mudcat.org: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]


BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 09:37 AM
GUEST,999 28 Dec 12 - 09:51 AM
Musket 28 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 11:20 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Dec 12 - 11:23 AM
dick greenhaus 28 Dec 12 - 02:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 28 Dec 12 - 04:29 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 04:30 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 04:41 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 05:26 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 05:36 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 05:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 05:53 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Dec 12 - 06:55 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Dec 12 - 07:22 PM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 07:33 PM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 07:43 PM
GUEST,999 28 Dec 12 - 07:48 PM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM
Don Firth 28 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM
Don Firth 28 Dec 12 - 08:03 PM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM
GUEST,999 28 Dec 12 - 08:11 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Dec 12 - 09:11 PM
Musket 29 Dec 12 - 04:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 05:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 05:28 AM
akenaton 29 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM
Musket 29 Dec 12 - 07:54 AM
Kenny B (inactive) 29 Dec 12 - 08:28 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 10:33 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 11:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 11:06 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 11:11 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 29 Dec 12 - 11:28 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 11:39 AM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 11:45 AM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 12:02 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 12:24 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 01:28 PM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 01:33 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 01:54 PM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 02:46 PM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 03:34 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 03:41 PM
GUEST,Futwick 29 Dec 12 - 03:46 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 09:37 AM

Telegraph, 10th December.
MPs will be told that the biggest official "listening exercise" ever undertaken on a government proposal found that a narrow majority support the highly contentious move.
This result is based on the responses of around 228,000 people who took part in the consultation earlier this year, the vast majority of whom submitted anonymous online forms to the Government.
Yet petitions organised by campaigners, in which more than 500,000 people opposed plans to redefine marriage to include gay couples and around 64,000 supported them, have been ignored by ministers.
In addition, participation was not limited to UK residents despite claims that lobbying groups in the US had been attempting to recruit people to submit responses.
Opponents of the plan have cried foul, arguing that the consultation's finding of majority support amounted to dishonesty.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 09:51 AM

"I realize that homosexuality is a serious problem for anyone who is - but then, of course, heterosexuality is a serious problem for anyone who is, too. And being a man is a serious problem and being a woman is, too. Lots of things are problems."

Edward Gorey


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM

Shock horror!

MPs pretend they didn't know what equality meant when they voted through a bill ensuring it!

Read all about it!!

Akenaton. I find you offensive. Luckily, I don't extend that to all Scots.




Sorry for the gap, I was genuinely trying to think of a Gay person who I find offensive. I am sure there are some. But when you go through life having to endure the prejudice of others, I suppose you are not so quick to judge others. Hence a bit difficult to find any.

Of course, there are plenty. Most of all the hypocritical people who decried a Gay lifestyle whilst having one themselves in private. The likes of Peter Tatchell do a good job pointing out their unsustainable position.

His work is becoming less though as society is coming to terms with itself. At one time, "No blacks, No dogs, No Irish" was seen on pub doors. Now, society would be outraged by it. The same with ignorant low life who see Gay people as different, something to fear, something to hate.

About those who don't want Gay marriage. I am glad they have registered their view. Even if they were 51% of the voting population, (which they aren't) it would make no difference. Equality is equality is equality, and since when did a modern Western democracy say that a majority can hold a minority in contempt and make laws restricting them? Our politicians may have their problems and may not be of the calibre we expect in some ways, but they are not so thick as to exclude non popular necessities. if you did a poll, there would be no overseas aid, no independence of newspapers, no multi nationals, no banks, and eventually no country to live in. Politicians are there for us to trust their judgement not tell them how to vote. Government by referendum cannot work whilst ignorant twats are allowed to put a tick in a box. As ignorant twats are also part of society, we need a safety lever. We call it Parliamentary democracy.

Fuck off to Zimbabwe, the pair of you. You will be less confused and possibly happier there. Less chance of me pointing to you in the street and telling my Grandchildren that's what a bigot looks like. Take a good look as soon, they will be hopefully no more than a footnote in history books.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 11:20 AM

pretend they didn't know what equality meant when they voted through a bill ensuring it!

Do not be silly Musket.
Parliamentary legislation is precisely defined and unambiguous.
There must be no room for misunderstanding.
There was never any question of it ever being intended to even consider changing the rules on marriage.

If there is a will to have the rules changed, that is fine but why the unprecedented, undemocratic rush?
The institution of marriage has existed for millennia.
We could wait a few more weeks until everyone was clear on what was intended and what would be the consequences.

Be liberal and tolerant enough to accept that some people think the rules of marriage should remain as they are, and not for reasons of homophobia as you claim.
That would make a large proportion of the population, if not a magority homophobic.
What about the rights of those who wish for equality for polygamous marriage.
Do you support polygamy equality, or are you a polygamaphobe?
Incestophobe?
Child marriagophobe?
Bestialophobe?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 11:23 AM

Good one!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 02:34 PM

In the US, is it possible for a civil marriage to be anulled?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM

Civil marriage, annulled, yes.
Civil 'partnerships'?, not sure...but in many states, and they differ, in the length of time, if you live with someone, as husband and wife, but no formal 'wedding', they consider you married, as 'common law'...for instance, California seven years...Colorado 6 months.

GfS

.......and P.S." I'll answer Don and Steve shortly...and point out CLEARLY, just how confused they made themselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:29 PM

Yeah Goofus. A good one.

I am liberal enough to accept that some people have ignorant views based on bigotry.   After all, I regulate prison healthcare so am used to trying to seek empathy with views different to mine.

So long that bigots also are liberal enough to know that I have the right to hate them on behalf of all those whose lives are unduly affected by promotion of their hate.

I fail to understand why people voice their irrational hatred. Being simple soul and no angel myself I have no problem with treating such people with contempt.

No fancy logic chopping and no intellectual argument to counter yours. You have no argument. So all we have left is hating people for being different. Is that all the thanks you can give your parents for your education?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:30 PM

annulled on grounds of non consummation?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:41 PM

You have no argument. So all we have left is hating people for being different.

So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.

You are a very intolerant, illiberal person.
A Stalinist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:26 PM

It would seem that, far from being a Tory whim, this is official policy for Labour and LibDem and a free vote for Tories, which suggests that dissenting Tories will actually make the bill a Labour/LibDem success. The following answers quite neatly the lie about this being a sudden whim and without consultation.

""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.

On 21 September 2010, the Liberal Democrats, a junior member of the governing coalition, officially endorsed same-sex marriage when the party's conference in Liverpool approved a policy motion called "Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom".

In February 2011, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government expressed its intention to begin a consultation to allow both religious same-sex ceremonies and civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In September 2011, the Government announced its intention to introduce same-sex civil marriage by the next general election.

On 7th December, 2012, the BBC announced that the Coalition government was going to extend the right to have a same-sex marriage conducted in a place of worship provided the religious body approved.

This would bring Westminster legislation in line with the plans of the Scottish Parliament to legalise both civil and religious same-sex marriage.

In 2010 the Green Party of England and Wales, the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru endorsed same-sex marriage at their party conferences.

The following groups and individuals have expressed their support for same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales:

    The Liberal Democrats
    The Labour Party
    The Conservative Party (though many within the party oppose)
    The Green Party of England and Wales
    The Times
    The Guardian
    Tim Montgomerie, editor of the ConservativeHome website

Opposition

The following groups and individuals have expressed their opposition to same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales:

    UK Independence Party
    The Telegraph
    Daily Mail
    The Sunday Times
""

Seems the Tories are least in favour but still determined to do the right thing, with the backing of all the moderately sane parties in full support.

Looks like democracy at work in the spirit in which it was intended to function, with genuine majority rule.

And since 71%, or 55% (depending on whose poll you look at) of the public is in favour, that would suggest that democracy still happens occasionally.

Some Churches are anti, but they are exempt if they wish to be, while those who, in a genuine Christian spirit, follow Christ's teachings ("Love thy neighbour"; I don't recall him being quoted as adding "unless they're gay") are free to welcome couples to be married in church.

Lifelong relationships will follow and HIV risk will eventually diminish, though Ake will claim it hasn't after waiting three months from the first marriage ceremony.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:36 PM

This idea came from nowhere to become a flagship policy which Cameron is "determined" to put into force within this Parliament.
No manifesto mentions.
To mention in the Queen's Speech about Government intentions.
It is indeed Cameron's whim, and has come out of the blue.
Tory Blue.

""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.

On 21 September 2010, the Liberal Democrats, a junior member of the governing coalition, officially endorsed same-sex marriage when the party's conference in Liverpool approved a policy motion called "Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom".
""

NOTE THE DATES!

Not from nowhere and not a Tory initiative. Find another dead horse to flog Keith.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:45 PM

""This would bring Westminster legislation in line with the plans of the Scottish Parliament to legalise both civil and religious same-sex marriage.""

NB Ake. Your own Parliament is apparently ahead of the Westminster government in making the same decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are precisely NO Tories in that government.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:53 PM

""So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.
""

No! Just you and Ake, who betray your agenda more with each lie, obfuscation and distortion of the truth, and Goofie, who is, well.......Goofy!

As to the general public, you ahve no idea what they think and neither do we, but at the lowest poll result 55% of them are in favour and that, however you try to avoid admitting it, is a MAJORITY!

You lose on every front! Learn to live with it, because your 500,000 dissenters are only one one hundred and fortieth of the population, a very small minority.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:55 PM

If you really believe in equality, you dont waste your time as a government or as a member of this forum, screaming about "marriage" rights for homosexuals.
This is the most egregiously stupid remark I've read on any forum all year. Well done, achy tony!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:22 PM

I suppose the second line should not have been in italics.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:33 PM

Depends how "egregiously" stupid you are?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:43 PM

This system is loaded with inequality, in fact it depends on inequality to survive....trickle down economics etc....something to aspire to?
Housing estates full of unemployable young people. Univercities turning out unemployable graduates
Workers on PAYE..... corporations in tax havens.
A financial sector who's uniform should comprise of a striped jumper and a mask.

and you scream about "marriage rights" for homosexuals.....pathetic!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:48 PM

"This system is loaded with inequality, in fact it depends on inequality to survive....trickle down economics etc....something to aspire to?
Housing estates full of unemployable young people. Univercities turning out unemployable graduates
Workers on PAYE..... corporations in tax havens.
A financial sector who's uniform should comprise of a striped jumper and a mask."

Then, Ake, bend yourself to those tasks. The stuff quoted above is fixable. Homosexuality is a fact of life.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM

"Akenaton. I find you offensive. Luckily, I don't extend that to all Scots."
Ian(musket),I am not offended by what you post.....I know what you are and really dont care what your personal view of me is.

I do see your thought processes as being very muddled, you are a prisoner of an idiotic agenda.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM

Amen to that!!

There is so much in this world that needs fixing, that it's just plain silly to invest time and effort into something that will never change, nor should it necessarily change, just because one feels it has an "'ughh' factor."

So stop obsessing about it!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:03 PM

My "Amen" is referring to what 999 said in the post above.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM

Sorry bruce...but while we cling to this economic and social system nothing can be fixed

The obvious inequalities are accepted or ignored, while all the energy is directed into the irrelevances.


BTW I owe you a PM my friend....the delay is shameful......Best!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM

and you scream about "marriage rights" for homosexuals.....pathetic!

When you put stuff in speech marks it's supposed to mean you're quoting something verbatim. When you put stuff in speech marks to make people think you are quoting something verbatim, even though you're not, you are doing an Aunt Sally. A straw man.

Housing estates full of unemployable young people.

No such people.

Univercities [sic] turning out unemployable graduates

No such graduates.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:11 PM

Ake, YES you do--and truth be told I've switched deodorant seven times! Write when you can. Please include your mailing address because my Yahoo account got spammed or hacked or whatever the heck it's called and I trashed the whole thing to prevent infecting others. Don't know that that would have made me shoot my dog, but real close.

I trust you are doing well. If you are or ain't, please let me know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 09:11 PM

He ain't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 04:42 AM

As we have equality legislation, I wonder if anybody would like to define the word?

Perhaps in context of, chosen totally at random, colour of hair, race, inside leg measurement or gender of marriage partner?

I suppose, as much as the political facts Don relates, helps here, I am a lone voice in seeing that with equality embedded within Parliamentary primary legislation, European Human Rights legislation and most of all, common decency, I have problems in seeing what all the fuss is about? This is secondary legislation. If you leave a secondary bill in The Commons library for a fortnight and nobody lodges a question, it becomes law anyway.

So.. Who would seek to touch it? Moreover, who isn't in control of his own party when he has to offer his members a free vote to retain his own leadership? I wonder if there are any previous examples of free votes over secondary legislation? Ah yes.. Section 28. Cameron apologised for Th*tcher's homophobia last year.

Why I wonder does gay equality stir so much hatred? I am not gay, yet even deep down, I can't see why I have to look at gay people in the same way Heidi and Gunther were encouraged to look down on non aryans? They say that the most anti semitic of the 3rd reich gang were so due to a family tree that they might not wish to be known in public.

A bit like over in The USA, where Hoover had transvestites arrested, presumably for looking far more fetching in a skirt than he did....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 05:26 AM

Musket, we have had decades of equality legislation but none of it has ever proposed changing the ancient definition of marriage.

Don, I accept that this was a Labour whim.
It would have been discussed at conference, put in their next manifesto, included in the Queen's Speech and then put to parliament.
I could have no objection to that.
Instead, Cameron stole it as a piece of Tory political expediency and is "determined" to force it on Parliament without any of those essential democratic preliminaries.

Don I note that you now accept that a large minority, if not a majority of the population (minus 3!) can have valid and reasonable objections not " motivated only by hate and no rational reason"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 05:28 AM

""So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.""

No! Just you and Ake,....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM

Well, I suppose it's about the sort of society we want to pass on to our grandchildren.

Homosexual relationships appear to be vastly different to heterosexual ones, which contain the elements of procreation and family building. Homosexual relationships in the majority of cases contain large numbers of sexual partners, studies say hundreds, sometimes thousands.
This behaviour seems endemic in male homosexuality and is doubtless partially to blame for the horrific homosexual health figures; and dont say that homosexual "marriage" with its very poor take up rates would improve the situation.....not being "legally married" does not require people to behave in such a promiscuous and anti social manner.
The legislation is simply a sop to a very politically important section of the media, which has a rather large over representation of homosexuals in its number.

As I have said already monogamy seems to be anathema to sexually active male homosexuals, and this legislation opens the door into mainstream society to other minority groups who's lifestyles would completely destroy the social template which has served us well for centuries.

If this legislation is passed are all other sexual orientations to be deemed acceptable?
In Scotland, the govt's consultation document produced a result of 70% to 30% against homosexual "marriage", yet it is still to be foisted upon Scottish society.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 07:54 AM

Yeah, homosexual relationships do appear to be vastly different to heterosexual ones. For starters, err... both have similar voice pitch? If it's blokes, they both leave the toilet lid up? If its women, they must fight like hell over what to watch on telly! Either gender, I bet the war over soft furnishings is a bloody one eh?

err,, What other sexual orientations? Let's see, we have men wishing to marry women, men wishing to marry men, women wishing to marry women. I reckon I have run out of permutations there Akenaton. What other permutations are left with regard to marriage? I suppose you have polygamy, although not much call for it outside Utah USA, to all accounts, and then not exactly widespread since the Mormons dropped it outside of living memory.

Tell you what, start a thread on different sexual behaviours, as that seems to be your fascination. You keep talking about it rather than marriage, so start a bloody thread about it and perhaps allow this thread to carry on about matrimony?

All your arguments against Gay marriage would equate to civil partnerships too. Are you against that also? Why? Society has civil partnerships already so the only debate here is the difference, if there is any between that and marriage. Do you have anything to offer that debate or do you just want to remain the resident homophobic rant merchant?

Keith - We have had years of chipping away at barriers to equality and just because marriage is a word that Christians claim is purely religious, (although how they equate it to non Christian marriage is something they keep quiet about) doesn't make it bad.

A similar argument to yours there was put about regarding the suffragettes. Why change tradition in the name of equality? Why the 1911 Childrens Act? I thought they enjoyed 80 hour weeks in factories and mines? Why did we stop burning witches? It was alright for my great great great great granddad so why can't I do it?

Equality isn't a Labour whim. It isn't a Conservative whim either. It started in modern history with votes for women, got a kick start with the post war government and Human Rights, continued with European values and now, the final frontier, removing the stigma of choice of those you wish to marry and intend to share your life with.

And don't say they can do that but with a piece of paper that says "Contract between two disgusting queers to share financial liability and assets just like normal people." Stakeholders in society deserve no more and no less than equality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 08:28 AM

Politicians like David Cameron and Alec Salmond are pushing equality rights for all at the moment so that the next round of electioneering will be fought on their own agendas and not clouded by seemingly contetious issues .
Their line at the next election if asked about gay martriage will be that their respective elected collegues voted either for it or against it on a "free" vote, thereby killing the subject as a contentious election issue.
The rights and wrongs of the subject will be debated and voted on by wily polititions.
In the meantime can the mudcat elves give us a voting mechanism to show how we would vote on any particular subject at the end? of any debate
It would be an interesting, statisticall speaking, to see how the voting would turn out. BTW 1 poster 1 vote


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 10:33 AM

""This system is loaded with inequality, in fact it depends on inequality to survive....trickle down economics etc....something to aspire to?""
What a revelation!

It's a good thing we have you to tell us what we already know Ake.

But we want to take this imperfect situation and make it equal for all.

You want some to be less equal than others (Gays, travellers and anyone else you happen to dislike).

You are the problem, so don't try to tell us what is right.

You are a self discredited representative of the unequal society.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM

""Don I note that you now accept that a large minority, if not a majority of the population (minus 3!) can have valid and reasonable objections not " motivated only by hate and no rational reason"""

Keith, would you please do me a huge favour and STOP rearranging and re-interpreting my posts.

I accepted NO SUCH THING and you are a LIAR putting that construction on my post.

I said that I do not claim that they act from homophobia because I do not know, and you do not know, their motives.

For all I know to the contrary, they may indeed all be raving homophobes, and some undoubtedly will be.

55% is a population majority (not a Party, or a constituency majority) and that is how democracy works, in case that hasn't sunk in yet to your impenetrable skull.

And remember that 55% was the lowest of the polls, the highest being 71%.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:01 AM

Musket.
marriage is a word that Christians claim is purely religious
You just made that up Musket!
Anyway, it is older than any religion.

I agree about other ancient traditions needing to change, but why rush this one through without any of the usual democratic processes?
After millennia, a few more months hardly matter.

What other sexual orientations? Let's see, we have men wishing to marry women, men wishing to marry men, women wishing to marry women. I reckon I have run out of permutations there Akenaton. What other permutations are left with regard to marriage? I suppose you have polygamy, although not much call for it outside Utah USA

There is a sizeable minority in UK who would like to be allowed polygamy.
Also child brides.
Incestuous marriage is already allowed for first cousins and could be extended to other close relatives.
All could be justified by equality.

Equality isn't a Labour whim. It isn't a Conservative whim either. It started in modern history with votes for women, got a kick start with the post war government and Human Rights, continued with European values and now, the final frontier, removing the stigma of choice of those you wish to marry and intend to share your life with.
Same sex marriage is a whim.
It was never mentioned when Labour was forming its equality legislation, or when Civil Partnership legislation was going through.
It has just been conjured up out of nowhere.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:06 AM

Don, you posted this.

""So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.""

No! Just you and Ake, who betray your agenda more with each lie, obfuscation and distortion of the truth, and Goofie, who is, well.......Goofy!

As to the general public, you ahve no idea what they think and neither do we, but at the lowest poll result 55% of them are in favour and that, however you try to avoid admitting it, is a MAJORITY!

You lose on every front! Learn to live with it, because your 500,000 dissenters are only one one hundred and fortieth of the population, a very small minority.

Don T.

To anyone that says you are not accusing much of the population of homophobic hate just because they have reservations about changing the ancient definition of marriage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:11 AM

""Don, I accept that this was a Labour whim.
It would have been discussed at conference, put in their next manifesto, included in the Queen's Speech and then put to parliament.
I could have no objection to that.

Don, I accept that this was a Labour whim.
It would have been discussed at conference, put in their next manifesto, included in the Queen's Speech and then put to parliament.
I could have no objection to that.
Instead, Cameron stole it as a piece of Tory political expediency and is "determined" to force it on Parliament without any of those essential democratic preliminaries.
""

It's all in the phraseology when trying to denigrate the other side isn't it Keith?

I would say that if Labour were in the process of doing this particular right thing, for which I commend them, when a general election got in the way, there isn't any theft if the Coalition (not the Tories) completes it.

You do seem to have some memory problems, so for your education:

1. Our current government is a CO-A-LITION of TWO PARTIES!
2. The Tories are split on the issue, with a minority in favour, while the LibDems are solidly FOR, and 77% (another majority, you see) of Labour MPs are FOR.
3. It is official Labour and LibDem Policy, so this will likely be a Labour/LibDem victory, as originally intended.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM

""Homosexual relationships in the majority of cases contain large numbers of sexual partners, studies say hundreds, sometimes thousands.""

Credible source for this disgustingly twisted pile of Bullshit?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:28 AM

Ok. One last time. Then I stop rolling in shit with the pigs.

Cousins cannot be justified on equality terms. The rights of children with inbred issues precludes condoning it. By your twisted logic, equality would allow incest paedophilia and rape. Comparing gay marriage to anything other than hetero marriage shows your sinister agenda.

Why not ask Nigel Farage for your views like you seem to do with everything else? After all, he was all for Gay rights till his lover jilted him allowing him to extend his hatred.

Or is hypocrisy alright if it promotes a past England that thankfully cannot and will not ever exist again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:39 AM

I posted ""As to the general public, you have no idea what they think and neither do we, but at the lowest poll result 55% of them are in favour and that, however you try to avoid admitting it, is a MAJORITY!""

Keith responded "To anyone that says you are not accusing much of the population of homophobic hate just because they have reservations about changing the ancient definition of marriage.""

No it Fucking does NOT!! It says what it says, that neither you nor I know what their motives might be and, unlike you, I will not attribute motive when I don't have a clue what it is.

Those people may, for all you or I know to the contrary, be raving homophobes like you and Ake, or they may not. Most likely about half and half. Either way your response is a gross misinterpretation of what I said (A BLOODY LIE!), and you should be ashamed of using such tactics.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:45 AM

Majority rule is beside the point. Or, if it is, when do we get to vote on your civil rights?

The definition of marriage is two people who choose to legally combine their affairs and to let their friends and families know they are a unit. Rather than saying we are trying to redefine marriage, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you are trying to grab a word and a concept and make it yours, denying it to others?

Marriage being defined as a procreational proposition is a straw man; lots of heteros get married with no idea (or no possibility) of having children. Pulling that into the conversation is putting forth a baseless idea.

Of course there is lots of inequality in our culture. We could, if we had the will, pass laws making it illegal for any individual to have more than their share of our money. It is not, however, possible to pass laws that would change a person's race, gender, or sexual orientation. Since no one, not the individual and not society as a whole, can change those things, why should we not treat them all equally? Inequality exists in a race, where the better athlete will likely win. Your argument seems to be that we should also be able to tell the better athlete that he or she can't get married.

I know it's been said many times before, but I've never heard a good answer for it: Take all the comments about homosexuals and substitute the words "black person" or "woman". How do your arguments read now?

There is no logical argument that proposes limiting the civil rights of a group of people that doesn't end up at "I don't like it so it ought to be illegal." If you think otherwise, show me the logic and answer me when I poke holes in it.

I've made this offer before and I'll probably make it again: how about a moderated debate on the subject where all facts come from mainstream news sources, the logic has to stand up, you have to answer refutations of your arguments, and personal insults cause you to lose. Any takers?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 12:02 PM

Also, I can make a really good case the idea that people who are so interested in other peoples' sex lives that they want to make laws about are sexual perverts. Can you refute that? Remember, there is no conversation about homosexuality that isn't a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. Why is it any of your business?

Akenation, Keith, and GfS: Please tell us, in detail, what you and your partners do with each other in bed. Allow us to comment on it, make judgements about you because of it, and pass laws about whether or not you should be allowed to do these things. Let's make it all very public, just as you are doing to homosexuals. Or does your goose get a different sauce than everyone else's?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 12:24 PM

""Same sex marriage is a whim.
It was never mentioned when Labour was forming its equality legislation, or when Civil Partnership legislation was going through.
It has just been conjured up out of nowhere. Keith A.
""

Good old reliable Keith. The only man I know whose prejudiced thinking allows him to ignore all the evidence and all the facts, and hold fast to the untrue statement he hopes will slip by the rest of us unnoticed.

The following from Wikipedia:


""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.""

That is the party leadership contest before the 2010 General Election, which was won by Ed Milliband. So not really conjured out of nowhere then, especially not by David Cameron who wasn't yet PM.

""On 21 September 2010, the Liberal Democrats, a junior member of the governing coalition, officially endorsed same-sex marriage when the party's conference in Liverpool approved a policy motion called "Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom".""

That is the LibDems confirming the policy.

""In February 2011, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government expressed its intention to begin a consultation to allow both religious same-sex ceremonies and civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In September 2011, the Government announced its intention to introduce same-sex civil marriage by the next general election.

On 7th December, 2012, the BBC announced that the Coalition government was going to extend the right to have a same-sex marriage conducted in a place of worship provided the religious body approved.

This would bring Westminster legislation in line with the plans of the Scottish Parliament to legalise both civil and religious same-sex marriage.
""

February 2011 to December 2012. That would appear to be a reasonable period of consultation for something upon which all parties (except the UKIP funny farm inmates) are in broad agreement.

What is it Keith? Are you miffed because they didn't ask your opinion?


""In 2010 the Green Party of England and Wales, the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru endorsed same-sex marriage at their party conferences.

The following groups and individuals have expressed their support for same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales:

    The Liberal Democrats
    The Labour Party
    The Conservative Party (though many within the party oppose)
    The Green Party of England and Wales
""

So, just short of three years of rushing it through, with nearly two years of consultation, to be followed by implementation no later than 2015, five years overall.

As you have missed all those eight references to same sex marriage from all shades of political party, I have highlighted and underlined them, for your benefit.

Perhaps a visit to SpecSavers?


Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 01:28 PM

how about a moderated debate on the subject where all facts come from mainstream news sources, the logic has to stand up, you have to answer refutations of your arguments, and personal insults cause you to lose. Any takers?
Yes please.
Indeed I already follow those principles.

Can I please remind everyone that I have stated that I have no problem with same sex marriage?

Don, the Labour leadership elections, and the wheeze to put same sex marriage in their NEXT manifesto, came AFTER the last election.
Not one single party went in to the last election with the remotest suggestion to voters that they planned, never mind were "DETERMINED", to push through any change in the ancient definition of marriage.

Musket. First cousin marriage is already legal and thousands of babies are doomed to a life of suffering and an early death every year as a result.
Would you deprive those couples of the equality they now enjoy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 01:33 PM

I have no problem with same sex marriage . . .

. . . push through any change in the ancient definition of marriage


Hmm . . . .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 01:54 PM

John, it is not a small change we would be making to the fabric of our society.
It is a crime against democracy to rush it through on the whim of a few politicians.
There are democratic processes that should be gone through.

Let there be proper consultation and assessing of the public's wish for the change.
Let it be put to the parties' conferences.
Let it be in election manifestos BEFORE the people choose.
If there is a coalition, let it be part of the coalition agreement.
Let it be put in the Queens Speech as intended government legislation.
THEN put it to Parliament with ALL parties given a free vote.

Not one of those steps have been followed.
An institution that has served us for millennia is to be discarded by a few self seeking politicians within the same Parliament as the wheeze was first thought up in.

I am utterly bewildered that so many here have such dismissive contempt for the deeply felt convictions of so many fellow citizens.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 02:46 PM

Keith, as I suggested, put the words "black person" or "woman" in your posts and then see what they sound like. Do you think interracial marriage should be up for a vote? Do you think women should have to get your permission before they can get married?

When do we get to vote on your civil rights? Why do you think you should get to vote on anyone else's? Why do you want to control what other people do in bed?

Although you keep saying that you have no problem with gay marriage, you also keep saying that you do have a problem with gay marriage. Which is it? You mostly sound like all the other anti-civil rights folks who can't come up with any real reason for their desire to have laws dictating what other people get to do. Everyone I have ever heard bleating about changing the definition of marriage were anti-gay marriage. Are you really any different than that? If so, why are you bleating?

But, to get back to the real issue, please be fair and tell us in detail what you like to do in bed and with whom so we can all comment on it and try to pass laws about it. Or perhaps you should stop trying to change the ancient definition of privacy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 03:34 PM

Akenaton doesn't like gay marriage but knows that's not a good reason to have laws so he dresses it up in health concerns, ignoring the illogical leap from health statistics to the denial of civil rights.

Keith doesn't like gay marriage but knows that's not a good reason to have laws so he dresses it up in strawman concerns about the definition of marriage and majority rule, ignoring the fact that he's also just trying to deny other people their civil rights.

Guest from Sanity is just incomprehensible and doesn't seem to know that's not a good reason to have laws.

Anyone else?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 03:41 PM

John, I will try to explain again.
I do not care what any consenting adults do.
I have no issue with same sex marriage, but I respect the views of those many people who do, except those who just object to anything concerning gays out of prejudice.

For millennia marriage has been between male and female.
I know that many people, for deeply held personal convictions think it should continue to be.
They mostly believe that gays should be able to marry but call it something else.

In this country John, we have never had an issue with inter racial marriage and it has existed here for centuries.

Let the move to full same sex marriage follow its course by why must the normal democratic processes be stealmrollered flat to suit the self serving whims of a few politicians?

After thousands of years, waiting until the next Parliament and due process seems the most reasonable way to proceed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 03:46 PM

This is nothing but a prurient interest topic. They want all the juicy details of how gays consummate their marriages. If a man and woman married and never once had sex, not one person would care one iota. But when it's gay partners suddenly we have everything they did on their wedding bed to make sure the marriage was legal.

The OP should be ashamed of himself for even bringing this up. Jesus, some people will talk about anything.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 4 June 1:50 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.