Gay marriage thread

[Julien Sorel]

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

UKIP wouldn't be too keen on Leviticus 19: 33-34:

"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."

[amateur51]

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.....

As you well know it is your interpretation of said figures that I am referring to, Mr Wiggly Worm

[french frank]

'Specious argument' or not I'm merely quoting the figures

The figures quoted were said to be those who voted for the candidates. Not those who, from the figures, can be inferred to have voted for the said candidates for the reason you suggested.

and suggesting the issue of 'gay marriage' may well have 'bothered' some

'may well have bothered some' is an attenuated argument already. What you said was that "what I did suggest is that some (many?) did vote for UKIP with 'gay marriage' in mind." At this point the figure of 55% becomes irrelevant. In any case, what evidence was adduced in support of that figure?

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.

Simpleton that I was, I pointed out that they spoke to some who voted UKIP and asked them why they did so. Since they admitted immigration was one reason (which the Guardian would disapprove of), why would the Guardian omit mention of the anti-gay marriage view (which they also disapprove of) if people had mentioned it? They just wanted to sketch in the views of the UKIP voters, and their views on gay marriage would have served just as well as their views on immigration, in the Guardian 'liberal' view. So, one can infer, gay marriage was not mentioned - by those particular voters. The Guardian must have been gnashing its metaphorical teeth at that.

[ahinton]

I didn't say there was one single reason why people voted for UKIP.

However, what I did suggest is that some (many?) did vote for UKIP with 'gay marriage' in mind.

If indeed they did, they'd surely have taken leave of their senses; the Bill has already made its way through House of Commons and has yet to do the same through House of Lords, but as long as it is ratified and becomes law, UKIP would be able to do noting whatsoever about it apart from pledging in a future manifesto to overturn it and then they'd only actually be able to succeed in so doing were they to manage to form a majority government thereafter, which is about as likely as John Redwood MP joining the Socialist Workers' Party.

Now I expect the usual barrage of moralising 'liberal' tosh from the same old members ...

Then I'm sorry to disappoint you above.

[ahinton]

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.

I agree; this is why I wrote earlier that one of the problems with the manner in which this legislation has been drafted is that it does indeed seek to do just that by one the on hand giving the thumbs-up to same-sex marriage but at the same time the thumbs down to the Churches by barring them from carrying them out, which seems at lest as illogical as it is patronising as it is insulting (and, ultimately, possibly also unworkable).

[ahinton]

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?

Well, I don't do that, except to the extent that Churches must, like the rest of us, obey the law; that said, I do not believe that it is the business of governments to law down laws about how the Churches should behave, for if and when Churches break the existing law, the full force of that law can be brought against them.

[scottycelt]

The figures quoted were said to be those who voted for the candidates. Not those who, from the figures, can be inferred to have voted for the said candidates for the reason you suggested. 'may well have bothered some' is an attenuated argument already. What you said was that "what I did suggest is that some (many?) did vote for UKIP with 'gay marriage' in mind." At this point the figure of 55% becomes irrelevant. In any case, what evidence was adduced in support of that figure? Simpleton that I was, I pointed out that they spoke to some who voted UKIP and asked them why they did so. Since they admitted immigration was one reason (which the Guardian would disapprove of), why would the Guardian omit mention of the anti-gay marriage view (which they also disapprove of) if people had mentioned it? They just wanted to sketch in the views of the UKIP voters, and their views on gay marriage would have served just as well as their views on immigration, in the Guardian 'liberal' view. So, one can infer, gay marriage was not mentioned - by those particular voters. The Guardian must have been gnashing its metaphorical teeth at that.

Okay. let's put it another way.

If we accept that 55% of voters opted for candidates opposed to (or had serious reservations over) 'gay marriage' are you saying that. while some voted UKIP for protest reasons citing immigration, others did not do the same regarding 'gay marriage' ? I find that highly unlikely. You are correct, of course, that I cannot prove that some (maybe many) actually did cast a protest vote on that basis.. As you yourself say, 'gay marriage was not mentioned by those particular voters featured in the Guardian article. Hope that doesn't come across as being somewhat over-cynical.

Unlike 'gay marriage' immigration control is no longer a 'politically-correct' issue for the liberal-left the way it once was. Gordon Brown's arrogance in calling an allegedly lifelong Labour supporter 'a bigot' brought about his downfall and a distinct change of attitude. Thank goodness.

Now talking about politicians using silly, intolerant words like 'bigots'. There are some even more recent parallels. Young Nick was just lucky his aides caught him in time before he got anywhere near a microphone to utter the ignorant word, unlike puir auld Broon.

[Julien Sorel]

Surely people vote UKIP because they want Britain to leave the EU? That's the point of UKIP (hence its name).

Admittedly it appeals to people who are generally against immigration to the UK (from Europe and outside Europe), but that's connected: because we're in the EU, the UKIP line goes, thousands of Rumanians and Bulgarians will arrive here and, because we're in the EU, there's nothing we can do about it.

If UKIP was the Say No to Gay Marriage Party (SNOG MP) do you honestly think they'd have come second in the Eastleigh by-election?

I've been to Eastleigh. As it happens. Years ago.

[amateur51]

Unlike 'gay marriage' immigration control is no longer a 'politically-correct' issue for the liberal-left the way it once was. Gordon Brown's arrogance in calling an allegedly lifelong Labour supporter 'a bigot' brought about his downfall and a distinct change of attitude. Thank goodness.

Would you care to unravel that one for me please scoty - you're much more au fait with the subtle meanings of 'bigot' and 'politically correct' than I could ever hope to be

And there was me thinking that what bought Mr Broon down was his record levels of public borrowing which everyone knew was to create a vastly inflated public sector rather than, as the data show, the recent increase was down to propping up the banks which we now know to be running amok in more ways than one. So precisely how did Gillian Duffy, for it is she, bring this off scotty?

[amateur51]

Surely people vote UKIP because they want Britain to leave the EU? That's the point of UKIP (hence its name).

Admittedly it appeals to people who are generally against immigration to the UK (from Europe and outside Europe), but that's connected: because we're in the EU, the UKIP line goes, thousands of Rumanians and Bulgarians will arrive here and, because we're in the EU, there's nothing we can do about it.

If UKIP was the Say No to Gay Marriage Party (SNOG MP) do you honestly think they'd have come second in the Eastleigh by-election?

I've been to Eastleigh. As it happens. Years ago.

SNOG MP - bravo Julien!

[MrGongGong]

Surely people vote UKIP because they want Britain to leave the EU? That's the point of UKIP (hence its name).

There isn't any other point at all
and if you actually read what they plan to do as well it's clearly a group of deluded nutters
dangerous people (apart from Beefy , of course, who one can distract with a back catalogue of obscure art rock and experimental electronica )

[Beef Oven]

There isn't any other point at all
and if you actually read what they plan to do as well it's clearly a group of deluded nutters
dangerous people (apart from Beefy , of course, who one can distract with a back catalogue of obscure art rock and experimental electronica )

You are too modest MrGG!

[scottycelt]

SNOG MP - bravo Julien!

Quite incredible ... or, on second thoughts, maybe not ...

[Mr Pee]

it's clearly a group of deluded nutters

They may be a group of deluded nutters to you, but they still came within a smidgeon of having their first MP.

[Julien Sorel]

Quite incredible ... or, on second thoughts, maybe not ...

I'll try again.

Surely people vote UKIP because they want Britain to leave the EU? That's the point of UKIP (hence its name).

Admittedly it appeals to people who are generally against immigration to the UK (from Europe and outside Europe), but that's connected: because we're in the EU, the UKIP line goes, thousands of Rumanians and Bulgarians will arrive here and, because we're in the EU, there's nothing we can do about it.

If UKIP was the Say No to Gay Marriage Party do you honestly think they'd have come second in the Eastleigh by-election?

Any chance of an answer from you?