BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:54 AM

I have posted EXTENSIVELY about my objection to the lack of democratic process.
Every word has been ignored, except by Don who had got all his dates mixed up.
Instead, John keeps going on about bedroom behaviour, and he accuses ME of being obsessed about it!
I have told you that I do not care, and have never posted anything that could be so interpreted.
That John is a strawman.
You pretend that I have made a silly case so you can appear to knock it down.
How about responding to what I actually say John?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:51 AM

Keith. Letting others have their say is sound in principle but falls at the first hurdle if your say restricts the say of others.

You feel it is a legitimate say to inflict inequality on others? So, , doyou think those who demonstrate when dead soldiers are returned have every right to be heard? Back in the '70s did you support The Paedophile Information Exchange to have their views aired?

So why does discrimination of Gay people seem a legitimate cause for acceptable debate?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:32 AM

you think you or anyone else should have anything to say about what other people are doing in bed.
You keep saying that John, but it is not true.


Ah, I get it Keith. You are not opposed to gay marriage, you are just selflessly standing up for those who are,
Correct.
It is not your views that make you liberal, it is your tolerance and respect for the views of others.
and you think it ought to be up to a popular vote.
No.
Parliament should decide after giving a proper hearing to all dissenting views.
That is how these things should be done.
Why are you all against letting other people have they say.
That is intolerant and bigoted.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 09:19 PM

As I have said already monogamy seems to be anathema to sexually active male homosexuals, and this legislation opens the door into mainstream society to other minority groups who's lifestyles would completely destroy the social template which has served us well for centuries.

Monogamy seems quite attractive, actually, to those who want to enjoy gay marriage. You should be supporting it. As for that template you mention that you hoped I wouldn't notice, well that's just your preferred template out of hundreds the world over. Very imperialistic of you to promote yours above all the others.

I am utterly bewildered that so many here have such dismissive contempt for the deeply felt convictions of so many fellow citizens.

62% in favour of gay marriage, just 31% agin. I am utterly bewildered that several homophobes here have such dismissive contempt for the deeply felt convictions of so many fellow citizens.

To anyone that says you are not accusing much of the population of homophobic hate just because they have reservations about changing the ancient definition of marriage.

That would be the one ancient definition of marriage out of many that you personally happen to prefer. There are hundreds of definitions of marriage on this planet. You prefer our one because of the random event of your having been born here, no more, no less.

Homosexual relationships in the majority of cases contain large numbers of sexual partners, studies say hundreds, sometimes thousands.

"Studies say..." is weasel words. Go and look that up and don't bloody well do it again. In fact, your whole sentence is a complete lie which is intended to demonise homosexuals (you'll be telling me next that you're not a homophobe). Let's have your "studies", please.

And one more thing. Yes, repeated inbreeding of close family members results in a higher level of genetic abnormalities. But occasional reproduction by first cousins carries approximately the same increased risk of genetic abnormality as the risk taken by women over 40 having babies. Comment is free but facts is sacred.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 08:38 PM

Ah, I get it Keith. You are not opposed to gay marriage, you are just selflessly standing up for those who are, and you think it ought to be up to a popular vote. A hundred years ago, would you have been standing up for those who thought women shouldn't be able to vote? I confess that I don't know if the UK has anything like our Constitution that guarantees certain rights, but the thing about rights is that they are rights and shouldn't be subject to a vote. I ask again, when do we get to vote on which rights you get to have?

All of which begs the question of why you think you or anyone else should have anything to say about what other people are doing in bed. You can say that gay sex is legal all you want to, but as long as you support laws that discriminate against gay people, you are poking your nose into other peoples' sex lives and using the law of the land to do so. There is no conversation about homosexuals that isn't a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. There is no law about gay people that isn't a law about what people may or may not do in bed. Just out of curiosity, why stop with gay people? There's lots of groups of people you could try to make laws about. Have at it.

Oh, and speaking of straw men, one of your points seems to be: "You are being intolerant of people who want to be intolerant. This is Stalinism." First of all, no, it isn't Stalinism. That's a pretty dumb thing to say. Go read some history. Two, the logic is backwards. The same thing gets said over here a lot by Christians who feel discriminated against because the rest of us don't want them to pass laws enforcing their religion, not understanding that forcing other people to follow their dictates is the only discrimination going on. Think it through. That dog just won't hunt.

If you really want to have a moderated debate on the subject, we'll have to find a logic professor to be one of the moderators. You don't seem to have a very good innate grasp of the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 07:05 PM

Paper # 971   
A Comparison of Sexual Behavior Patterns among Heterosexual Men and Women and Men Who Have Sex with Men
Sara Nelson*1, M Morris1, B Foxman2, S Aral3, L Manhart1, K Holmes1, and M Golden1
1Univ of Washington, Seattle, US; 2Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, US; and 3CDC, Atlanta, GA, US

"Background: Men who have sex with men (MSM) have higher rates of HIV and many other sexually transmitted infections (STI) than heterosexual men and women. This elevated risk reflects biological and behavioral factors.

Methods: We compared sexual behavior patterns between MSM and heterosexuals using 4 population-based random digit dialing (RDD) surveys. A 1996 to 1998 survey of MSM in 4 US cities and 2 surveys of Seattle MSM (2003, 2006) provided estimates for MSM; a 2003 to 2004 Seattle survey provided data about heterosexual men and women.

Results: The heterosexual survey targeted a younger population (age 18 to 39 years vs age ≥18 years), but participants were similar to MSM in education and race/ethnicity. Age at same-sex sexual debut was slightly younger (age 16.5 to 17.0 years) than opposite-sex sexual debut (17.6), although among MSM anal sex sexual debut was years later (19.6 to 20.2). Among those aged 18 to 24 years, the median lifetime number of sex partners was 4 in heterosexuals and 15 in MSM. The proportion of heterosexuals who formed a new partnership in the prior year declined from 44% at age 18 to 24 years to 15% at age 35 to 39 years. In contrast, among MSM, 86% of 18 to 24 year olds and 72% of MSM aged 35 to 39 years formed a new partnership in the prior year. The median lifetime number of sex partners for persons aged 35 to 39 years was 10 among heterosexuals and 67 among MSM. Over one-third of MSM aged <30 years had a recent partner who was >5 years older, compared to only 7% of male and 20% of female heterosexuals. MSM reported that 51% of their recent partnerships, and 42% of their recent anal sex partnerships, had lasted ≤3 months, compared to only 22% of heterosexual men and 10% of women. Among recent partnerships lasting ≤3 months, approximately two-thirds of MSM always used condoms during insertive anal sex and three-quarters during receptive anal sex; only 53% of heterosexuals in partnerships of similar duration reported consistent condom use. For longer partnerships, consistent condom use ranged from 25 to 50% in MSM and was 23% in heterosexuals. In the Seattle surveys, MSM met 17% of their most recent partners online compared with only 3% of heterosexuals.

Conclusions: MSM have higher early rates of partnership acquisition, continue to form partnerships later into life, meet more partners online, and display more age disassortative mixing than heterosexuals. These factors likely help explain the higher HIV and STI rates among MSM, despite higher levels of condom use."
These are median numbers and do not represent the highest or lowest reports

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM

Well said Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 06:15 PM

And for millennia we endorsed slavery and subjugation of women.

Any more bright ideas Keith?

Look, it would be less of a problem if you admitted you find gays repulsive. At least you would have the benefit of honesty instead of insulting the intelligence of decent people by trying to tell us people don't want it.   Gay people seem to want it and so what the hell has it to do with the rest of us?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 03:51 PM

Keith doesn't like gay marriage but knows that's not a good reason to have laws so he dresses it up in strawman concerns about the definition of marriage and majority rule, ignoring the fact that he's also just trying to deny other people their civil rights.

I do not recognise myself in that John.
You are joining the others in throwing abuse instead of discussing.
The definition of marriage is NO strawman.
It means much to many people whose views do not deserve to be trampled over.
And for what?
If there is a strong common consent for it to change then it should change, but not without the normal democratic considerations.
Why do you all want it done without that?
Why do you have such contempt for the views of others and want them dismissed without any consideration.
That is Stalinism masquerading as liberal tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 03:46 PM

This is nothing but a prurient interest topic. They want all the juicy details of how gays consummate their marriages. If a man and woman married and never once had sex, not one person would care one iota. But when it's gay partners suddenly we have everything they did on their wedding bed to make sure the marriage was legal.

The OP should be ashamed of himself for even bringing this up. Jesus, some people will talk about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 03:41 PM

John, I will try to explain again.
I do not care what any consenting adults do.
I have no issue with same sex marriage, but I respect the views of those many people who do, except those who just object to anything concerning gays out of prejudice.

For millennia marriage has been between male and female.
I know that many people, for deeply held personal convictions think it should continue to be.
They mostly believe that gays should be able to marry but call it something else.

In this country John, we have never had an issue with inter racial marriage and it has existed here for centuries.

Let the move to full same sex marriage follow its course by why must the normal democratic processes be stealmrollered flat to suit the self serving whims of a few politicians?

After thousands of years, waiting until the next Parliament and due process seems the most reasonable way to proceed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 03:34 PM

Akenaton doesn't like gay marriage but knows that's not a good reason to have laws so he dresses it up in health concerns, ignoring the illogical leap from health statistics to the denial of civil rights.

Keith doesn't like gay marriage but knows that's not a good reason to have laws so he dresses it up in strawman concerns about the definition of marriage and majority rule, ignoring the fact that he's also just trying to deny other people their civil rights.

Guest from Sanity is just incomprehensible and doesn't seem to know that's not a good reason to have laws.

Anyone else?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 02:46 PM

Keith, as I suggested, put the words "black person" or "woman" in your posts and then see what they sound like. Do you think interracial marriage should be up for a vote? Do you think women should have to get your permission before they can get married?

When do we get to vote on your civil rights? Why do you think you should get to vote on anyone else's? Why do you want to control what other people do in bed?

Although you keep saying that you have no problem with gay marriage, you also keep saying that you do have a problem with gay marriage. Which is it? You mostly sound like all the other anti-civil rights folks who can't come up with any real reason for their desire to have laws dictating what other people get to do. Everyone I have ever heard bleating about changing the definition of marriage were anti-gay marriage. Are you really any different than that? If so, why are you bleating?

But, to get back to the real issue, please be fair and tell us in detail what you like to do in bed and with whom so we can all comment on it and try to pass laws about it. Or perhaps you should stop trying to change the ancient definition of privacy.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 01:54 PM

John, it is not a small change we would be making to the fabric of our society.
It is a crime against democracy to rush it through on the whim of a few politicians.
There are democratic processes that should be gone through.

Let there be proper consultation and assessing of the public's wish for the change.
Let it be put to the parties' conferences.
Let it be in election manifestos BEFORE the people choose.
If there is a coalition, let it be part of the coalition agreement.
Let it be put in the Queens Speech as intended government legislation.
THEN put it to Parliament with ALL parties given a free vote.

Not one of those steps have been followed.
An institution that has served us for millennia is to be discarded by a few self seeking politicians within the same Parliament as the wheeze was first thought up in.

I am utterly bewildered that so many here have such dismissive contempt for the deeply felt convictions of so many fellow citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 01:33 PM

I have no problem with same sex marriage . . .

. . . push through any change in the ancient definition of marriage

Hmm . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 01:28 PM

how about a moderated debate on the subject where all facts come from mainstream news sources, the logic has to stand up, you have to answer refutations of your arguments, and personal insults cause you to lose. Any takers?
Yes please.
Indeed I already follow those principles.

Can I please remind everyone that I have stated that I have no problem with same sex marriage?

Don, the Labour leadership elections, and the wheeze to put same sex marriage in their NEXT manifesto, came AFTER the last election.
Not one single party went in to the last election with the remotest suggestion to voters that they planned, never mind were "DETERMINED", to push through any change in the ancient definition of marriage.

Musket. First cousin marriage is already legal and thousands of babies are doomed to a life of suffering and an early death every year as a result.
Would you deprive those couples of the equality they now enjoy?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 12:24 PM

""Same sex marriage is a whim.
It was never mentioned when Labour was forming its equality legislation, or when Civil Partnership legislation was going through.
It has just been conjured up out of nowhere. Keith A.""

Good old reliable Keith. The only man I know whose prejudiced thinking allows him to ignore all the evidence and all the facts, and hold fast to the untrue statement he hopes will slip by the rest of us unnoticed.

The following from Wikipedia:

""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.""

That is the party leadership contest before the 2010 General Election, which was won by Ed Milliband. So not really conjured out of nowhere then, especially not by David Cameron who wasn't yet PM.

""On 21 September 2010, the Liberal Democrats, a junior member of the governing coalition, officially endorsed same-sex marriage when the party's conference in Liverpool approved a policy motion called "Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom".""

That is the LibDems confirming the policy.

""In February 2011, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government expressed its intention to begin a consultation to allow both religious same-sex ceremonies and civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In September 2011, the Government announced its intention to introduce same-sex civil marriage by the next general election.

On 7th December, 2012, the BBC announced that the Coalition government was going to extend the right to have a same-sex marriage conducted in a place of worship provided the religious body approved.

This would bring Westminster legislation in line with the plans of the Scottish Parliament to legalise both civil and religious same-sex marriage.""

February 2011 to December 2012. That would appear to be a reasonable period of consultation for something upon which all parties (except the UKIP funny farm inmates) are in broad agreement.

What is it Keith? Are you miffed because they didn't ask your opinion?

""In 2010 the Green Party of England and Wales, the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru endorsed same-sex marriage at their party conferences.

The following groups and individuals have expressed their support for same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales:

    The Liberal Democrats
    The Labour Party
    The Conservative Party (though many within the party oppose)
    The Green Party of England and Wales ""

So, just short of three years of rushing it through, with nearly two years of consultation, to be followed by implementation no later than 2015, five years overall.

As you have missed all those eight references to same sex marriage from all shades of political party, I have highlighted and underlined them, for your benefit.

Perhaps a visit to SpecSavers?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 12:02 PM

Also, I can make a really good case the idea that people who are so interested in other peoples' sex lives that they want to make laws about are sexual perverts. Can you refute that? Remember, there is no conversation about homosexuality that isn't a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. Why is it any of your business?

Akenation, Keith, and GfS: Please tell us, in detail, what you and your partners do with each other in bed. Allow us to comment on it, make judgements about you because of it, and pass laws about whether or not you should be allowed to do these things. Let's make it all very public, just as you are doing to homosexuals. Or does your goose get a different sauce than everyone else's?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:45 AM

Majority rule is beside the point. Or, if it is, when do we get to vote on your civil rights?

The definition of marriage is two people who choose to legally combine their affairs and to let their friends and families know they are a unit. Rather than saying we are trying to redefine marriage, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you are trying to grab a word and a concept and make it yours, denying it to others?

Marriage being defined as a procreational proposition is a straw man; lots of heteros get married with no idea (or no possibility) of having children. Pulling that into the conversation is putting forth a baseless idea.

Of course there is lots of inequality in our culture. We could, if we had the will, pass laws making it illegal for any individual to have more than their share of our money. It is not, however, possible to pass laws that would change a person's race, gender, or sexual orientation. Since no one, not the individual and not society as a whole, can change those things, why should we not treat them all equally? Inequality exists in a race, where the better athlete will likely win. Your argument seems to be that we should also be able to tell the better athlete that he or she can't get married.

I know it's been said many times before, but I've never heard a good answer for it: Take all the comments about homosexuals and substitute the words "black person" or "woman". How do your arguments read now?

There is no logical argument that proposes limiting the civil rights of a group of people that doesn't end up at "I don't like it so it ought to be illegal." If you think otherwise, show me the logic and answer me when I poke holes in it.

I've made this offer before and I'll probably make it again: how about a moderated debate on the subject where all facts come from mainstream news sources, the logic has to stand up, you have to answer refutations of your arguments, and personal insults cause you to lose. Any takers?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:39 AM

I posted ""As to the general public, you have no idea what they think and neither do we, but at the lowest poll result 55% of them are in favour and that, however you try to avoid admitting it, is a MAJORITY!""

Keith responded "To anyone that says you are not accusing much of the population of homophobic hate just because they have reservations about changing the ancient definition of marriage.""

No it Fucking does NOT!! It says what it says, that neither you nor I know what their motives might be and, unlike you, I will not attribute motive when I don't have a clue what it is.

Those people may, for all you or I know to the contrary, be raving homophobes like you and Ake, or they may not. Most likely about half and half. Either way your response is a gross misinterpretation of what I said (A BLOODY LIE!), and you should be ashamed of using such tactics.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:28 AM

Ok. One last time. Then I stop rolling in shit with the pigs.

Cousins cannot be justified on equality terms. The rights of children with inbred issues precludes condoning it. By your twisted logic, equality would allow incest paedophilia and rape. Comparing gay marriage to anything other than hetero marriage shows your sinister agenda.

Why not ask Nigel Farage for your views like you seem to do with everything else? After all, he was all for Gay rights till his lover jilted him allowing him to extend his hatred.

Or is hypocrisy alright if it promotes a past England that thankfully cannot and will not ever exist again.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM

""Homosexual relationships in the majority of cases contain large numbers of sexual partners, studies say hundreds, sometimes thousands.""

Credible source for this disgustingly twisted pile of Bullshit?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:11 AM

""Don, I accept that this was a Labour whim.
It would have been discussed at conference, put in their next manifesto, included in the Queen's Speech and then put to parliament.
I could have no objection to that.

Don, I accept that this was a Labour whim.
It would have been discussed at conference, put in their next manifesto, included in the Queen's Speech and then put to parliament.
I could have no objection to that.
Instead, Cameron stole it as a piece of Tory political expediency and is "determined" to force it on Parliament without any of those essential democratic preliminaries.""

It's all in the phraseology when trying to denigrate the other side isn't it Keith?

I would say that if Labour were in the process of doing this particular right thing, for which I commend them, when a general election got in the way, there isn't any theft if the Coalition (not the Tories) completes it.

You do seem to have some memory problems, so for your education:

1. Our current government is a CO-A-LITION of TWO PARTIES!
2. The Tories are split on the issue, with a minority in favour, while the LibDems are solidly FOR, and 77% (another majority, you see) of Labour MPs are FOR.
3. It is official Labour and LibDem Policy, so this will likely be a Labour/LibDem victory, as originally intended.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:06 AM

Don, you posted this.

""So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.""

No! Just you and Ake, who betray your agenda more with each lie, obfuscation and distortion of the truth, and Goofie, who is, well.......Goofy!

As to the general public, you ahve no idea what they think and neither do we, but at the lowest poll result 55% of them are in favour and that, however you try to avoid admitting it, is a MAJORITY!

You lose on every front! Learn to live with it, because your 500,000 dissenters are only one one hundred and fortieth of the population, a very small minority.

Don T.

To anyone that says you are not accusing much of the population of homophobic hate just because they have reservations about changing the ancient definition of marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:01 AM

Musket.
marriage is a word that Christians claim is purely religious
You just made that up Musket!
Anyway, it is older than any religion.

I agree about other ancient traditions needing to change, but why rush this one through without any of the usual democratic processes?
After millennia, a few more months hardly matter.

What other sexual orientations? Let's see, we have men wishing to marry women, men wishing to marry men, women wishing to marry women. I reckon I have run out of permutations there Akenaton. What other permutations are left with regard to marriage? I suppose you have polygamy, although not much call for it outside Utah USA

There is a sizeable minority in UK who would like to be allowed polygamy.
Also child brides.
Incestuous marriage is already allowed for first cousins and could be extended to other close relatives.
All could be justified by equality.

Equality isn't a Labour whim. It isn't a Conservative whim either. It started in modern history with votes for women, got a kick start with the post war government and Human Rights, continued with European values and now, the final frontier, removing the stigma of choice of those you wish to marry and intend to share your life with.
Same sex marriage is a whim.
It was never mentioned when Labour was forming its equality legislation, or when Civil Partnership legislation was going through.
It has just been conjured up out of nowhere.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM

""Don I note that you now accept that a large minority, if not a majority of the population (minus 3!) can have valid and reasonable objections not " motivated only by hate and no rational reason"""

Keith, would you please do me a huge favour and STOP rearranging and re-interpreting my posts.

I accepted NO SUCH THING and you are a LIAR putting that construction on my post.

I said that I do not claim that they act from homophobia because I do not know, and you do not know, their motives.

For all I know to the contrary, they may indeed all be raving homophobes, and some undoubtedly will be.

55% is a population majority (not a Party, or a constituency majority) and that is how democracy works, in case that hasn't sunk in yet to your impenetrable skull.

And remember that 55% was the lowest of the polls, the highest being 71%.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 10:33 AM

""This system is loaded with inequality, in fact it depends on inequality to survive....trickle down economics etc....something to aspire to?""
What a revelation!

It's a good thing we have you to tell us what we already know Ake.

But we want to take this imperfect situation and make it equal for all.

You want some to be less equal than others (Gays, travellers and anyone else you happen to dislike).

You are the problem, so don't try to tell us what is right.

You are a self discredited representative of the unequal society.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 08:28 AM

Politicians like David Cameron and Alec Salmond are pushing equality rights for all at the moment so that the next round of electioneering will be fought on their own agendas and not clouded by seemingly contetious issues .
Their line at the next election if asked about gay martriage will be that their respective elected collegues voted either for it or against it on a "free" vote, thereby killing the subject as a contentious election issue.
The rights and wrongs of the subject will be debated and voted on by wily polititions.
In the meantime can the mudcat elves give us a voting mechanism to show how we would vote on any particular subject at the end? of any debate
It would be an interesting, statisticall speaking, to see how the voting would turn out. BTW 1 poster 1 vote

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 07:54 AM

Yeah, homosexual relationships do appear to be vastly different to heterosexual ones. For starters, err... both have similar voice pitch? If it's blokes, they both leave the toilet lid up? If its women, they must fight like hell over what to watch on telly! Either gender, I bet the war over soft furnishings is a bloody one eh?

err,, What other sexual orientations? Let's see, we have men wishing to marry women, men wishing to marry men, women wishing to marry women. I reckon I have run out of permutations there Akenaton. What other permutations are left with regard to marriage? I suppose you have polygamy, although not much call for it outside Utah USA, to all accounts, and then not exactly widespread since the Mormons dropped it outside of living memory.

Tell you what, start a thread on different sexual behaviours, as that seems to be your fascination. You keep talking about it rather than marriage, so start a bloody thread about it and perhaps allow this thread to carry on about matrimony?

All your arguments against Gay marriage would equate to civil partnerships too. Are you against that also? Why? Society has civil partnerships already so the only debate here is the difference, if there is any between that and marriage. Do you have anything to offer that debate or do you just want to remain the resident homophobic rant merchant?

Keith - We have had years of chipping away at barriers to equality and just because marriage is a word that Christians claim is purely religious, (although how they equate it to non Christian marriage is something they keep quiet about) doesn't make it bad.

A similar argument to yours there was put about regarding the suffragettes. Why change tradition in the name of equality? Why the 1911 Childrens Act? I thought they enjoyed 80 hour weeks in factories and mines? Why did we stop burning witches? It was alright for my great great great great granddad so why can't I do it?

Equality isn't a Labour whim. It isn't a Conservative whim either. It started in modern history with votes for women, got a kick start with the post war government and Human Rights, continued with European values and now, the final frontier, removing the stigma of choice of those you wish to marry and intend to share your life with.

And don't say they can do that but with a piece of paper that says "Contract between two disgusting queers to share financial liability and assets just like normal people." Stakeholders in society deserve no more and no less than equality.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM

Well, I suppose it's about the sort of society we want to pass on to our grandchildren.

Homosexual relationships appear to be vastly different to heterosexual ones, which contain the elements of procreation and family building. Homosexual relationships in the majority of cases contain large numbers of sexual partners, studies say hundreds, sometimes thousands.
This behaviour seems endemic in male homosexuality and is doubtless partially to blame for the horrific homosexual health figures; and dont say that homosexual "marriage" with its very poor take up rates would improve the situation.....not being "legally married" does not require people to behave in such a promiscuous and anti social manner.
The legislation is simply a sop to a very politically important section of the media, which has a rather large over representation of homosexuals in its number.

As I have said already monogamy seems to be anathema to sexually active male homosexuals, and this legislation opens the door into mainstream society to other minority groups who's lifestyles would completely destroy the social template which has served us well for centuries.

If this legislation is passed are all other sexual orientations to be deemed acceptable?
In Scotland, the govt's consultation document produced a result of 70% to 30% against homosexual "marriage", yet it is still to be foisted upon Scottish society.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 05:28 AM

""So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.""

No! Just you and Ake,....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 05:26 AM

Musket, we have had decades of equality legislation but none of it has ever proposed changing the ancient definition of marriage.

Don, I accept that this was a Labour whim.
It would have been discussed at conference, put in their next manifesto, included in the Queen's Speech and then put to parliament.
I could have no objection to that.
Instead, Cameron stole it as a piece of Tory political expediency and is "determined" to force it on Parliament without any of those essential democratic preliminaries.

Don I note that you now accept that a large minority, if not a majority of the population (minus 3!) can have valid and reasonable objections not " motivated only by hate and no rational reason"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 04:42 AM

As we have equality legislation, I wonder if anybody would like to define the word?

Perhaps in context of, chosen totally at random, colour of hair, race, inside leg measurement or gender of marriage partner?

I suppose, as much as the political facts Don relates, helps here, I am a lone voice in seeing that with equality embedded within Parliamentary primary legislation, European Human Rights legislation and most of all, common decency, I have problems in seeing what all the fuss is about? This is secondary legislation. If you leave a secondary bill in The Commons library for a fortnight and nobody lodges a question, it becomes law anyway.

So.. Who would seek to touch it? Moreover, who isn't in control of his own party when he has to offer his members a free vote to retain his own leadership? I wonder if there are any previous examples of free votes over secondary legislation? Ah yes.. Section 28. Cameron apologised for Th*tcher's homophobia last year.

Why I wonder does gay equality stir so much hatred? I am not gay, yet even deep down, I can't see why I have to look at gay people in the same way Heidi and Gunther were encouraged to look down on non aryans? They say that the most anti semitic of the 3rd reich gang were so due to a family tree that they might not wish to be known in public.

A bit like over in The USA, where Hoover had transvestites arrested, presumably for looking far more fetching in a skirt than he did....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 09:11 PM

He ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:11 PM

Ake, YES you do--and truth be told I've switched deodorant seven times! Write when you can. Please include your mailing address because my Yahoo account got spammed or hacked or whatever the heck it's called and I trashed the whole thing to prevent infecting others. Don't know that that would have made me shoot my dog, but real close.

I trust you are doing well. If you are or ain't, please let me know.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM

and you scream about "marriage rights" for homosexuals.....pathetic!

When you put stuff in speech marks it's supposed to mean you're quoting something verbatim. When you put stuff in speech marks to make people think you are quoting something verbatim, even though you're not, you are doing an Aunt Sally. A straw man.

Housing estates full of unemployable young people.

No such people.

Univercities [sic] turning out unemployable graduates

No such graduates.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM

Sorry bruce...but while we cling to this economic and social system nothing can be fixed

The obvious inequalities are accepted or ignored, while all the energy is directed into the irrelevances.


BTW I owe you a PM my friend....the delay is shameful......Best!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:03 PM

My "Amen" is referring to what 999 said in the post above.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM

Amen to that!!

There is so much in this world that needs fixing, that it's just plain silly to invest time and effort into something that will never change, nor should it necessarily change, just because one feels it has an "'ughh' factor."

So stop obsessing about it!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM

"Akenaton. I find you offensive. Luckily, I don't extend that to all Scots."
Ian(musket),I am not offended by what you post.....I know what you are and really dont care what your personal view of me is.

I do see your thought processes as being very muddled, you are a prisoner of an idiotic agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:48 PM

"This system is loaded with inequality, in fact it depends on inequality to survive....trickle down economics etc....something to aspire to?
Housing estates full of unemployable young people. Univercities turning out unemployable graduates
Workers on PAYE..... corporations in tax havens.
A financial sector who's uniform should comprise of a striped jumper and a mask."

Then, Ake, bend yourself to those tasks. The stuff quoted above is fixable. Homosexuality is a fact of life.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:43 PM

This system is loaded with inequality, in fact it depends on inequality to survive....trickle down economics etc....something to aspire to?
Housing estates full of unemployable young people. Univercities turning out unemployable graduates
Workers on PAYE..... corporations in tax havens.
A financial sector who's uniform should comprise of a striped jumper and a mask.

and you scream about "marriage rights" for homosexuals.....pathetic!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:33 PM

Depends how "egregiously" stupid you are?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:22 PM

I suppose the second line should not have been in italics.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:55 PM

If you really believe in equality, you dont waste your time as a government or as a member of this forum, screaming about "marriage" rights for homosexuals.
This is the most egregiously stupid remark I've read on any forum all year. Well done, achy tony!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:53 PM

""So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.""

No! Just you and Ake, who betray your agenda more with each lie, obfuscation and distortion of the truth, and Goofie, who is, well.......Goofy!

As to the general public, you ahve no idea what they think and neither do we, but at the lowest poll result 55% of them are in favour and that, however you try to avoid admitting it, is a MAJORITY!

You lose on every front! Learn to live with it, because your 500,000 dissenters are only one one hundred and fortieth of the population, a very small minority.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:45 PM

""This would bring Westminster legislation in line with the plans of the Scottish Parliament to legalise both civil and religious same-sex marriage.""

NB Ake. Your own Parliament is apparently ahead of the Westminster government in making the same decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are precisely NO Tories in that government.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:36 PM

This idea came from nowhere to become a flagship policy which Cameron is "determined" to put into force within this Parliament.
No manifesto mentions.
To mention in the Queen's Speech about Government intentions.
It is indeed Cameron's whim, and has come out of the blue.
Tory Blue.

""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.

On 21 September 2010, the Liberal Democrats, a junior member of the governing coalition, officially endorsed same-sex marriage when the party's conference in Liverpool approved a policy motion called "Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom".""

NOTE THE DATES!

Not from nowhere and not a Tory initiative. Find another dead horse to flog Keith.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:26 PM

It would seem that, far from being a Tory whim, this is official policy for Labour and LibDem and a free vote for Tories, which suggests that dissenting Tories will actually make the bill a Labour/LibDem success. The following answers quite neatly the lie about this being a sudden whim and without consultation.

""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.

On 21 September 2010, the Liberal Democrats, a junior member of the governing coalition, officially endorsed same-sex marriage when the party's conference in Liverpool approved a policy motion called "Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom".

In February 2011, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government expressed its intention to begin a consultation to allow both religious same-sex ceremonies and civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In September 2011, the Government announced its intention to introduce same-sex civil marriage by the next general election.

On 7th December, 2012, the BBC announced that the Coalition government was going to extend the right to have a same-sex marriage conducted in a place of worship provided the religious body approved.

This would bring Westminster legislation in line with the plans of the Scottish Parliament to legalise both civil and religious same-sex marriage.

In 2010 the Green Party of England and Wales, the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru endorsed same-sex marriage at their party conferences.

The following groups and individuals have expressed their support for same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales:

    The Liberal Democrats
    The Labour Party
    The Conservative Party (though many within the party oppose)
    The Green Party of England and Wales
    The Times
    The Guardian
    Tim Montgomerie, editor of the ConservativeHome website

Opposition

The following groups and individuals have expressed their opposition to same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales:

    UK Independence Party
    The Telegraph
    Daily Mail
    The Sunday Times""

Seems the Tories are least in favour but still determined to do the right thing, with the backing of all the moderately sane parties in full support.

Looks like democracy at work in the spirit in which it was intended to function, with genuine majority rule.

And since 71%, or 55% (depending on whose poll you look at) of the public is in favour, that would suggest that democracy still happens occasionally.

Some Churches are anti, but they are exempt if they wish to be, while those who, in a genuine Christian spirit, follow Christ's teachings ("Love thy neighbour"; I don't recall him being quoted as adding "unless they're gay") are free to welcome couples to be married in church.

Lifelong relationships will follow and HIV risk will eventually diminish, though Ake will claim it hasn't after waiting three months from the first marriage ceremony.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:41 PM

You have no argument. So all we have left is hating people for being different.

So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.

You are a very intolerant, illiberal person.
A Stalinist.