The UK General Politics Thread Page 77

  • Page

    of 147 First / Last

  • spamdangled 5 Feb 2013 17:59:53 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    I hope someone plays the "Adam and Steve" gambit soon.
    We've already had that.

    No joke.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 18:00:11 83,878 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    That at least has some validity as an argument in that MPs are supposed to represent the people. It's stronger ground than claiming we are shaking the very foundations of our existence by daring to change the meaning of a word, because if we do that, house could mean marshmallow, and dog mean Somerset...it's anarchy!
  • LeoliansBro 5 Feb 2013 18:02:51 41,870 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I look forward to the Republican argument in the US that says the only way to repeal the death sentence would be to take criminals out of the justice system and let them commit any crime they want.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 5 February 2013 18:03:00
    darkmorgado wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Anyone following the gay marriage debate?

    I was actually with this guy...

    Roger Gale, Conservative

    "There is a way forward. It's been suggested, but it's been ignored. I don't subscribe to it myself, but I recognise the merit in the argument, and that is this: if the government is serious about this, take it away, abolish the civil partnerships bill, abolish civil marriage, and create a civil union bill that applies to all people regardless of the sexuality, or their relationships...
    Until he said this:

    ... and that means brothers and brothers, and sisters and sisters, and brothers and sisters as well. That would be a way forward."

    How can politicians use that kind of bullshit strawman rhetoric? WE wouldn't stand for that kind of thing on here for a second. How do they get away with it?
    There has been an awful lot of that this afternoon unfortunately. It's genuinely worrying to hear some of the things that have been said.

    Obviously Peter Bone, Stewart Jackson and Iain Paisley couldn't resist the opportunity to have a rant about the gays.

    And IIRC, they get away with it because whatever is said in Parliament has immunity from legal proceedings.
    What have they said that would otherwise be prosecutable?
  • LeoliansBro 5 Feb 2013 18:04:25 41,870 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Iain Paisley's an awful little man. He's only a Reverend in the same way Gillian McKeith's a doctor.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • spamdangled 5 Feb 2013 18:05:18 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Anyone following the gay marriage debate?

    I was actually with this guy...

    Roger Gale, Conservative

    "There is a way forward. It's been suggested, but it's been ignored. I don't subscribe to it myself, but I recognise the merit in the argument, and that is this: if the government is serious about this, take it away, abolish the civil partnerships bill, abolish civil marriage, and create a civil union bill that applies to all people regardless of the sexuality, or their relationships...
    Until he said this:

    ... and that means brothers and brothers, and sisters and sisters, and brothers and sisters as well. That would be a way forward."

    How can politicians use that kind of bullshit strawman rhetoric? WE wouldn't stand for that kind of thing on here for a second. How do they get away with it?
    There has been an awful lot of that this afternoon unfortunately. It's genuinely worrying to hear some of the things that have been said.

    Obviously Peter Bone, Stewart Jackson and Iain Paisley couldn't resist the opportunity to have a rant about the gays.

    And IIRC, they get away with it because whatever is said in Parliament has immunity from legal proceedings.
    What have they said that would otherwise be prosecutable?
    You could argue that some of the comments, such as comparisons to legalising incest and beastiality, and when one of them on the backbenches shouted "it's a gay conspiracy!" are potentially on the wrong side of being legal under discrimination and hate speech laws in the UK.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 18:06:45 05-02-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • spamdangled 5 Feb 2013 18:06:03 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Iain Paisley's an awful little man. He's only a Reverend in the same way Gillian McKeith's a doctor.
    Wasn't there some big scandal involving his wife recently? Or some outrage over something she said about gay people?

    Edited by darkmorgado at 18:06:22 05-02-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Deleted user 5 February 2013 18:10:56
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Anyone following the gay marriage debate?

    I was actually with this guy...

    Roger Gale, Conservative

    "There is a way forward. It's been suggested, but it's been ignored. I don't subscribe to it myself, but I recognise the merit in the argument, and that is this: if the government is serious about this, take it away, abolish the civil partnerships bill, abolish civil marriage, and create a civil union bill that applies to all people regardless of the sexuality, or their relationships...
    Until he said this:

    ... and that means brothers and brothers, and sisters and sisters, and brothers and sisters as well. That would be a way forward."

    How can politicians use that kind of bullshit strawman rhetoric? WE wouldn't stand for that kind of thing on here for a second. How do they get away with it?
    There has been an awful lot of that this afternoon unfortunately. It's genuinely worrying to hear some of the things that have been said.

    Obviously Peter Bone, Stewart Jackson and Iain Paisley couldn't resist the opportunity to have a rant about the gays.

    And IIRC, they get away with it because whatever is said in Parliament has immunity from legal proceedings.
    What have they said that would otherwise be prosecutable?
    You could argue that some of the comments, such as comparisons to legalising incest and beastiality, and when one of them on the backbenches shouted "it's a gay conspiracy!" are potentially on the wrong side of being legal under discrimination and hate speech laws in the UK.
    They aren't.
  • Deckard1 5 Feb 2013 18:12:18 25,414 posts
    Seen 52 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    What if they said gay mens willies have poo on them?

    Called it

  • Deleted user 5 February 2013 18:20:14
    kalel wrote:
    It's astonishing how many against the Bill have essentially argued semantics. Is that really the best they can come up with?
    Tbf, it is such an odd and seemingly massive debate over what is essentially semantics. CP is identical in all but name so it seems like a crazy gamble to stake so much on this. I'm really not sure what he proposes to gain from this. There is no such thing as a gay vote in Britain (in any significant way) and what there is isn't going to be suddenly swayed by this. I'm all for the change like, I'm just curious as to why on earth it has become an issue in the first place. No one was really crying for it - at least not any louder that the other, genuine problems facing the UK.
  • spamdangled 5 Feb 2013 18:33:30 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    It's astonishing how many against the Bill have essentially argued semantics. Is that really the best they can come up with?
    Tbf, it is such an odd and seemingly massive debate over what is essentially semantics. CP is identical in all but name
    No it isn't. There are subtle differences (such as grounds for disollution, for example).

    Edited by darkmorgado at 18:34:18 05-02-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • disusedgenius 5 Feb 2013 18:34:26 5,142 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Meh, putting off social reform due to other things happening is bullshit really - there's always reasons not to do stuff. This whole fuss seems to be about inter-Tory politics anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the anti-Cameron side's attempt to knock him down off of his Euro-speech high.

    I mean, I'm sure they would have moaned about it any time (progress is obviously something of an anathema to captial-C Conservatives), but this has a whiff of opportunism about it.
  • Deleted user 5 February 2013 19:04:23
    darkmorgado wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    It's astonishing how many against the Bill have essentially argued semantics. Is that really the best they can come up with?
    Tbf, it is such an odd and seemingly massive debate over what is essentially semantics. CP is identical in all but name
    No it isn't. There are subtle differences (such as grounds for disollution, for example).
    Expand, it's been a while since I did any family law. What other differences are there?
  • spamdangled 5 Feb 2013 19:13:30 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I'm not certain about the absolute specifics, but I do know it is more difficult to dissolve a partnership than it is to divorce a marriage. I believe that adultery is not grounds for disollution, for example.

    Beyond that, language has power.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 19:17:49 05-02-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • FWB 5 Feb 2013 19:22:36 41,992 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    If siblings want to get married, whose business is it?
  • ResidentKnievel 5 Feb 2013 19:26:11 5,879 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Post deleted

    [code]Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Unlike yourself, I don't have a weird obsession with any platform.[/code]

  • Fab4 5 Feb 2013 19:26:55 5,695 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Our MPs arent total fuckwits then.
  • spamdangled 5 Feb 2013 19:28:40 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    If siblings want to get married, whose business is it?
    /facepalm

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • FWB 5 Feb 2013 19:28:46 41,992 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Will get rejected by the cunts in the Lords. But they won't be able to do it for long. Cocks did the same with reducing the age of consent for gays.
  • FWB 5 Feb 2013 19:29:31 41,992 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    FWB wrote:
    If siblings want to get married, whose business is it?
    /facepalm
    Go on then, whose bloody business is if two consenting adult siblings find love with each other?

    Edited by FWB at 19:30:18 05-02-2013
  • ResidentKnievel 5 Feb 2013 19:29:35 5,879 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I meant to edit that, I misread. It hasn't actually passed, it's only approved in principle.

    [code]Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Unlike yourself, I don't have a weird obsession with any platform.[/code]

  • spamdangled 5 Feb 2013 19:30:24 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Fab4 wrote:
    Our MPs arent total fuckwits then.
    Yep.

    A large number of the people who said they were abstaining as well did so not out of any objection, but based on certain technical aspects - such as a belief that civil partnership should also be extended to straight people (which is perfectly reasonable) and other details, such as how the Gay Marriage bill still doesn't have adultery as grounds for divorce.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • spamdangled 5 Feb 2013 19:31:29 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    ResidentKnievel wrote:
    I meant to edit that, I misread. It hasn't actually passed, it's only approved in principle.
    It now goes to the Lords, then a second reading in the commons, etc.

    But it is highly unlikely that it will be blocked or kicked in the long grass when it has so much support.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 19:32:08 05-02-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • spamdangled 5 Feb 2013 19:33:43 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    FWB wrote:
    If siblings want to get married, whose business is it?
    /facepalm
    Go on then, whose bloody business is if two consenting adult siblings find love with each other?
    The high risk of genetic abnormalities for one.

    I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems that you are invoking the "slippery slope" argument and equating gay marriage to incest, etc.

    I hope I'm wrong, honestly :D

    Edited by darkmorgado at 19:38:41 05-02-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • FWB 5 Feb 2013 19:40:16 41,992 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Gay people can't have kids with their partner, so it is an irrelevant argument. We are already establishing that marriage does not equal having children with your partner. Plenty of heterosexual couples decide this avenue too, some can't have kids (not to mention that siblings could have kids regardless of marriage if they wanted), so it has nothing to do with comparing incest to homosexuality. It is all about the love that the two people share.

    Edited by FWB at 19:41:20 05-02-2013
  • Psychotext 5 Feb 2013 19:40:26 52,802 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    The high risk of genetic abnormalities for one.
    Doesn't seem to stop us letting women over 40 get married or have kids...
  • Chopsen 5 Feb 2013 19:40:30 15,178 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    What about infertile siblings? Are they allowed to marry?
  • FWB 5 Feb 2013 19:42:08 41,992 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    And what Psychotext said.
  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 19:42:17 83,878 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    You could argue that siblings should be legally allowed to marry, but not have sex. To be honest, it's a valid argument if we're saying marriage and sex and procreation are all unrelated.
  • Chopsen 5 Feb 2013 19:43:29 15,178 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    What about gay siblings? Can they have sex? After all they're not going to able to reproduce anyway
  • Page

    of 147 First / Last

Log in or register to reply