[Closed] Who voted for these idiots? c'mon own up.

Thanks JY thought I was missing something!

I'm not even a Labour supporter FFS, people keep making me defend them!

atlaz - Member
Lifer - not wanting to stoke the fire, but in that case, his ranking of religious freedom above equality for a (relatively large) portion of our population indicates either an unwillingness to stand up to bigots or a nice healthy slice of bigotry for himself.

Sorry, it's a binary issue so either he's for it or against it. Saying that it's too complicated to deal with means he's siding with the people against equality.

I completely agree. But it's not an example of him caving to the bigots in Labour, as Wrecker suggested, unless you can show me that he was pressured into making this decision by these same bigots.

OK, putting the bickering aside; the CPs were a pretty big step.
I'm not pro tory (I despise all parties equally), but I do believe that CMD and Nicky deserve some credit for trying to push this through particularly as they're up against the nasty old school tories.
I get the feeling that there's a degree of suspicion which would not be present (at least by the same individuals) if it were a leftist party doing this.

Gawd bless those tories and there freedom for gays agenda where would we be without them

😆

Someone not-Tory agruing about Lab/Con with someone not-Labour. Nature abhors a vacuum!

EDIT - Is 'planning to' the same as 'trying to'?

😛

"enfht - Member
Let everyone do whatever they want, with the same legal rights as married m/f couples but don't call a partnership between same sex couples as "Marriage" 'cos it aint."

Well it aint legally at the moment but it should be. Not heard one single person say why it should not be.

cameron wouldnt be doing this if wasnt in a coalition
hes doing it to throw a scrap to cleggy so he can claim that hes done something vaguely libdemish

You're probably right kimbers. It's still bound to upset a load of old tory arseholes. Maybe they'll all piss off in protest eh?

cameron wouldnt be doing this if wasnt in a coalition

Bear in mind that although he was a strong supporter of S28, he apologised for this in 2009. What he's doing now is some evidence that he's either had a Damascene conversion of sorts, or that he realised some time back that the Tories were out of step with the public. Either way. I don't think the Libs can necessarily claim credit for this one.

Isn't this nice - a potentially divisive topic debated in a largely tolerant fashion and only a bit of swearing! Was this weekend an epiphany moment for SWT?

only a bit of swearing!

Isn't this nice - a potentially divisive topic debated in a largely tolerant fashion and only a bit of swearing! Was this weekend an epiphany moment for SWT?

Do the asexual marry?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16552173

"enfht - Member
Let everyone do whatever they want, with the same legal rights as married m/f couples but don't call a partnership between same sex couples as "Marriage" 'cos it aint."

Well it aint legally at the moment but it should be. Not heard one single person say why it should not be.

I've never heard a convincing argument on this point either.

But wrecker your prefaced the swearing with a "You probably right...", so you will be forgiven for sure!! 😉

Do the asexual marry?

Yes, and the divorces are always a real bloddy mess.

NOT ME

Do the asexual marry?

Dunno but I'd wager that Tim ****s a lot.

crankboy - Member

Well it aint legally at the moment but it should be. Not heard one single person say why it should not be.

That's a good point, but to be honest, not heard why it should be either.
If you want to change the status quo, then that's the more important argument that needs to be clarified.

Thanks JY thought I was missing something!

I'm not even a Labour supporter FFS, people keep making me defend them!

I am not a labour supporter How very dare you FFS I am left wing 😉

Wind it in FFS. Who is now trying to legalise gay marriage? Who NEVER tried?

Yes CMD deserveds praise but the race to equality for gays has been a journey hampered by tories not helped and they seem determined to continue to do this against the wishes of their leader.

The tories are not the champions of gay rights in this country even though the leader does seem to be trying his best to make them

I wish him luck

Winds kneck in

The tories are not the champions of gay rights in this country even though the leader does seem to be trying his best to make them

loam "If you want to change the status quo, then that's the more important argument that needs to be clarified"

The status quo was that male homosexuality was illegal and lesbians did not exist.
We have moved on to recognising the sexuality of a significant percentage of the population and outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
If we are truly to follow through with this civilised and morally right transition then same sex couples deserve to have exactly the same rights to public and legal recognition of their relationships as couples who happen to be of different sexes. IE if they are equal then they have an equal right to marry and should not be given a fudge of a legal status that's sort of the same but has a different name. Was not the motto of racial segregation "equal but separate" and we all no how much fun that was.

Thanks crankboy.
It's not an issue I've followed much, so whilst hearing about people being on one side or the other of "the argument", rarely do I read what the argument actually is.

I would have been very disappointed if I wasn't allowed to marry my wife just because of her gender. When you see how far we've come on gay rights, it's surprising gay marriage is still not legal in the UK - but equally it's inevitable that it will become so.

I hope the Tories in question live long enough to get irate about it.

Elf would of been priceless on this thread 😆

stopped getting het up about scoring political points and getting shouty about the tories,

you'd see that the only thing that matters (regardless of who implements it) is that peoples rights are improved. To not make any progress for gay rights in 13 years, you'd need to be cryogenically frozen. The main thing is that it's continued.

Are not all gay people already condem voters, as theyre usually affluent, well spoken, own their own homes,and have no need for social services provided for families who vote labour.

or am i mistaken.

I am not getting shouty and I am not scoring points, I am stating facts ..I am sorry if you dont like them

Society and [s]tories[/s] politicians still have some way to go on the journey to true acceptance though many are there already.

FTFY

loum - Member
Thanks crankboy.
It's not an issue I've followed much, so whilst hearing about people being on one side or the other of "the argument", rarely do I read what the argument actually is.

You really needed to be told that it was about bringing the law in line with the reality of day to day life? 😯 I find that a little hard to believe but if so, kudos for asking.

really who cares who shags who? there are better things to spend money on. let them get married etc etc and be done with it and spend money on more bike lanes

Sorry, I voted for these idiots - cos I was fed up with last bunch of idiots I'd voted for.

Looking worryingly short of options for a fresh set of idiots to vote for at the next election.....

Vertical climber, it isnt about who is shagging who, but the equal right for two people of the same sex to have the same rights as two people of different sexes to each other, its about love, of sharing emotions and experiences, and most importantly as being accepted as a couple in a relationship, from everything from work and pension rights, to your freinds and family acepting you and your partner for what and who they are,and even to death when one partner dies.

Lifer - Member

Someone not-Tory agruing about Lab/Con with someone not-Labour. Nature abhors a vacuum!

EDIT - Is 'planning to' the same as 'trying to'?

Is claiming you're planning to the same as planning to?

atlaz
Like I said above, not really an issue I prioritise following, and the news (and the political point scorers on here) tend to coment more on the people involved (and their quest for votes) than the actual argument. Thats why I thanked crankboy for actually explaining that argument better than I've heard .
I don't understand your point though. A law should reflect what's right, not just "the reality of day to day life". All crimes are a part of day to day life, but there's no reason to change the law to accomodate them.

It's going to take a while to get your head out of there

As for claiming it is politicians I posted up the voting earlier there were 2 labour and the rest were tory or tory supporting ones from NI who voted against civil partnership*- but dont let the facts detract from your view that it is "politicians " generally rather than Tories specifically or from attacking me
Currently only tory MPs are getting upset about this proposal and organising to vote against movement towards equality for gay people ,apart from being wrong its a great point you made.
Couldd you not really respond to what I say or the facts [yet]again and give me a gentle insult instead?

Look Dave has done a sterling effort he his trying his best to do the right thing and i support him. However it is obvious that many [ 1/3 ish] in his party do not support this and are not progressive in terms of gay rights and their last govt passed and did not repeal legislation that discriminated against gays.

Calling me gentle names wont change this or make your argument any more persuasive.
* it was free vote as well there was no party whip

Not trolling; what's the difference between a civil partnership and marriage anyway? I got married in a registry office and I wouldn't know the difference...

As far as I can tell, they give pretty much the same rights and responsibilities but not allowing civil partnerships to be called a wedding and therefore a marriage is just a big slap in the face for Teh Gays.

There are lots of pretty obvious arguments for equality and I'm also yet to hear a convincing reason against.

Interestingly I think people vote for a party and their policies, not the people within it (Which change frequently). So in essence no-one voted for the idiots, they voted for the organisation that contained them (probably without knowing they existed) and some would say they didn't vote them in 😀

A law should reflect what's right, not just "the reality of day to day life".

Actually I think laws are supposed to represent what the majority feel is appropriate for the times, since right and wrong are pretty hard to define and are a bit subjective.

I thought that the problem with "marriage" for same-sex couples was that they could then go on to claim discrimination if a church refused to carry out the ceremony?

There are lots of pretty obvious arguments for equality and I'm also yet to hear a convincing reason against.

yes keep attacking me dont attack the facts or the argument

Have you no self awareness at all?

coffeeking - Member
A law should reflect what's right, not just "the reality of day to day life".
Actually I think laws are supposed to represent what the majority feel is appropriate for the times, since right and wrong are pretty hard to define and are a bit subjective.

Well it aint legally at the moment but it should be. Not heard one single person say why it should not be.
That's a good point, but to be honest, not heard why it should be either.
If you want to change the status quo, then that's the more important argument that needs to be clarified.

he status quo was that male homosexuality was illegal and lesbians did not exist.
We have moved on to recognising the sexuality of a significant percentage of the population and outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
If we are truly to follow through with this civilised and morally right transition then same sex couples deserve to have exactly the same rights to public and legal recognition of their relationships as couples who happen to be of different sexes. IE if they are equal then they have an equal right to marry and should not be given a fudge of a legal status that's sort of the same but has a different name. Was not the motto of racial segregation "equal but separate" and we all no how much fun that was.

Aside from the actual issue, the political one is the Tory backbenchers flushed with success of watching CMD cave in over Europe to the detriment of the UK longterm are now going to make him cave in on this issue.

They smell blood.

yes keep attacking me dont attack the facts or the argument
Have you no self awareness at all?

I do hope that post was intentional irony...I really do...if so it is quite funny if not its quite sad.

Maybe they're just representing the public mood? In a democracy, thats what elected representatives are supposed to do...

46% would support same-sex marriage
28% support civil partnerships but oppose same-sex marriage
17% oppose both civil partnerships and same-sex marriage

http://labs.yougov.co.uk/news/2011/10/04/one-five-britons-opposes-gay-marriage/

Pretty evenly split I'd say.

Imagine living in a country where people were not allowed to have dissenting views or different opinions, be shit wouldn't it?

Maybe they're just representing the public mood? In a democracy, thats what elected representatives are supposed to do...

It should have absolutely nothing to do with "representing the public mood".

I couldn't give a toss if 90% of the population was opposed to gay marriages. Who someone marries is no else's bleeding business.

And it's about time some people realised that.

So much for democracy eh Ernie 🙄

As it happens, I and a bunch of other sane, adult responsible people don't really think its anyone else's bleeding business what I choose to stick up my best mates ricker, chase over the countryside with a pack of hounds, or inject into my veins, but we live in a country ruled by laws that govern all of these things, and I don't hear you complaining about them!

So much for democracy eh Ernie

It's got bugger all to do with "democracy". If someone chooses to live as a vegan, or go to friday prayers every week at the mosque, then they don't need the approval of the majority of the population. Same goes for who they want to marry.

Democracy is also about respecting the rights of minorities.

There's all sorts of "minority" beliefs and pastimes that are illegal, I've given you just a couple of examples above, there's also a shedload of minorities "rights" that are contradictory, for example religious beliefs and same-sex adoption

So which minorities rights [b]is [/b]it permissible to disregard?

I thought that the problem with "marriage" for same-sex couples was that they could then go on to claim discrimination if a church refused to carry out the ceremony?

Religious organisations aren't and wouldn't ever be under an obligation to marry anyone. They're not (and shouldn't be) subject to the mainstream anti-discrimination etc laws for their religious activity. You couldn't (successfully) sue the Catholic church for refusing to employ you as a priest just because you are a women, for example.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

blah, blah, blah

If you can't figure out that who someone falls in love with, and where they decide to take their relationship, is no one else's bleeding business, then I'm not going bother helping you.

I think telling someone who they can and can't marry is the ultimate cheek.

there's also a shedload of minorities "rights" that are contradictory, for example religious beliefs and same-sex adoption

Just becasue a snapshop survey indicates that there are different views in society (often fed by a culture of soundbite media), that doesn't mean that it can be used to say that represnts 'democracy' and should therefore override equality.

We have a raft of legislation that increasing makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the grounds of gender, sexuality etc, and therefore 'marriage' should be freely and equally available to all that want it.

Oh, and Emsz, can I be invited to your wedding too 😉
(BTW - glad things between you and your gf are better)

Yep, screw democracy, Ernie's got an opinion, and that trumps everything else 🙄

Yep, screw democracy, Ernie's got an opinion, and that trumps everything else

It has nothing at all do with 'my opinion'.

As it happens [i]my opinion[/i] is that the thought of sex between two blokes is disgusting. I deal with that quite simply by not engaging in it. Not by banning it or putting any sort of restrictions on it. If two blokes want to get married and shag each other silly every night then that's [i]their[/i] business, not [i]mine[/i]

Zulu I am happy to see your conversion to the cause of human rights and PC causes. What with offence at Dianne Abbot and ranting here for minorities rights ....it is an impressive epiphany and is in no way your usual attempt to grossly misrepresent someones view and just have a go no matter what.

Really Ernie? Disgusting, I certainly don't find it that... don't knock it till you've tried it and all that. Still, you shouldn't really be too bothered about me and my minority friends wanting to chase foxes over the countryside with our pet dogs then, I look forward to your support in the hunting act repeal campaign.

(you see, once you start making exceptions to democracy on the grounds of "minority rights" it all gets a little silly, doesn't it!)

Junkyard - I think its fair to point out inconsistency when people apply double standards, don't you?

Oh my....... Zulu-Eleven finds himself in a hole and uses the old diversionary tactics .......... what a surprise :rolls eyes:

So you want to talk about fox hunting on a thread about gay marriages do you ?

Well never mind about that and how about saying where you stand on gay marriages. Would the government be right or wrong to legalise same sex marriages ?

Well ? What do you say ?

Zule-Eleven If you are between 16 and 24, have a side-parting, lips fixed in a permanent semi-sneer and a braying laugh then you should join the Young Conservatives. Activities include throwing bread rolls around restaurants; pipe-smoking (traditionally tobacco but usually cannabis for the modern young conservative); homosexual bum rape by Oxbridge dons; getting drunk on Pimms and beating up a tramp; and snorting cocaine from the ample breasts of a millionaire's daughter. If you are invited to a fancy dress party, please feel free to dress up as the high-profile child murder victim of your choice, only be sure to remember that Big Dave will have to give your naughty botty a good spanking.

Ernie - I think its perfectly fair for a democratic system, with free and fairly elected representatives, to decide who can, and can't marry each other.

I don't see marriage rights as having any special significance over and above anything else, that should exempt them from the democratic process, nor should anything, [b]anything[/b], else have special treatment, as once you start making exceptions for special cases, everything becomes a special case, and the whole system falls down.

simple enough for you?

Now, back to my original point:

[i]Imagine living in a country where people were not allowed to have dissenting views or different opinions, be shit wouldn't it?[/i]

🙄

Also Zulu, the conservatives have no political mandate to be anti-gay. Therefore what you espouse is mobocracy. You are intellectually challenged. If you really want, call for a referendum. You will lose it though. Basically though when the liberals formed a government with the tories, this was mandated. The rebels are going against the wish of the the two parties in government that the British people voted for.

Here's a nice definition of mobocracy:

"Ochlocracy is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional authorities. In English, the word mobocracy is sometimes used as a synonym. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it’s akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning “the easily moveable crowd.”

As a term in civics it implies that there is no formal authority whatsoever, not even a commonly-accepted view of anarchism, and so disputes are raised, contended and closed by brute force ? might makes right, but only in a very local and temporary way, as another mob or another mood might just as easily sway a decision. It is often associated with demagoguery and the rule of passion over reason.

A liberal democracy on the other hand requires identity, source and reason.

No universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’ exists, especially with regard to the elements in a society which are required for it. Many people use the term “democracy” as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government.

Until the web can evolve into a democratic system where every participant’s identity is known, rights protected and actions accountable, we will witness encounters with mob rule usually hinging on threats of harm – do what the mob wants, and you won’t get hurt; resist, and you almost certainly will – the anonymity, sheer size and psychological makeup of the mob making it difficult or impossible to assign blame to any one person. We will also encounter a constant need by governments to keep people fed, distracted, and in awe of the power of the state and manipulation of the mob by political leaders who sense that they have the power to dispose of opponents to policy."

Wow Bwarp - you can cut and paste, well done, can you form your own opinions as well, or do you just adopt those you read on the interwebz as fact?

See that bit up there where I pointed out the polling data:

46% would support same-sex marriage
28% support civil partnerships but oppose same-sex marriage
17% oppose both civil partnerships and same-sex marriage

Well, erm, thats called public opinion, MP's, from either party, are there to represent it - and I'd say that the opinions of the public on the issue are pretty evenly balanced, so why should people be castigated for holding an opinion [b]either[/b] way, or are you [b]really[/b] saying that 45% of the population are illiberal right wing loons who's opinion means nothing?

Is poor old zulu upset that he got slapped? If you've noticed we don't do rule by mob in this couuntry, which is the reason why democracies do not usually have that many referendums on issues. Democracy is there to protect the individual and set a basic framework in which the largest amount of people have the most freedom without impeding the freedom of others.

You sir, are a fascist with a limited understanding of the term "democracy". Do you masturbate over Oswald Mosley?

What's 28 plus 17 by the way? If you want to devolve the idea of democracy into unlimited rule by majority as opposed to managed rule then you'd lose.

I don't see marriage rights as having any special significance over and above anything else

Yes they have a very special significance.......as I keep telling you, who someone chooses to marry is no one else's business.

Seriously, I cannot believe the barefaced cheek someone people have in assuming that they are entitled to dictate to other people who they can and can't marry.

.

simple enough for you?

Well it might have been, if you'd actually answered the question. And it was a pretty simple and straightforward question at that. I'll remind you what it was : Would the government be right or wrong to legalise same sex marriages ?

But don't bother answering it now......I wasn't really that interested in your answer.

Ah, so, anyone who disagree's with you is a Fascist? right, I get it now 😆

[i]Imagine living in a country where people were not allowed to have dissenting views or different opinions, be shit wouldn't it?[/i] 😉

Would the government be right or wrong

The government don't choose, [b]parliament[/b] chooses, thats how this representative democracy thing works, don't you understand that Ernie ?

Zulu, what's 28 plus 17? Now take into account the current government was formed with a liberal one and therefore has to carry out the agreed mandate with the liberals? Factor that into your head.

The government don't choose, parliament chooses, thats how this representative democracy thing works, don't you understand that Ernie ?

WRONG! A party should carry out what it was mandated to do.

You sir, are a fascist with a limited understanding of the term "democracy"

Actually Zulu-Eleven is more of a royalist than fascist, and he understands democracy alright......he's decided that he doesn't like it, calling it a "silly little experiment" :

Zulu-Eleven - Member

No Ernie, not at all - far more of a fan of a military coup returning HRH to power and getting rid of this silly little experiment in "democracy" 🙂

Edit:

if the height of your ability to hold an intelligent debate is calling people mong's, then I think we really ought to leave it there

You only need a 50 percent majority in a yes or no vote. Get back to me when you find the poll for such a vote. Even then I believe it should be a human right to practice religion freely free from interference by the state and if that religion allows gay marriage, so be it.

If 51 percent of the populace wanted to murder Jews, would that make it right? Government is there to balance the will of the people with logic and reason.

And if the typically homophobic and racist Daily Mail comments section is anything to go by, you'd lose a Yes/No vote as well.

If you are between 16 and 24, have a side-parting, lips fixed in a permanent semi-sneer and a braying laugh then you should join the Young Conservatives

Damn, I swear their house in central Oxford is still labelled "Young Conservatives". That or my memory of Oxford is blurred by pimms and coke.

I think marriage is a outdated and pointless social interaction, unless someone says I can't do it, whereby I would fight tooth and nail for my right not to do it.

the argument is essentially a load of nutjobs wrote gayness was bad 2000ish years ago in their big book of stories.

I think marriage is a outdated and pointless social interaction, unless someone says I can't do it, whereby I would fight tooth and nail for my right not to do it.

the argument is essentially a load of nutjobs wrote gayness was bad 2000ish years ago in their big book of stories.

It's midnight here in Florida, and I've just spent the last four hours debating the existence of God with some of my colleagues, them arguing for their idea and me on arguing for mine. Anyway, point is I don't have time to read through the entire thread.

So, out of interest, as long as the government isn't going to start legislating for what people have to believe and by that I mean, you can't force a religious person to believe that the gay marriage is the same marriage that they believe in, nor can you force people to conduct a marriage ceremony in a religious setting if they felt it against their belief, so assuming all that, what's the problem with renaming, civil unions, civil marriage? Why would anyone have a problem with that?

Come to think of it, why would anyone feel the need for it?

Interesting debate last night! Already stated my views so won't repeat but do I take it that:

1. Majority support one's point of view = democracy
2. Majority disagree with one's point of view = mobocracy?

Not specific to this case, but at what point does the important principle of respecting minorities become the tyranny of minorities?

what's the problem with renaming, civil unions, civil marriage? Why would anyone have a problem with that?

Come to think of it, [b]why would anyone feel the need for it?[/b]

If you've always had something, you perhaps don't value it so highly. The voting turnout in the UK is terrible; in other countries, people [i]die[/i] for the right to vote, as they have in the UK in times gone by.

In the same way, being treated as a second-class citizen is something that every gay person has to deal with. Their union is [i]tolerated[/i] by the state as a Civil Partnership, but it's not really [i]accepted[/i] in the same way as marriage is. If you're gay, in a permanent and committed relationship, you want (like every straight person) to shout about it to the world, and for the world to welcome that relationship. Often, you want to demonstrate that commitment in a solemnisation, that we've always called marriage, which is (or at least was, until the advent of divorce) meant to be the ultimate contract.

OK, so a lot of people choose not to marry, but those that do want to do it properly, not be fobbed off with the Netto-style Civil Partnership. And that right should extend to anyone who want it; so long as they're both of sound mind, and are adults, then anything else should be entirely irrelevant.

I do hope that post was intentional irony...I really do...if so it is quite funny if not its quite sad.

ernie_lynch - Member
Who someone marries is no else's bleeding business.

And it's about time some people realised that.

Er I would have thought that was a contradiction, if it's no-ones business why do they want to declare the union in any other way than just co habitant? Hetero or Gay?

It's a big deal getting married if you haven't noticed, bans have to be posted and read, vows taken in public before witnesses..

It's entirely for other folks business and notice.

We live in a world now where ones constantly worried by the PC Fascists to even discuss stuff like this and a clear majority of folk are represented by those Tory views. They sit in constituencies being tut tutted at by the 'older' generation who don't like what's going on, whipped up by the Daily Wail, so I wouldn't be to sure that Z11's views aren't spot on the money.

Gay Union is not likely to be received by the Hetero community as the same as theirs, ever, they might not make a lot of noise about it for fear of God knows what law, rule or phobia they may be accused of, so shout and scream as the Liberal Left may, it's not going to alter any time soon, (that opinion) and as far as any mandate the Liberal part of the coalition may have had, it went out of the window with tuition fees.

Not to mention Sharia view on the subject...

Gay Union is not likely to be received by the Hetero community as the same as theirs, ever, they might not make a lot of noise about it for fear of God knows what law, rule or phobia they may be accused of, so shout and scream as the Liberal Left may, it's not going to alter any time soon, (that opinion) and as far as any mandate the Liberal part of the coalition may have had, it went out of the window with tuition fees.

Not to mention Sharia view on the subject...

[b]This[/b] hetero married person is entirely relaxed about it; speak for yourself only, if you don't mind. Seems to me that the phobias you mention are in your own mind, but if you have specific instances of it, why not mention them.

And what on earth does Sharia have to do with it? We're specifically looking at civil marriages here - everyone accepts that religions can do their own thing.

Gay Union is not likely to be received by the Hetero community as the same as theirs, ever

Quite probably.
Mind you, not too long ago the same could have been said about people who were divorced and wanted to remarry..