The Politics Thread

[thebish]

Strangely enough, the Japanese view is totally opposite. A marriage is recognised in law (in a town hall by entering the names onto a civil register) ONLY after a religious ceremony of marriage has been performed in a religious building by a '*priest' - no register office marriages over there.
[usually Shinto, but not necessarily so]

i didn't know that! churches doing weddings over here (and particularly vicars in the CofE having the same powers as registrars in the legal side of weddings - I don't!) is an increasingly pointless anachronism, I think...

[William the White]

I can't bring myself to lavish praise on someone for doing the right thing. But i'm glad it's happening. I don't think churches should have a legal right to marry anyone - though, obviously believers could go through a religious ceremony.

But I am enjoying the sight of the Faith and Tradition Tories going apoplectic. And over 100 Tory MPs breaking ranks.

[Prufrock]

Who the feck was the useless bastard in the weird yellow tie doing a ten minute speech against it? After a load of waffling bollocks about 'equal but different' which amounted to the anti-gay marriage version of 'I'm not racist but..' he launched into his first point, which if I'm not mistaken, and I may be, because he was a bumbling idiot, amounted to, 'we can't have marriage between two people of the same sex because then there won't be a word specifically for a marriage between two people of different sexes'. Is it it? Is that all they've got? Outstanding.

Anyway, kudos to Cameron on this one, no partisan begrudging rubbish. He didn't have to do this, in fact it has no doubt made life more difficult for him. And, whilst we're at it, kudos to everyone's favourite hate figure, Osbourne, who has been a big force behind this and in his political career has consistently voted against the whip on this issue. Folk are quick to bring up the image of them as the out of touch posh Tory-boy wankers, it should also be recognised when they get stuff right.

Important stuff too, not like that economy rubbish .

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm pleased with our Parliament this evening, but can barely be bothered listening to any politician speak on the equal marriage issue, much less assign credit to anyone in particular for doing this. The truth is that most of them just make an electoral calculation on the question. The real thing to rejoice about today is that the British people have got to a stage that makes voting for equal marriage the electorally sensible thing for a politician in this country to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think we bound to end up with a coalition after the next election as well as nobody has faith with and polictical party full anymore, in fact most people just moan about them. IMO Cameron is bound to be voted in next time because he said he is going to get us out of the EU, who the coalition is with is the big question. Out of intrest what happens if not one party gets enough votes to stand on its own two feat in governmant and no other parties are willing to form a coalition with them?

It is a good question and it is not unheard of.

Google 'minority government' and an example of that - 1974, say.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Lying Politicians.
Why do they do it? It seems to be a default position - talk bollocks and lie through your teeth.
Cameron comes out with a moral and actual victory last night, and then some woman MP (speaking on behalf of the Conservative Yes voters, i.e. a Cameron spokesperson) beggars belief by denying on the main BBC news that a majority of Tories voted against the bill. When asked directly by the BBC "Didn't a majority of Conservatives vote No" she said "That's not true", and when pressed again later she "No. They are not the figures I have".
Total lies with the only reason being it makes her 'side' look better.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Technically she wasn't lying. Less than half voted against. A majority didn't vote in favour 'cos about 40 didn't bother voting.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Technically she wasn't lying. Less than half voted against. A majority didn't vote in favour 'cos about 40 didn't bother voting.

A majority of those that voted, voted against. The BBC interviewer made it absolutely clear what he was asking, he even rephrased it for her "more voted against than voted for, no?". So yes, she did lie.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Technically she wasn't lying. Less than half voted against. A majority didn't vote in favour 'cos about 40 didn't bother voting.

A majority of those that voted, voted against. The BBC interviewer made it absolutely clear what he was asking, he even rephrased it for her "more voted against than voted for, no?". So yes, she did lie.

Ah. Well you didn't say that.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Technically she wasn't lying. Less than half voted against. A majority didn't vote in favour 'cos about 40 didn't bother voting.

A majority of those that voted, voted against. The BBC interviewer made it absolutely clear what he was asking, he even rephrased it for her "more voted against than voted for, no?". So yes, she did lie.

Ah. Well you didn't say that.

No I didn't, did I. You don't always make yourself clear when you're having a good rant

And in fact you put your finger on exactly what she was doing - pretending to answer one question while actually answering another, one of her own choosing, because it suited her purpose better - except in this case she failed to let anyone know that was what she was doing - and she also failed to notice that the interviewer had cottoned on to her 'trick' and had outmanoeuvered her already.

[thebish]

http://newsthump.com/2013/02/06/church- ... -collapse/

[William the White]

http://newsthump.com/2013/02/06/church- ... -collapse/

I enjoyed the posters asking if that story was real or a joke...

[Hoboh]

Cannot see what all the fuss is about with Gay marrige to be honest, it should be a personal thing if someone agrees with it or not. I dont, I tend to think it is more minoritys pushing the limits as per usual.

[BWFC_Insane]

Cannot see what all the fuss is about with Gay marrige to be honest, it should be a personal thing if someone agrees with it or not. I dont, I tend to think it is more minoritys pushing the limits as per usual.

I'd say if it went to a vote the overwhelming majority would vote in favour of allowing gay marriage.

It doesn't affect you at all.

[Hoboh]

Cannot see what all the fuss is about with Gay marrige to be honest, it should be a personal thing if someone agrees with it or not. I dont, I tend to think it is more minoritys pushing the limits as per usual.

I'd say if it went to a vote the overwhelming majority would vote in favour of allowing gay marriage.

It doesn't affect you at all.

Ahhh but you get me wrong there! You see this is such a huge fundamental shift in public life that it should have gone to a referendum, it could be as the MP vote suggested quite a decent morjority in favour, or it could become very interesting either way the result should be respected.
You see there are people who subscribe to the 'Gays are trying to take over' theory and this is another leap down that path, next it will be demands for spunk jobbing on the NHS and then there would have to be an enclave created to house them, at someone's expense! Soon all of our decendants will be brewed in the lab! The most fun All non gays would get is Jackinoneoffinthepot. Food for thought!

or

The other theory goes: Anyone that don't agree with it is a 'Biggot', 'Racisist', 'Sexist', 'Werido', 'Homophobe' so it would be also voted for by the wet behind the ears, wishy washy, liberal types or the still wet behind the ears under 30's, and be passed regardless of any real democratic representation there would be with a 'peoples vote'!

'Bout sums it up.

[William the White]

Cannot see what all the fuss is about with Gay marrige to be honest, it should be a personal thing if someone agrees with it or not. I dont, I tend to think it is more minoritys pushing the limits as per usual.

I'd say if it went to a vote the overwhelming majority would vote in favour of allowing gay marriage.

It doesn't affect you at all.

It might do. If his son or daughter married someone of the same sex and he had to give them away and deliver a celebratory speech at the reception...

I have to confess, a bit of me is enjoying that thought...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Cannot see what all the fuss is about with Gay marrige to be honest, it should be a personal thing if someone agrees with it or not. I dont, I tend to think it is more minoritys pushing the limits as per usual.

I'd say if it went to a vote the overwhelming majority would vote in favour of allowing gay marriage.

It doesn't affect you at all.

Ahhh but you get me wrong there! You see this is such a huge fundamental shift in public life that it should have gone to a referendum, it could be as the MP vote suggested quite a decent morjority in favour, or it could become very interesting either way the result should be respected.
You see there are people who subscribe to the 'Gays are trying to take over' theory and this is another leap down that path, next it will be demands for spunk jobbing on the NHS and then there would have to be an enclave created to house them, at someone's expense! Soon all of our decendants will be brewed in the lab! The most fun All non gays would get is Jackinoneoffinthepot. Food for thought!

or

The other theory goes: Anyone that don't agree with it is a 'Biggot', 'Racisist', 'Sexist', 'Werido', 'Homophobe' so it would be also voted for by the wet behind the ears, wishy washy, liberal types or the still wet behind the ears under 30's, and be passed regardless of any real democratic representation there would be with a 'peoples vote'!

'Bout sums it up.

I was thinking of replying but words have failed me. Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I do have a serious question about this (which needs a rather lengthy intro, so bear with me): Marriage, as defined previously, before 'gay' marriage reared its head, had a set of taboos that went with it known as "being within the prohibited degrees of affinity". At first, when marriage was conducted solely by the church, the degrees were just a taboo, but a powerful one. Later, when the state legislated about marriage, it was legal requirement that all marriages were outside the prohibited degrees of affinity. These taboos/laws were set up so that consanguinous marriages and all the genetic devastation the children of such can cause were avoided. Now obviously certain consanguine relationships were not covered by the legislation as they were previously outside the definition of heterosexual marriage.
So my question is threefold.
1) has this been taken into account when the latest bill was read?
2) Will brother be able to marry brother, or father marry his son?
3) and if answer to 1 was Yes and 2 was no, why not? (this is a relevant question because the degrees of affinity reflect genetic problems which obviously do not arise in homosexual relationships).

[BWFC_Insane]

Cannot see what all the fuss is about with Gay marrige to be honest, it should be a personal thing if someone agrees with it or not. I dont, I tend to think it is more minoritys pushing the limits as per usual.

I'd say if it went to a vote the overwhelming majority would vote in favour of allowing gay marriage.

It doesn't affect you at all.

Ahhh but you get me wrong there! You see this is such a huge fundamental shift in public life that it should have gone to a referendum, it could be as the MP vote suggested quite a decent morjority in favour, or it could become very interesting either way the result should be respected.
You see there are people who subscribe to the 'Gays are trying to take over' theory and this is another leap down that path, next it will be demands for spunk jobbing on the NHS and then there would have to be an enclave created to house them, at someone's expense! Soon all of our decendants will be brewed in the lab! The most fun All non gays would get is Jackinoneoffinthepot. Food for thought!

or

The other theory goes: Anyone that don't agree with it is a 'Biggot', 'Racisist', 'Sexist', 'Werido', 'Homophobe' so it would be also voted for by the wet behind the ears, wishy washy, liberal types or the still wet behind the ears under 30's, and be passed regardless of any real democratic representation there would be with a 'peoples vote'!

'Bout sums it up.

Good god.

I really do hope you are joking.

Because otherwise the ignorance is just plain scary.

[mrkint]

My hobo-bingo pad just exploded.