Gay marriage thread

[scottycelt]

Sorry I missed this. I was exaggerating for effect, but I have not said anything about voters being silly, nor did I say they were drunk or stoned. I was replying to your: "Do you think everyone who votes for UKIP in a by-election automatically wants the UK to leave the EU?" Well, yes, actually, or they are being very perverse. Because UKIP is for immediate UK withdrawal from the EU (and anti-immigration). That's basically it. So vote UKIP and you are voting for the UK to leave the EU. Again, it's like an animal rights activist voting for the Promote Vivisection Party (if such a thing existed). Why would someone who is pro-EU membership vote for the one clearly, absolutely, anti-EU party?

I suppose you mean liberal in the American sense of anything left of Regan on a particularly conservative day, but please don't call me liberal. I'm not.

I agree a pro-Gay Marriage party wouldn't have got that many votes: you are the one claiming Gay Marriage (hostility towards) was a significant factor in the by-election. But that's ignoring the obvious: anti-EU feeling and anti-immigration feeling. The latter, of course, is generally more evident at times of economic hardship (hence the surge for Nationalist and fascist parties in Greece, Hungary and indeed Italy).

I'm not claiming anything in particular other that I believe 'gay marriage' may have been a significant factor in the by-election. It is yourself (and French Frank) who are claiming that it was not. None of us has any proof one way or the other so I don't see how you can claim anything here with 'absolute certainty'.

Also, you did use the terms 'drunk' and 'stoned'. You said some voters 'might have been' if they voted UKIP whilst not being anti-EU. French Frank did refer to some voters being 'silly' and 'stupid'. However, I apologise for referring to 'liberal' in your case, as that was clearly a wrong assumption on my part. However, most in favour of 'gay marriage' might be fairly described as socially 'liberal' if only on that one issue? I assume you are in favour as that is certainly the impression you have given me, at least.

Of course anti-EU and anti-immigration feeling are integral core parts of the UKIP agenda, but people vote for parties for all different sorts of reasons, some positive some negative. I have relatives and old friends who regularly vote for the Scottish National Party but who are opposed to separation from the rest of the UK. I keep teasing them about it but when I remember the state of Scottish politics before the Nationalists grew in strength I'd very likely be doing the same if I were in their position. I can assure you I'd be neither drunk nor stoned nor consider myself particularly silly or stupid by doing so. What others think is up to them and not important. It is my vote, not theirs.

People often vote pragmatically and very often use by-elections to express their dissatisfaction in the most striking way possible if they are upset at particular government policies. It is more than likely (if history is anything to go by) that the UKIP vote will be very much reduced at the next general election, whatever the reason(s) for their strong showing at Eastleigh!

[scottycelt]

Which suggests that they aren't much bothered either way.

If true that would only prove Farage's point that we have a 'liberal-elite' government more concerned about 'gay marriage' and 'windmill farms' and which is totally out of touch with the concerns of 'ordinary people'.

You can't have it both ways!

[jean]

I'm a 'gay person'. Why can't I also be 'ordinary'?

[MrGongGong]

I'm a 'gay person'. Why can't I also be 'ordinary'?

Apparently not
surely you will "grow out of it" sooner or later anyway

[amateur51]

I'm a 'gay person'. Why can't I also be 'ordinary'?

David Cameron would really really like 'gay people' to be 'ordinary'. As Jeremy Hardy (or was it Sandi Toksvig?) said on The News Quiz a few weeks ago, "Cameron is hoping that gay men can do for the Tory Party what they did for musical theatre"

[Julien Sorel]

I'm not claiming anything in particular other that I believe 'gay marriage' may have been a significant factor in the by-election. It is yourself (and French Frank) who are claiming that it was not. None of us has any proof one way or the other so I don't see how you can claim anything here with 'absolute certainty'.

Alright. I'm almost absolutely certain that people voting for a party called the United Kingdom Independence Party whose two main policies are (a) withdrawal from the EU (b) an immediate 5 year ban on immigration into the UK won't be people who (a) don't support withdrawal from the EU (b) don't support an immediate 5 year ban on immigration into the UK.

I could see that someone who supported (a) but not (b) might support them for the sake of (a). I could see that someone who supported (b) but not (a) might support them for the sake of (b). But I cannot see that someone who supported neither policy but was pissed off about Gay Marriage or windmill farms would think - I know, despite not agreeing with their policies I'll vote for them just to show how annoyed I am about Gay Marriage or windmill farms (or both).

Similarly if someone opposed total privatisation of everything I'd be almost absolutely certain they wouldn't vote for the Privatise Everything Party because the PEP oppose a minimum unit price for alcohol and so does the theoretical voter (unless, I suppose, she runs a discount booze warehouse). There's too much to stop them voting for the Privatise Everything Party.

If any pro-European non anti-immigrationist did tactically vote UKIP then they would be preparing the ground, potentially, for a further Conservative move to the right, and to strengthening the Eurosceptic position in the Conservative Party (who might move that way to counter UKIP). So they'd be cutting off their head to spite their face.

The Gay Marriage as a factor in the Eastleigh by-election line seems to be popular with (a) groups opposed to Gay Marriage (no surprise there) (b) the anti-Cameron Conservative right who agree with UKIP over Europe and immigration. The narrative is Cameron is out of touch with real Conservatives (or ordinary people - the two seem to be synonymous in their minds). But the crucial element in all this is (a) anti-Europe (b) immigration. If it wasn't for those two policies UKIP wouldn't exist. They are what it's for. It's almost impossible for anyone voting for them not to know that. So rather than claiming people voted because of something quite different, rather than against Europe and against immigration, why not take the simple minded view that people voted for UKIP because they agreed with them?

[Beef Oven]

If true that would only prove Farage's point that we have a 'liberal-elite' government more concerned about 'gay marriage' and 'windmill farms' and which is totally out of touch with the concerns of 'ordinary people'.

You can't have it both ways!

UKIP is right about government focus. UKIP is replacing the tories because what the party is really about is democracy, entrepreneurship, wealth-creation, free-market capitalism and light-touch government. And there is no fear about having sensible discussions about things like immigration and welfare, about which the three other parties are very squeamish.

[Julien Sorel]

light-touch government.

UKIP will: Spend an extra 40% on defence annually, another 1% of GDP

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/2339-defence-ukip-policy

[MrGongGong]

UKIP is right about government focus. UKIP is replacing the tories because what the party is really about is democracy, entrepreneurship, wealth-creation, free-market capitalism and light-touch government.

You really don't believe that do you

If (as i've said before) they REALLY believed in "democracy" they would be in favour of abolishing the unelected folk in the House of Lords and the Monarchy

I love the "replacing the tories"
that's a bit like replacing a dead donkey with a dead sheep (though having eaten both I guess the sheep might taste a bit better !)

If they were about "democracy" why is it that we only ever see mr Angrybuffoon and no one else ? (oh wait here comes Christine Hamilton )
Boris lite

and If the Kippers were about freedom and "light touch government" why are they so against gay people who want to get married ?

[french frank]

If true that would only prove Farage's point that we have a 'liberal-elite' government more concerned about 'gay marriage' and 'windmill farms' and which is totally out of touch with the concerns of 'ordinary people'.

You can't have it both ways!

Not a logical conclusion. However 'populist' in its general policy programme, no government should ignore the needs/wishes of 'minorities'.

Just because only a 'minority' wants something, it doesn't mean the majority doesn't want them to have it, especially if they can't see it impinging on their lives in any way. Is that exclusively a 'liberal-elite' view?

[MrGongGong]

Not a logical conclusion. However 'populist' in its general policy programme, no government should ignore the needs/wishes of 'minorities'.

Just because only a 'minority' wants something, it doesn't mean the majority doesn't want them to have it, especially if they can't see it impinging on their lives in any way. Is that exclusively a 'liberal-elite' view?

[Ferretfancy]

David Cameron would really really like 'gay people' to be 'ordinary'. As Jeremy Hardy (or was it Sandi Toksvig?) said on The News Quiz a few weeks ago, "Cameron is hoping that gay men can do for the Tory Party what they did for musical theatre"

That excellent bookshop Gay's the Word has a large poster for Ivor Novello's musical on it's wall. I'm possibly the only one on these boards to see the original production at a matinee with my cousin and her stage struck mother. In one number, a group of not do young men hurling the ageing Cecily Courtneidge across the stage from one to the other struck my teenage self with acute embarrassment that I remember still ! If latter day Ivors need to step in to save the tories the coalition is certainly doomed !

[MrGongGong]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21649475

[Flosshilde]

""In recent days certain allegations which have been made against me have become public. Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me to contest them.

"However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.

"To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness. To the Catholic Church and people of Scotland, I also apologise."

He must have known what the allegations referred to; when the details weren't public he was going to contest them; now they are public he apologises for his actions. So, when the details weren't known he was prepared to lie about it, & only admits the truth when one of the priests has 'gone public'? & this man was a priest, & held the highest office (indeed, still holds it) in the church below the pope?

[MrGongGong]

Good riddance to the lying bigot
so much for integrity