Captain... Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 The other thing that made laugh was the argument that it wasn't in their manifesto so they didn't have a mandate to do so, when did politicians ever actually pay attention to the manifesto after getting elected.
yorkie1999 Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Gay marriages should not be allowed because it is totally unnatural, apart from lesbians..
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 The other thing that made laugh was the argument that it wasn't in their manifesto so they didn't have a mandate to do so, when did politicians ever actually pay attention to the manifesto after getting elected. So true. I sometimes wonder whether shorter term parliaments might help remedy this.
Captain... Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 So true. I sometimes wonder whether shorter term parliaments might help remedy this. I am slowly swinging towards a benevolent dictator, who doesn't decide on big policy changes, and crucial referendums deciding the very political future of the country to happen when someone else is in power, or if we take the US model, don't do anything slightly controversial in your first term hoping to be re-elected and then make big changes when you know you cannot be re-elected in your second term.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 I am slowly swinging towards a benevolent dictator, who doesn't decide on big policy changes, and crucial referendums deciding the very political future of the country to happen when someone else is in power, or if we take the US model, don't do anything slightly controversial in your first term hoping to be re-elected and then make big changes when you know you cannot be re-elected in your second term. I don't think we are alone in becoming increasingly disillusioned with the current system. Just a couple of years ago you would never have heard me say this but with virtually every week that passes I find myself more and more in favour of a move to PR. I used to think we'd get nothing done like that but it seems the current system is incapable of delivering anything significant anyway. I'm also incredibility frustrated by the incredible homogeneity of the present political class. You can't get a rizzla between the big 3 on most issues and they only ever seem to argue over semantics or a few quid going this way and that. There are so few radical or even distinctive opinions represented in parliament but you can't tell me that the views of the electorate can be shoehorned into one of 3 slightly different boxes. The politicians are all trapped in a middle of the road paradigm, squabbling over trivialities and al desperately trying to second guess the centre so that they can attain or cling onto power. I'm beginning to think first past the post plays a massive role in this. If all parties knew they would never have 'absolute' power (as would most likely be the case under PR) then perhaps we would see more genuine rational debates and the politicians could focus more on winning the argument than winning the party political power struggle.
stevelcfc Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 I really don't see why this point is even being debated/discussed, it's the 21st century who gives a shit?
1964FOX Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 I'm all for allowing gay marriage and hope the bill goes through. Clearly it's the right thing to do rather than the current civil partnership which to me seems like a measure taken to appease the gay and lesbian community. As someone else said there will be more weddings to go to as well, you can't beat. Good do.
Webbo Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Nothing against this, can't say I'm really bothered. 1 question though whose surname do you take?
Corky Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Haven't got a problem with it. Should be allowed.
stevelcfc Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Nothing against this, can't say I'm really bothered. 1 question though whose surname do you take? Do they not just keep their own?
Rincewind Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 There was a MP on Newsnight last night. She really ground my gears, My constituents want me to be against it so I'm only against it for them. MUPPET. Your seat was probably a safe one or the opposition were crap. You have no right to say what they wanted. There were other issues more important they would have voted upon.
Guest MattP Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Let them get on with it. Far better things to worry about.
Jon the Hat Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Complete non issue. Of course Marriage should be open to all. Religionists who think they own marriage are as deluded about this as they are about the existence of god.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Apparently even if you're a straight bloke you're going to be forced to marry a gay man, and therefore automatically become a big gay as a result. You couldn't make it up! I just did though
AoWW Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Apparently even if you're a straight bloke you're going to be forced to marry a gay man, and therefore automatically become a big gay as a result. You couldn't make it up! I just did though Own up, was it you or was it really Foxy Peter?
The Doctor Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 I think pretty much everyone is agreed that same sex couples should have equal rights and rightly so. I do not for the life of me understand why it should be called 'marriage' though. A man and a man is by definition not the same thing as a man and a woman so why would you use the same word to describe it? You wouldn't do this in description of any other differing pairs of objects so why do it in this case? Why pretend two carrots is the same thing as a carrot and a peach? I'm not making a qualitative distinction just a purely substantive one. I can completely understand gay couples wanting to have a more 'romantic' word to describe their union than civil partnership - so why don't they just come up with one? A new one that isn't already being used to describe something else. Garriage? It's only a matter of time before that becomes the colloquial term for it anyway so why not just get ahead of the curve and give it legitimacy from the start. Well, not really since marriage was just between two people - irrespective of gender or sexuality. - the Romans and Greeks were cool with it. It's only once religion started laying claim to things that weren't theirs to take and then started refusing to let others play with them, like a selfish child, that this whole "marriage = man + woman" became in any way considered. Couldn't care less about gay marriage. If we're going to discuss gay rights then their right to bring up children is much more important. Personally I am against it for the sake of the child. And how exactly does being raised by a homosexual couple harm a child? Gay marriages should not be allowed because it is totally unnatural, apart from lesbians.. Oh really?
Guest MattP Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 And how exactly does being raised by a homosexual couple harm a child I can say with 100% confidence now had I been given to a gay couple rather than a mother and a father when I was younger I would be pretty angry about it on this day. Not right the way people play politics with childrens lives just to push their own views on other people. Gay adoption would have to be a last resort, the thought of a child being put into the arms of two Dads rather than having a chance of a mother and a father is quite frankly, sickening.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Oh really? Reading that almost made me want to do a bit of gaying. Almost.
Guest MattP Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 [/size] Reading that almost made me want to do a bit of gaying. Almost. I reallty don't get the 'animals are gay' so it's fine argument. Can I lick my balls and shit in public then? Kill another human when I fancy it? Why not? Thousands of animals do it.
The Doctor Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 I can say with 100% confidence now had I been given to a gay couple rather than a mother and a father when I was younger I would be pretty angry about it on this day. Not right the way people play politics with childrens lives just to push their own views on other people. Gay adoption would have to be a last resort, the thought of a child being put into the arms of two Dads rather than having a chance of a mother and a father is quite frankly, sickening. How is letting people have children playing politics with children's lives? So then, what about surrogacy? The gay couple find a donor egg and a woman who is happy to carry their child for the duration (in the case of male-male relationships) or find donor sperm in the case of an all female relationship. However, adoption should not look at gender, it should look at whether the couple are suitable to be parents - and that is independent of sexuality. I reallty don't get the 'animals are gay' so it's fine argument. Can I lick my balls and shit in public then? Kill another human when I fancy it? Why not? Thousands of animals do it. That's because it's not an argument, it's a response when people say it's unnatural, therefore it is wrong - because actually it's not unnatural at all.
Guest MattP Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 How is letting people have children playing politics with children's lives? So then, what about surrogacy? The gay couple find a donor egg and a woman who is happy to carry their child for the duration (in the case of male-male relationships) or find donor sperm in the case of an all female relationship. However, adoption should not look at gender, it should look at whether the couple are suitable to be parents - and that is independent of sexuality. I'm uncomfortable with any sort of surrogacy, sperm donors etc, I'm still of the belief a child should come into the World in a family unit, with a mother and father. I can't disagree more with the second line, I find it incredible you would deny a child the to have both a mother and a father in it's life when that situation might actually be possible, terrible. I'm going to withdraw from this now as it upsets me too much to talk about such things and the people who want to enforce this on children.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 I'm uncomfortable with any sort of surrogacy, sperm donors etc, I'm still of the belief a child should come into the World in a family unit, with a mother and father. Agreed. Although I have no problem with a gay couple being allowed to foster a child once it has reached a certain level of maturity, say a 16 year old or something.
The Doctor Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 I'm uncomfortable with any sort of surrogacy, sperm donors etc, I'm still of the belief a child should come into the World in a family unit, with a mother and father. I can't disagree more with the second line, I find it incredible you would deny a child the to have both a mother and a father in it's life when that situation might actually be possible, terrible. I'm going to withdraw from this now as it upsets me too much to talk about such things and the people who want to enforce this on children. So then, single people also shouldn't be allowed to have children? What, that adoption should focus on suitability, not gender? I don't see why that's terrible - it doesn't take a man and a woman to make a good set of parents, it takes two loving, caring people to make a good set of parents, and gender doesn't affect those attributes.
Guest MattP Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 Agreed. Although I have no problem with a gay couple being allowed to foster a child once it has reached a certain level of maturity, say a 16 year old or something. Yeah that's a fair point, far more comfortable with that when the child can make an informed decision to some extent rather than when they can't even speak. Though the sort of people trying to enforce gay adoption onto the World wouldn't allow the child to be making that sort of choice, have no doubt about that.
Guest MattP Posted 5 February 2013 Posted 5 February 2013 So then, single people also shouldn't be allowed to have children? What, that adoption should focus on suitability, not gender? I don't see why that's terrible - it doesn't take a man and a woman to make a good set of parents, it takes two loving, caring people to make a good set of parents, and gender doesn't affect those attributes. Ideal situation/Not allowed - big difference. Bottom line is I believe a child should be given every possible chance to have a mother and father and I believe that right comes ahead of a gay couples 'right' to have somebody elses child.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.