Gay marriage thread

[MrGongGong]

(sorry to repeat myself)

How many people voted "FOR" ?
and how many people voted "AGAINST" ?

I've not voted "FOR" anyone for many years
I would vote again (even though its a totally discredited system) to try and prevent the BNP or BNPlite Kippers getting anywhere near being in charge of anything more important than being milk monitor ! (so definitely NOT the scissors)

[Beef Oven]

Bit of a dilema this one. Whatever one's view (assuming one is progressive and believes in equality and democracy), no-one would want the government telling Christians, Moslems, Jewish people etc, how to interpret their religious books, teachings, instruction etc, or what can or cannot be carried out in their holy houses.

[MrGongGong]

I think you might be out of step with the rest of the shoal Beefy ...........

[amateur51]

Thank you ...

I've never been much of an apologist for UKIP. However. it does represent the genuine concerns of many regarding 'gay marriage' especially in relation to court action in Europe to force people to act against their principles on the grounds of 'discrimination'. Pabmusic raised a similar point earlier, though from a quite different angle to my own.

Cameron's meaningless assurances will not convince anyone, not least those who know a thing or two about the sinister reality of losing their jobs over their personal beliefs.

The deeply worrying curtailment of free speech and expression is already being applied by some of our little "liberal" tinpot dictators and here's one recent example from an impeccable forum source.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/01...ws+(Pink+News)

Nice try scotty, attempting to suggest that this man has lost his job as a result of expressing his views. He is a volunteer and has been disciplined for expressing his views which are contrary to the policies and practice of the organisation for which he volunteers. This is the only sanction that organisation has in the face of his outburst.

Congratulations on discovering Pink News for yourself scotty - a publication at which you have scoffed many a time past but then, any port in a storm eh old pal?

[Beef Oven]

I think you might be out of step with the rest of the shoal Beefy ...........

Surely you can't be out of step with a shoal MrGG

[MrGongGong]

Surely you can't be out of step with a shoal MrGG

I think there is a pedantry thread available .........

[Bryn]

I think there is a pedantry thread available .........

[scottycelt]

I wasn't quoting your view, I was quoting what you reported as the view of the Coalition for Marriage (I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't know who or what they are) vis-à-vis the '55% who voted for ... &c'. That is a specious argument unless you have evidence that 55% were therefore voting against gay marriage. They voted for the candidate, yes, but not necessarily for the single policy.

Some way well have done, but not the 55%, quoting precisely by those in this aforementioned coalition who did their best to 'suggest' that too.
All you'll get from me - a Liberal Democrat - is that I celebrate the result (even if that does get a barrage of anything from anyone) by someone not against gay marriage. And a candidate who withstood all the campaigns calculated to help him towards defeat.

I don't doubt there are some around who've never heard of the Liberal Democrat Party either ...

'Specious argument' or not I'm merely quoting the figures and suggesting the issue of 'gay marriage' may well have 'bothered' some and therefore had an effect on the result. I could be wrong. It is just as plausible that I might actually be right. Who really knows, though you appear to believe that the Guardian clearly knows why people voted the way they did. I don't have quite that much faith in the mind-reading powers of the Guardian, I'm afraid.

Make of the figures what you will ... or particularly want to. Your candidate scraped home with the only figures that really mattered in the end.

Congratulations ...

[Stephen Whitaker]

Bit of a dilema this one. Whatever one's view (assuming one is progressive and believes in equality and democracy), no-one would want the government telling Christians, Moslems, Jewish people etc, how to interpret their religious books, teachings, instruction etc, or what can or cannot be carried out in their holy houses.

Actually it's just the CofE that are being told they cannot perform gay marriages , everyone else gets freedom of conscience on this
and that will probably never get overturned by the EU or other international justice systems, so UKIP is scaremongering.

On the other hand, Governments throughout history and the world today have habitually told and tell faith communities what can or cannot be carried out in their holy houses.

Sacrificing, mutilating, or otherwise being unpleasant to , or abusing living people and animals being pretty much frowned on for example.

[Beef Oven]

Actually it's just the CofE that are being told they cannot perform gay marriages , everyone else gets freedom of conscience on this
and that will probably never get overturned by the EU or other international justice systems, so UKIP is scaremongering.

On the other hand, Governments throughout history and the world today have habitually told and tell faith communities what can or cannot be carried out in their holy houses.

Sacrificing, mutilating, or otherwise being unpleasant to , or abusing living people and animals being pretty much frowned on for example.

You think the government should tell Christians, Moslems Jews et al, what they can or cannot do, because there is a precedent for it and liberals frown on certain practices these days?

[amateur51]

I don't doubt there are some around who've never heard of the Liberal Democrat Party either ...

'Specious argument' or not I'm merely quoting the figures and suggesting the issue of 'gay marriage' may well have 'bothered' some and therefore had an effect on the result. I could be wrong. It is just as plausible that I might actually be right. Who really knows, though you appear to believe that the Guardian clearly knows why people voted the way they did. I don't have quite that much faith in the mind-reading powers of the Guardian, I'm afraid.

Make of the figures what you will ... or particularly want to. Your candidate scraped home with the only figures that really mattered in the end.

Congratulations ...

Oh where is the steadfast man who recently claimed only to deal in FACTS?

[scottycelt]

Nice try scotty, attempting to suggest that this man has lost his job as a result of expressing his views. He is a volunteer and has been disciplined for expressing his views which are contrary to the policies and practice of the organisation for which he volunteers. This is the only sanction that organisation has in the face of his outburst.

Congratulations on discovering Pink News for yourself scotty - a publication at which you have scoffed many a time past but then, any port in a storm eh old pal?

I don't remember ever'scoffing' at Pink News, amsey, but you have always tended to make things up as you go along so why should you stop now?

However, I'm truly impressed at your sudden and wholly unexpected appreciation of the undoubted value of strict police discipline.

[Julien Sorel]

You think the government should tell Christians, Moslems Jews et al, what they can or cannot do, because there is a precedent for it and liberals frown on certain practices these days?

I reckon it wouldn't only be liberals who might frown at Leviticus 20: 10 being put into practice.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

[scottycelt]

Oh where is the steadfast man who recently claimed only to deal in FACTS?

Are you impudently and quite outrageously suggesting that I've made up the said figures, amsey ... ?

The revelation itself of the figures is a wholly undeniable FACT whether you consider it worthy of any particular attention or not or even if you suspect the figures themselves may be false.....

[Flosshilde]

Leviticus is a treasure trove of batty instructions which might or might not have made sense 2000 - 3000 (+) years ago in the middle east, but not now, not here; not wearing mixed fibres, not eating shelfish, & all that stuff about unclean women, for example