the fifties.
> The _eighteen_-fifties, that is


 (((((Tory swivel eyed loon perverts)))))


----------



## kebabking (May 20, 2013)

marty21 said:


> it would be hilarious if it drove gay Tories to UKIP tbf


 
can't see them going to UKIP, but i get the feeling that for lots of tories its something of 'crunch time' - if the party can't deliver on Gay marriage then its time to leave. everyone knows that 'rome wasn't built in a day', but there's a limit, and this has been signposted for years and was one of the crux issues for detoxification.

rabid anti-europeanism and social conservatism was supposed to be something that Cameron had junked - if he can't accomplish it after this much time then its not just him (however useless he may be): its not just a fad, or a faction, or 'something we can get over', its too widespread to be got over, and lots of the 'wets', and socially liberal conservatives just won't bother voting next time.


----------



## peterkro (May 20, 2013)

I'm half cut and watching the debate on BBC Parliament,there are swivel eyed loons on both sides.The chamber is sparsely populated and Mp's are using their phones and in one case scratching their balls.I've also learned there is a Lord Panic (spelled Pannick) day time tv is so educational.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

peterkro said:


> I'm half cut and watching the debate on BBC Parliament,there are swivel eyed loons on both sides.The chamber is sparsely populated and Mp's are using their phones and in one case scratching their balls.I've also learned there is a Lord Panic (spelled Pannick) day time tv is so educational.


Are you in the right house?


----------



## peterkro (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you in the right house?


Yes he was referred to by an MP about something he said.This is fucking hilarious if more people watched it they'd have even less respect for politicians than they have now.
P.S. the Unionists are bringing up creationism now.Good grief.


----------



## Quartz (May 20, 2013)

marty21 said:


> Cameron could always 'do a Major' and resign the leadership to run again against one of the swivel eyed loon faction


 
He won't do it. He'd lose against David Davis.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2013)

There's people on the right like David Davis (the Howden one) who are quite electable though - principled and quite personable. It's not all swivel-eyed racist uncles. There is the danger of a plausible right-winger becoming a useful leader for the party as the Thatcherite press would rally behind them, and with the right policies suck people back in from UKIP and then be seen as having momentum. That's the danger.

One of Cameron's problems is his age I reckon - to the grass root tories he's the jumped-up young guy at work promoted to a position beyond his abilities just because he talks the right kind of shit to please the bosses. I imagine there's a lot of quite resentment alongside the more vocal criticism.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

Quartz said:


> He won't do it. He'd lose against David Davis.


What is this obsession?

_Lynn: No she’s not, she’s fifty._
_Alan: So’s Helen Mirren._
_Lynn: So’s Benjamin Netanyahu._
_Alan: You’re always going on about Benjamin Netanyahu. Let it go Lynn you’re never going to meet him. _


----------



## Roadkill (May 20, 2013)

I see the usual suspects are firing on all cylinders this afternoon, with Gerald Howarth huffing and puffing about the 'aggressive homosexual community' using equal marriage as a 'stepping stone' (to what exactly?  Compulsory gayness?   ) and Edward Leigh banging on about:



> a culture which has been so coloured by political correctness that ... mild-mannered people expressing reasonable beliefs in moderate tones, are treated like villains. The outlandish views of the loony left of the 1980s, of Lambeth councils, have now become embedded in high places. And in typical leftish fashion, I have to say. All those who disagree with these views are treated with contempt in order to marginalise their points of view.


----------



## peterkro (May 20, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> I see the usual suspects are firing on all cylinders this afternoon, with Gerald Howarth huffing and puffing about the 'aggressive homosexual community' using equal marriage as a 'stepping stone' (to what exactly? Compulsory gayness?   ) and Edward Leigh banging on about:


Yes I heard the crack about  Lambeth.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2013)

I'm conflicted between feeling a bit of joy at the reactionary bigots in the tory party being given the opportunity to embarrass themselves and the party again, and the concern that the sort of shit they come out with is just going to trigger hurt in a lot of people who don't deserve to have to listen to this crap yet again.


----------



## Roadkill (May 20, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm conflicted between feeling a bit of joy at the reactionary bigots in the tory party being given the opportunity to embarrass themselves and the party again, and the concern that the sort of shit they come out with is just going to trigger hurt in a lot of people who don't deserve to have to listen to this crap yet again.


 
I find it hard to believe that there are many gay people out there who are going to be upset by this antediluvian nonsense, and anyway, no-one has a right not to hear something just because it might offend them.  Let the old bigots sound off, and everyone else laugh at them.  FWIW this militant homosexual just thinks Edward Leigh and his ilk are rather pathetic.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 20, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> I see the usual suspects are firing on all cylinders this afternoon, with Gerald Howarth huffing and puffing about the 'aggressive homosexual community' using equal marriage as a 'stepping stone' (to what exactly? Compulsory gayness?   ) and Edward Leigh banging on about:


 
I'm not sure I want to think about the concept of Edward Leigh, Gerald Howarth and compulsory homosexuality, thanks all the same...


----------



## Quartz (May 20, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm conflicted between feeling a bit of joy at the reactionary bigots in the tory party being given the opportunity to embarrass themselves and the party again,


 
Letting people out themselves as bigots is far preferable to barracking them into silence and letting their bigotry fester.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Letting people out themselves as bigots is far preferable to barracking them into silence and letting their bigotry fester.


Is that the two options on offer Quartz? Really?


----------



## Roadkill (May 20, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I'm not sure I want to think about the concept of Edward Leigh, Gerald Howarth and compulsory homosexuality, thanks all the same...


 
Oh thanks, I was just about to start making dinner!


----------



## marty21 (May 20, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> I see the usual suspects are firing on all cylinders this afternoon, with Gerald Howarth huffing and puffing about the 'aggressive homosexual community' using equal marriage as a 'stepping stone' (to what exactly? Compulsory gayness?   ) and Edward Leigh banging on about:


#aggressivehomosexuals was trending on twitter earlier


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 20, 2013)

Posted this elsewhere but thought I'd put it here too.

*Damian Lyons Lowe* ‏@*DamianSurvation*  26m
NB. We have UKIP and the Tories neck and neck tonight on 23% before making our DK/REF adjustment. Full tables here: http://survation.com/?p=2937


----------



## Roadkill (May 20, 2013)

marty21 said:


> #aggressivehomosexuals was trending on twitter earlier


 
In looking for that I spotted that #swiveleyedloons is quite popular too. 



> *Dave Jones* ‏@*welsh_gas_doc*  21h
> "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!" "Yeah, well you believe in talking snakes...do one" #*SwivelEyedLoons*


----------



## Combustible (May 20, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> I see the usual suspects are firing on all cylinders this afternoon, with Gerald Howarth huffing and puffing about the 'aggressive homosexual community' using equal marriage as a 'stepping stone' (to what exactly? Compulsory gayness?   )


 
Gerald Howarth appears to have a history of homophobia. From the debates about equalizing the age of consent

He doesn't believe that there is a moral equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual relationships



> My fear is that the Bill reinforces the idea that is already being broadcast through various organs of the media—newspapers and, particularly, television, which is the most instrumental and influential—that a young person can choose between two equally valid life styles. That is not my view. I am sorry if others disagree, but I do not believe that that is the way in which to build a sound society.
> The matter was well summed up by Baroness Young, who said: It is said that this whole issue is one of equality. I do not myself believe that there is a moral equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Furthermore, I think that boys and girls are not equal in emotional development. I believe it is a very doubtful argument to bring equality into this issue at all. In many respects it simply does not apply. We are not talking about equal things."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 939.] I entirely support what she said in her courageous fight in the other place.


 
He believes that "anal sex causes HIV"


> My third point concerns health. I must point out to the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) and for Salford (Ms Blears) that the National Blood Service refuses to accept blood from any man who has had sex with another man. If anal sex does not cause HIV, what does? Why is the National Blood Service giving that clear instruction to all those who come before it?





> it was claimed that, if we reduced the age of consent from 21 to 18, the number of new 803 HIV cases would fall because young people would come forward and seek advice without fear of being prosecuted. The truth is that figures show that, overall, HIV infections acquired through sex between men rose by 11 per cent. from 1995 to 1996—a full year after the change was made by Parliament. The British Medical Journal, which is the official organ of the BMA, said at the time that that was a considerable rise compared with previous years and found that new cases of HIV infection were particularly common among young homosexual men. I rest my case: the Bill will increase the risk of HIV infection among vulnerable young men by increasing their exposure to that fatal illness


 
It is not the first time he has worried about aggressive homosexuals



> Some hon. Members claim that it is nonsense to say that young people will not be scarred for life because homosexuality is genetic. I rebut that. Young constituents have been to see me and told me that they had been pressurised into homosexuality, that they had broken free, and that they were now leading what they—and I—regard as a normal life.


 
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...-amendment-bill-1#S6CV0326P0_19990301_HOC_322
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...es-amendment-bill#S6CV0324P0_19990125_HOC_134
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...es-amendment-bill#S6CV0344P0_20000210_HOC_270


----------



## 8ball (May 20, 2013)

It was messy enough with the church but the bile is really beginning to flow now.


----------



## Roadkill (May 20, 2013)

Combustible said:


> Gerald Howarth appears to have a history of homophobia.


 
Really?  You do surprise me!


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2013)

> *Ian Paisley,* the DUP MP, asks Miller to confirm that gay marriages that take place in England will not be recognised in Northern Ireland.
> Miller says there are special arrangements for Northern Ireland.




ffs what part of United do these people not understand?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2013)

paisely still alive ffs


----------



## Wilf (May 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> paisely still alive ffs


Yeah, but the MP is his son.  Anyway, how very dare you - Paisley snr Saved Ulster from Sodomy!


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2013)

"So, the gays have it; the gays have it."


----------



## Gingerman (May 21, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/21/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen
Swivel -eyed loon speaks.......


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/21/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen
> Swivel -eyed loon speaks.......


 
Top qualidy looning

Liked this...


> Tebbit, who _*said that ministers have "fucked up"*_ by alienating Tory grassroots, accused Downing Street of forcing through the legislation with little thought.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2013)

Congratulations on your recent engagement norman. Not sure they made polygamy legal though.


----------



## RedDragon (May 21, 2013)

Why not just scrap 'civil partnership' as it was an artificial construct to begin with.


----------



## 8ball (May 21, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/21/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen
> Swivel -eyed loon speaks.......


 
Because a lesbian producing a future Head Of State with the aid of a turkey baster would be an absurd way to run a democracy, wouldn't it?

Whereas what we have now...


----------



## Dogsauce (May 21, 2013)

I really had to check that Tebbit article wasn't a Daily Mash piece. Oh my!

It used to be the 'loony left' didn't it?  I quite like it that the other fringe of politics has now taken ownership of that pejorative term.


----------



## 8ball (May 21, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> It used to be the 'loony left' didn't it? I quite like it that the other fringe of politics has now taken ownership of that pejorative term.


 
If God doesn't want turkey baster baby to be King/Queen, he can turn the sperm into vodka.


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> Why not just scrap 'civil partnership' as it was an artificial construct to begin with.


 
Well, surely all constructs that formalise intimate relationships are '_artifical'?_

The concept of a civil partnership, affording the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage but without the cultural 'baggage' associated with the 'm' word, is an important alternative provision. I hope that the Labour amendment that facilitated the passage of the bill is heeded and CPs become open to all without major delay. I'm pretty sure that Mrs B & myself would have opted for a CP had the option been available all those years ago.


----------



## RedDragon (May 21, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Well, surely all constructs that formalise intimate relationships are '_artifical'?_


 
Obviously 

But for me the term 'Civil Partnership' will always be tainted with the stench inequality.


----------



## 8ball (May 21, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> But for me the term 'Civil Partnership' will always be tainted with the stench inequality.


 
It's good that there should be another option for something like "I love you and want to keep having sex with you indefinitely but I'm keeping the flat on for poker nights and for when you're getting on my tits".


----------



## likesfish (May 21, 2013)

What exactly would be wrong with a lesbian queen? Anyway


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> Obviously
> 
> But for me the term 'Civil Partnership' will always be tainted with the stench inequality.


 
I _think _I get your drift...but to view the provision of CP as an expression of inequality pre-supposes a desire for marriage. Obviously, many thousands of folk (estimated 0.2% population) who have entered into such an arrangement don't share your perception. Nor, I feel, would those heterosexual couples who might be attracted to the status when the labour amendment bears fruit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> I see the usual suspects are firing on all cylinders this afternoon, with Gerald Howarth huffing and puffing about the 'aggressive homosexual community' using equal marriage as a 'stepping stone' (to what exactly? Compulsory gayness?   ) and Edward Leigh banging on about:


 
TBF, Howarth is a dyed-in-the-wool hard-right cunt. He can't think of people being happy without wanting to stamp on them, the Monday Club wanker.
BTW, what Howarth is *probably* alluding to is another of his obsessions - the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals. He spewed out a lot of guff when it was lowered in 2000 about how that was only the first step. He comes across as one of those people who thinks that every homosexual male also has the urge to have sex with children.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I'm not sure I want to think about the concept of Edward Leigh, Gerald Howarth and compulsory homosexuality, thanks all the same...


 
If it's merely compulsory between the two of them, I'm all for it!


----------



## Wilf (May 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If it's merely compulsory between the two of them, I'm all for it!


 ... on a float, at the 2013 London Pride.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He comes across as one of those people who thinks that every homosexual male also has the urge to have sex with children.


 
Projection perhaps? Someone give Yewtree a call....


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 21, 2013)

Meanwhile in France

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-in-protest-against-gay-marriage-8625877.html


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Meanwhile in France
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-in-protest-against-gay-marriage-8625877.html


Classic:



> Mr Venner, a presenter on a Catholic-traditionalust radio station and controversial historian and essayist


 
_Yes to traditional lust, no to new fangled heterodox lust!_


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Meanwhile in France
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-in-protest-against-gay-marriage-8625877.html


 Feel sorry for those that had to witness his suicide but, other than that.......


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Meanwhile in France
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-in-protest-against-gay-marriage-8625877.html


 


> His long essay was a tirade against gay marriage but also a warning that the "population of France and Europe" was going to be "replaced" and brought under "Islamist control" and "sharia law"


 
He didn't think this through. Sharia law = no more gay marriage. If only he could have held on for a bit.


----------



## Roadkill (May 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, Howarth is a dyed-in-the-wool hard-right cunt. He can't think of people being happy without wanting to stamp on them, the Monday Club wanker.
> BTW, what Howarth is *probably* alluding to is another of his obsessions - the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals. He spewed out a lot of guff when it was lowered in 2000 about how that was only the first step. He comes across as one of those people who thinks that every homosexual male also has the urge to have sex with children.


 
Yes, you're probably right there.  It'd be nice for someone to pull him up on it and demand to know what he thinks gay marriage is a stepping stone to, but that's almost certainly too much to hope for...


----------



## Wilf (May 21, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> He didn't think this through. Sharia law = no more gay marriage. If only he could have held on for a bit.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 21, 2013)




----------



## Gingerman (May 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Meanwhile in France
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-in-protest-against-gay-marriage-8625877.html


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22617577
An ex-OAS rightwinger.....no great loss


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Meanwhile in France
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-in-protest-against-gay-marriage-8625877.html





> Some of his work as a historian has been well-received, incuding a 1981 book on the Red Army which won a prize from the *Academie(acute on first e) Francaise(cedilla on c)*.



Standards high as ever at the Indie I see.


----------



## 8ball (May 21, 2013)

likesfish said:


> What exactly would be wrong with a lesbian queen? Anyway


 
Nothing.  Nothing at all.

Until they start making more and more mini-lesbian queens that are part lesbian, part turkey baster.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT??!!?


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2013)

Lezard Lisbians?


----------



## Nine Bob Note (May 21, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


>


 
Flairs? Fucking poofs...



> Mr Venner, a presenter on a Catholic-traditionalust radio station *and controversial historian* and essayist


 
Is that the usual code for holocaust-denier?


----------



## Wilf (May 21, 2013)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Flairs?


Nah, crushed velvet loons.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22617577
> An ex-OAS rightwinger.....no great loss


Bad Catholic too, suicide is a sin. Lucky they don't set the bar too low for limbo.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2013)

brogdale said:


> ffs what part of United do these people not understand?


 
any bit that makes them have to be nice to anyone not exactly like them.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2013)

JimW said:


> Bad Catholic too, suicide is a sin. Lucky they don't set the bar too low for limbo.


Not any old sin either - but a mortal sin at that, straight to hell do not pass go/limbo (which the church no longer views as part of its teaching, and was for unbaptised when it semi-officially was).

NBN: Venner wasn't a holocaust denier despite being extreme far-right and being reprinted in some dodgy places that contain negationism - he was a vichy defender who argued that the Jewish collective culture should be a model for the white french (and other 'white nations'). And this led him to play a key role in the development of the 'non-racist racism' of the french new right through GRECE (which was very influential on the modern day BNP) - which can be boiled down to the argument that races (as they see them) should be _separate but equal_ and (publicly) throwing your hands up in horror at the idea of you or your ideas being racist.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

My catechism is very shaky, mostly had the limbo bit in for the bar joke. Couldn't remember if suicide was mortal or venal too. Does highlight the self-serving nature of a lot of alleged conservatism though, this flexible application of dogma.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2013)

Suicide is a direct defiance of god - it's astonishing how shallow this deep catholicism often shows itself to be isn't it?


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Suicide is a direct defiance of god - it's astonishing how shallow this deep catholicism often shows itself to be isn't it?


Some of the only right-to-lifer types I've met I could respect at all were some older Quaker women who used to come on anti-Cruise stuff when we were teens - at least they cared about life after birth etc. too.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 22, 2013)

As I understand it there is no biblical basis for the notion that suicide is a sin. The origin of that idea comes from St Augustine who was responding to christians killing themselves immediately after baptism in the belief that this was the only way of avoiding sin and proceeding to heaven. A cynic might think that St Augustine was more concerned with preventing the decimation of his believers rather than strictly applying biblical scripture. So, if there are any other rightwing, bigoted religious cunts out that there thinking of killing themselves in protest at teh gays, just do it. It's probably okay with god and it's certainly okay with me.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2013)

A catholic follows the doctrine and dogma established by the church - not individual readings of the bible.


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A catholic follows the doctrine and dogma established by the church - not individual readings of the bible.


Sheer Lollardy, perish the thought!


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not any old sin either - but a mortal sin at that, straight to hell do not pass go/limbo (which the church no longer views as part of its teaching, and was for unbaptised when it semi-officially was).
> 
> NBN: Venner wasn't a holocaust denier despite being extreme far-right and being reprinted in some dodgy places that contain negationism - he was a vichy defender who argued that the Jewish collective culture should be a model for the white french (and other 'white nations'). And this led him to play a key role in the development of the 'non-racist racism' of the french new right through GRECE (which was very influential on the modern day BNP) - which can be boiled down to the argument that races (as they see them) should be _separate but equal_ and (publicly) throwing your hands up in horror at the idea of you or your ideas being racist.


 

Their picture of jewish collective culture. given almost half of jews (at least) marry non jews, in part due to the reluctance of the rabinnical authorities to accept converts and in part due to the fact that society has changed and become a lot more accepting

doesnt stop some foaming at the mouth loons try and combat the woes of "assimilation" though (which are usually the same people who are actually making it so difficult to convert), and making out people who don't convert to judaism to be some sort of "assimilation" danger to the community

if he's trying to base a fascist revival on jewish culture he's looking completely the wrong way - especially because a huge part of that "culture" was traditionally also to do with collective responsibility as well - like if someone's committed a massive sin (like, for example, committing suicide with a shotgun in a place of worship) everyone in his community would be responsible for letting him do it in some way


----------



## UhOhSeven (May 23, 2013)

likesfish said:


> What exactly would be wrong with a lesbian queen? Anyway


 
Well, there's no constitutional bar to it, I suppose (as long as they're not CATHOLIC!).

The only problem I could imagine about having a lesbian for Queen would be that -- bar some turkey-baster action -- it would bugger about with the Succession. Same goes for a gay man as King, of course.

But that wouldn't necessarily be a problem -- the line of Succession has survived worse circumstances in the past.

It would just be a shame if a gay Monarch had children that were deemed illegitimate, which I think they would be as the rules now stand.

(Presumably, though, if we actually had a gay Monarch, the law would be changed in short order to accommodate any third-party offspring).

Oh and it would put the cat among the pigeons as far as Supreme Governorship of the Church of England was concerned, assuming they haven't modernised wrt homosexuality by the time we end up with a gay Monarch.


----------



## RedDragon (May 23, 2013)

Being Lesbian/Gay doesn't mean being infertile.


----------



## UhOhSeven (May 23, 2013)

I hope I didn't imply that it did!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 23, 2013)

UhOhSeven said:


> The only problem I could imagine about having a lesbian for Queen would be that -- bar some turkey-baster action -- it would bugger about with the Succession. Same goes for a gay man as King, of course.
> 
> But that wouldn't necessarily be a problem -- the line of Succession has survived worse circumstances in the past.


 
The line of succession is a pretty long one (I have seen it listed up to about number 500), and has survived monarchs who have not produced an heir - as things stand the list is

1 - Charlie
2 - William
(William's kids would go here)
3 - Harry
(any kids Harry has would go here)
4 - Andrew
5 - Beatrice
6 - Eugenie
7 - Edward
8 - Edward's kids

and so on (this assumes that nobody fucks it up by marrying a Catholic or marrying without the monarch of the day's permission or some such)

This hypothetical issue is unlikely to arise until such time as William's kid/s are grown up.

Assuming William's eldest didn't (for whatever reason) produce offspring, then William's second child (if there is one) would be next in line, and their kids next, then William's third child (again if there is one) and so on.  If William's line ended, then it would be Harry then his kids or grand-kids...

The 'legitimacy' issue might be an interesting one in the event of a potential heir to the throne being produced through artificial insemination.   Although as I've said elsewhere on the subject of royalty, the establishment is pretty good at re-writing the rules when it suits them.

The idea of a lesbian / gay monarch might convert the swivel-eyed tendency to republicanism.  now there's a thought....


----------



## UhOhSeven (May 23, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> The 'legitimacy' issue might be an interesting one in the event of a potential heir to the throne being produced through artificial insemination. Although as I've said elsewhere on the subject of royalty, the establishment is pretty good at re-writing the rules when it suits them.


 
That's the aspect that interests me. It would surely require an amendment to the Act of Settlement, or any kids produced by third-party artificial means would be illegitimate.

That's not considering a Royal who had kids in wedlock, then decided they themselves were gay of course, which is a possibility.



> The idea of a lesbian / gay monarch might convert the swivel-eyed tendency to republicanism. now there's a thought....


 
Hah! I think faced with a gay Monarch or no Monarch, the rabid Royalists would soon manage to accommodate the idea of a queer King/Queen.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 23, 2013)

UhOhSeven said:


> That's the aspect that interests me. It would surely require an amendment to the Act of Settlement, or any kids produced by third-party artificial means would be illegitimate.
> 
> That's not considering a Royal who had kids in wedlock, then decided they themselves were gay of course, which is a possibility.
> 
> ...


 
They would. And it'd allow the more right wing "assimilationist" types on the gay lobby side to get in bed with the swivel eyes - And Christ, that'd make a right royal mess of the sheets.


----------

