The Politics Thread

[mrkint]

lol

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21365679" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[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.

Good god.

I really do hope you are joking.

Because otherwise the ignorance is just plain scary.

Errrm, not exactly joking just showing how polarised views are on not just Gay marriage but the same applies to immigration too. You just never will get a fair honest result to any kind of vote with the scare tactics minority groups use to push their 'equal rights', at one time you had the norm with other variants differing degrees of extremes now the lines are well blurred.

BTW why am I ignorant? I might just start asking why you are so feckin' well clued up on this subject!

[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.

Errrm, not exactly joking just showing how polarised views are on not just Gay marriage but the same applies to immigration too. You just never will get a fair honest result to any kind of vote with the scare tactics minority groups use to push their 'equal rights', at one time you had the norm with other variants differing degrees of extremes now the lines are well blurred.

BTW why am I ignorant? I might just start asking why you are so feckin' well clued up on this subject!

[Hoboh]

Speechless?

[thebish]

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).

I think there will be several minefields to be negotiated in the years to come - partly because I doubt this legislaton has been thought through down to all the depths it needed to plumb..

one issue might be divorce... will same-sex divorce be the same as heterosexual divorce? The LEGAL definition of adultery (unless i am misinformed) is ""penetrative sex between a man and a woman who are not married to each other". so - can a same-sex couple get divorced on the grounds of adultery? presumably not...

[Bruce Rioja]

one issue might be divorce... will same-sex divorce be the same as heterosexual divorce?

Ah, interesting, because as I was informed at the time,despite the former Mrs Rioja and I having borne no children, I, as the male, was still responsible by law for the maintenance oft' thow'd trout.

So, in the case of homosexular divorce proceedings, will the 'plug' be responsible for the maintenance of the 'socket', so to speak, the dirty basards?

[Prufrock]

one issue might be divorce... will same-sex divorce be the same as heterosexual divorce?

Ah, interesting, because as I was informed at the time,despite the former Mrs Rioja and I having borne no children, I, as the male, was still responsible by law for the maintenance oft' thow'd trout.

So, in the case of homosexular divorce proceedings, will the 'plug' be responsible for the maintenance of the 'socket', so to speak, the dirty basards?

When did you get divorced, 1895?

It does raise an interesting point though, as I don't think spousal maintenance was possible at the break-up of a civil partnership, whereas it presumably will be once the law legislation is passed.

[Prufrock]

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).

I think there will be several minefields to be negotiated in the years to come - partly because I doubt this legislaton has been thought through down to all the depths it needed to plumb..

one issue might be divorce... will same-sex divorce be the same as heterosexual divorce? The LEGAL definition of adultery (unless i am misinformed) is ""penetrative sex between a man and a woman who are not married to each other". so - can a same-sex couple get divorced on the grounds of adultery? presumably not...

I don't know this for sure, but I'd imagine that comes from case-law (although it is written in the cold, detached,almost-but-not-at-all amusing language of a draftsman (or woman )!). If it is case law no doubt the courts will do a bit of jiggery-pokery interpretation to read it to fit. Easy enough to do between an all-male couple, less so for an all-female! If they don't then it'll go high enough on appeal that the definition can be changed. If it was a statutory definition, or (unlikely) the Supreme Court decide they don't want to get involved, there'd just be a quick amendment. I can't see a situation in a few years time where adultery is a ground for divorce for heterosexual couples and not for homosexual couples.

[Bruce Rioja]

When did you get divorced, 1895?

Yes, exactly then. What a ridiculous question. What made you ask it?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Speechless?

I was speechless last night and could only quote Schiller, roughly translated as "against stupidity the Gods themselves labour in vain". However, there seems no point in arguing against people who believe that giving certain human rights to a group who may represent 5-7% of the population will lead to en masse in vitro fertilization by so many women that man's only sexual outlet will be masturbation. Homosexuals have been around a very long time in probably similar per capita percentages (just ask Sappho of Lesbos) and heterosexual liaisons have not disappeared nor has the human race been threatened with extinction.

[Prufrock]

If you were told you were paying maintenance because you're the bloke I assume whoever told you was a bloke in a fluffy cravat wearing stockings!

When spousal maintenance, as opposed to child maintenance is paid, the factors considered are to do with who needs what, and who can afford what. The parties' sex is not taken into account. Of course, men are more likely to earn more, and less likely to stay at home looking after kids and sacrificing their own career progression and so end up paying it more often. Despite what the press would have you believe though, it works the same the other way - if the woman is the high-powered professional and the bloke the stay at home dad.

Your personal details are obviously far from my business and if it's a sensitive matter I didn't mean to be flippant, but I genuinely hope you weren't told it was coz you were the man (unless it really did happen in 1895 and you're younger than you look! I didn't think they did pink shirts back then though )!

[Bruce Rioja]

If you were told you were paying maintenance because you're the bloke I assume whoever told you was a bloke in a fluffy cravat wearing stockings!

I haven't paid a solitary shilling's worth' o' nowt, but was told by my solicitor at the time that legally I could be legally called upon so to do, by dint of me being responsible for her upkeep. Her solicitor informed her of same. You obviously know better. I'm interested to learn how, and exactly what?!

Put on your ruff!

Show me a fluffy cravat

[Prufrock]

If you were told you were paying maintenance because you're the bloke I assume whoever told you was a bloke in a fluffy cravat wearing stockings!

I haven't paid a solitary shilling's worth' o' nowt, but was told by my solicitor at the time that legally I could be legally called upon so to do, by dint of me being responsible for her upkeep. Her solicitor informed her of same. You obviously know better. I'm interested to learn how, and exactly what?!

Put on your ruff!

Show me a fluffy cravat

Without knowing any more, I'd say they were probably right that you could be called upon to do so, but that it would have nowt to do with you being the 'man', rather you being in the much stronger position financially and a court deciding you had the resources to pay maintenance which she required. In situations were there are no kids, no massive imbalance in assets and a possibility that the less strong partner will be able to look after herself or himself in the near future these maintenance orders are usually limited to a relatively short period of time and are often about allowing both partners the opportunity to get some momentum going with a clean start.

It sounds like both of your solicitors realised this but advised you as you came to some sort of settlement. Hopefully as pain and massive lawyer bills free as possible. As bad as their reputation is, the majority of the family lawyers I have seen have pushed for the quickest, least painful settlements.

Anyway, I digress, my point was, your possibly having to pay maintenance had nowt to do with you being the 'man' and all to do with your relative financial positions. 'Plugs' and 'sockets' have nowt to do wi nowt in either case. So I reckon the gays will be all right.

[Worthy4England]

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.

I don't agree with this in any measure. Who it affects is of no consequence. Jimmy Saville didn't affect you at all, but I reckon you have an opinion.

I think (this is a personal opinion based on no fact whatsoever), if compelled to record a vote.

1) The people of the UK would leave Europe
2) The people of the UK would not want "gay marriage"
3) The people of the UK would would curb immigration
4) The people of the UK would tax heavily everyone that earns more than 5 grand above what they earn (cash in hander's excluded)

Yadda, Yadda.

I would absolutely vote against "gay marriage" whether it was 'owt to do with me or not. I'm have no problem with people being gay.

[Prufrock]

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.

I don't agree with this in any measure. Who it affects is of no consequence. Jimmy Saville didn't affect you at all, but I reckon you have an opinion.

I think (this is a personal opinion based on no fact whatsoever), if compelled to record a vote.

1) The people of the UK would leave Europe
2) The people of the UK would not want "gay marriage"
3) The people of the UK would would curb immigration
4) The people of the UK would tax heavily everyone that earns more than 5 grand above what they earn (cash in hander's excluded)

Yadda, Yadda.

I would absolutely vote against "gay marriage" whether it was 'owt to do with me or not. I'm have no problem with people being gay.

I think you're wrong on 1 and 2, right on 3, and maybe right on 4, almost certainly if you removed the word 'heavily'.

I've no idea why anyone ever wants to ban anything that has nowt to do with them.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

5) the death penalty

(thought I'd just throw that one in for good measure)...

[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).

I think there will be several minefields to be negotiated in the years to come - partly because I doubt this legislaton has been thought through down to all the depths it needed to plumb..

one issue might be divorce... will same-sex divorce be the same as heterosexual divorce? The LEGAL definition of adultery (unless i am misinformed) is ""penetrative sex between a man and a woman who are not married to each other". so - can a same-sex couple get divorced on the grounds of adultery? presumably not...

You're probably correct, insofar as they haven't thought through the consanguinity issue.
In a way (not quite schadenfreude, in fact a new word is called for) I'm quite looking forward to the furore that will ensue once the first brother-brother or father-son marriage is reported as being planned. Not least because I want to see which tabloid wins the war of the headlines; I'm quite sure some wit will have much fun. "My Boy Bonking ex-Hubby is Bonkers, says Mum".

[CrazyHorse]

They were all over this the other day on five live. They catered for the prevention of the incestuous partnering when they did the initial civil partnership and it's been included in the gay marriage bill too.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

They were all over this the other day on five live. They catered for the prevention of the incestuous partnering when they did the initial civil partnership and it's been included in the gay marriage bill too.

Cheers Hoss, I didn't know that.
Still begs the question though as to why it should be considered by society to be wrong, as no offspring can be produced and therefore no 'harm' can occur. An equality too far at present maybe, we might be debating it in a century or so.

[Prufrock]

I'm pretty sure there is a lot of harm that can occur from a father-son sexual relationship...