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 - MemberNo 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
Just as an aside, the Young Conservatives don't exist any more - it's called Conservative Future now. Also, it's open to anyone under thirty - so there you go, that's an extra six years of braying. 😉
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.
?????
Read your posts. Have a word with yourself then come back and start making some sense.
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..
PC Fascists
The fundamentalist wing of the PC brigade.
Hetero community
😆
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.
In English please?
TORY POWER!
Up Dave!
The answer is no one voted for them, there was never any comittment in either the Tory or Lib-Dem manifestoes for a coalition agreement.
nickf - Member
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, [b](that opinion) [/b]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...
This 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.
Read it again, I said [b]that opinion[/b] not my opinion, which is such I could give a ****, gays by their nature are very often attention seeking fools, it's their lifestyle choice, if they want to draw more derision than is already aimed their way then that's up to them. Doesn't worry me if they get married or not, most of my pals have over the years just quietly lead their lives and no one really cares or even judges these days, it's just the 'scene' gays that make all the noise and the workaday types often suffer the more in silence..
You can't have travelled much if you haven't noticed what effect Sharia is having on some gay sectors of the community..
Well, I just don't know where to go with that.
Attention seeking fools.
Scene gays.
Swear-filter avoidance to boot.
All in all, a post lacking fabulousness.
You can't have travelled much if you haven't noticed what effect Sharia is having on some gay sectors of the community..
Seriously, I'm not really aware of what you're talking about. Care to enlighten me?
who someone chooses to marry is no one else's business.
I'd like two wives please. Bigamy should be legalised now.
druidh - Member
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?
I bet it's not beyond the bounds of the intelligent law type people (can you tell I'm not one) to draft a law which says that we call it all marriage but churches are entitled to decide who gets married there. Pretty sure I can't get married in a synagogue or a mosque or whatever the scientologists call the place the aliens are expelled from so I don't see this as different. Enshrine religious freedom in private places (i.e. places of worship) do not enshrine it in public places (i.e. you can't have a religious town hall registrar refusing to do gay marriages).
I'd like two wives please. Bigamy should be legalised now.
If all three (or more) parties are consenting, what's the reason for no bigamy beyond the religious throwbacks? Anyone know? I know several people who are polyamorous and although it's absolutely not for me, I don't see that their choice is my business any more than it is with the gay community.
I'm trying to work out if I'm a scene gay or just a workaday one.
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?
The point is that one group in society can get married and one cannot so it is by definition unequal treatment on grounds of sexuality which is ironically illegal
Perhaps we should suggest no one gets married in a church just so they can see how it feels to be denied your right..that is the thing with religion they don’t mind oppressing other folk because of what their book says but go mental if anyone tries to do the same back to them..their view is a minority but vocal viewpoint. – we could easily have civil marriages say in registry offices with no religious overtones…oh we do now we just need to allow it for those of the same gender or ban hetros form marrying I don’t care massively each way as long as they are equal
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..
[b]It's entirely for other folks business and notice[/b]
Its public but it is a personal declaration of a love and a personal commitment between two people who are so happy they share this with their nearest and dearest..it is not just for “show” as you weakly imply nor for th ebenefit of other people.
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.
We live in a world of morons who don’t understand election results or survey data who then use emotive BS arguments to defend their stupid and ill evidenced arguments.
They did not get a majority of votes in general so its not a majority and the majority view [ simple FPTP] as used for elections would involve us having gay marriages. Despite PC fascists no one here seems scared to discuss i. nor are they scared to use inflammatory language whilst doing so. I would imagine worse can be found elsewhere….do you have any evidence for the ”fear” you describe? Heterosexuals quivering with fear about no longer bein able to be mean to gays because of what PCers will do to them…is their some hate crime statistics for their indignant tutting at them and their views?
In essence that’s BS
You may wish to rant about PC fascists [ idiotic term showing your distain] but propably better to calm down first and see if the actual facts support your rantette. Otherwis it looks like another emotional outburst.
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
They would be accused of treating people different based on their sexuality whish is exactly what is happening.
Did you see the survey above this..it is currently at 46%. It also says the most vociferous opposition is from religious groups and most support from young people..you did read the link Derek?
it will be the majority soon once enough old out of touch fuddy duddies have fallen of the mortal coil..how old are you again Derek 😉 The newer generation do not share these fears and are ok with gays so it will become law.
Zulu I am glad to see you go on about majority view and I await you STFU about hunting as no one wants to do this and you seem so keen to follow the majority in a democracy
Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% - say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.
In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.
Among potential Conservative supporters, six out of ten (62%) say that fox hunting should NOT be made legal again, with one in three (33%) saying it should.
Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.
JY - just wondering, do you have strong feelings on this? 😉
Gay Union is not likely to be received by the Hetero community as the same as theirs
Arseburgers! I knew I had forgotten to do something last time I moved house. Evidently. I didn't change my address on the Hetero Community Electoral Roll and now I've missed out on the vote to appoint derekrides as Straight Folks Delegate and express our opinion.
I bet it's not beyond the bounds of the intelligent law type people to draft a law which says that we call it all marriage but churches are entitled to decide who gets married there.
Don't need to - that's already what the law is in E&W. As you suggest - just because you're a couple that is able to be married in E&W law, it doesn't mean that you can oblige any priest, imam, rabbi or similar [url= http://www.venganza.org/ordination/ ]minister[/url] to marry you.
I think it's perfectly right that religious practitioners should be permitted to refuse to marry gay people because the Big Book of Spells says that they're naughty people. I also think it's perfectly right that people should shun such practitioners' religions.
I'm trying to work out if I'm a scene gay or just a workaday one.
Oh no! This is just like the business core v business support debate! 😥
Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.
I'm for gay marriage, and I have an ideological problem with toffs on horses. But I shoot foxes when they're on my land - they've killed too many of my chickens
sorry Junky - I don't get what you're saying!
Are you agreeing with me that democracy should take precedence regardless, or are you saying that its acceptable to "pick and choose" which "minorities" get their rights protected?
So, majority opinion holds sway on hunting, but its ok to slit animals throats regardless of public opinion on the issue, because its in someones big book of spells...
Fine way to run a society that is, isn't it 😕
attention seeking fools
🙄
I think it's perfectly right that religious practitioners should be permitted to refuse to marry gay people because the Big Book of Spells says that they're naughty people. I also think it's perfectly right that people should shun such practitioners' religions.
I don't, if churches are to perform duties with legal implications ie marriage, then they should have to according to the laws of equality, if they aren't willing to do so, then church weddings should have no legal status.
then church weddings should have no legal status.
This, for me, would be a good solution. It would probably cause a lot of hassle and queues at the registry office though.
MSP +1
Otherwise Churches are basically just social clubs for the bigoted.
That's just petulant, though, MSP.
Religious people don't have a monopoly on performing marriages. If you don't agree with the religious views of a religious institution ("we don't like gays, divorcees and infidels"), then don't go there. There's tons of other much nicer people who will marry you if you want them to (I know, I used one).
Religions are fundamentally different from other [s]businesses[/s] organisations. It's just self-evidently not the same to be refused service at Tesco and to be refused marriage at a Tabernacle.
You said "if churches are to perform duties with legal implications ie marriage, then they should have to according to the laws of equality". How about saying "if people are to perform procedures with legal implications ie getting marriage, then they should have to according to the laws of equality". Do you think that people should be prohibited from refusing to marry people of different religions, races, sexual orientations? Of course not - that would be an absurd infringement of personal rights.
Otherwise Churches are basically just social clubs for the bigoted.
[i]Otherwise?[/i] 😛
Read it again, I said that opinion not my opinion, which is such I could give a ****, gays by their nature are very often attention seeking fools, it's their lifestyle choice, if they want to draw more derision than is already aimed their way then that's up to them.
This is why the navy doesn't employ them.
Sir Hugh Maharggs: Homosexuals can't swim, they attract enemy radar, they attract sharks, they insist on being placed at "the captain's table", they get up late, they nudge people whilst they're shooting. They muck about. Imagine... the fear... of knowing you have a gay man on board a boat, when you retire at night you think to yourself "God... will I wake up and find everybody dead?" You can't run a ship like that