Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Tory activists attack David Cameron on gay marriage 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22585093

I'll never understand his thinking on this. The only thing that comes to mind is he tries to widen appeal, but he's so cack-handed at it! Hug a hoody, hug a polar bear, Big Soc., and now gay marriage that even seemed to have taken those interested by surprise. And now we have demands for heterosexual couples to be allowed civil partnerships :lol:

The Beeb might wanna fix that bit about the letter, the way it mentions Ed and Nick :?

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sun May 19, 2013 8:37 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm
Posts: 10022
Reply with quote
TBH for a good while I've been stating that all "legal unions" should be called civil partnerships and that "marriage" should be confined to religious institutions with no legal implications.

_________________
Image
He fights for the users.


Sun May 19, 2013 10:09 am
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
cloaked_wolf wrote:
TBH for a good while I've been stating that all "legal unions" should be called civil partnerships and that "marriage" should be confined to religious institutions with no legal implications.


I should point out that that would probably be my ideal world choice too, I just think it's hilarious that Dave inadvertently kickstarted a movement :lol:

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sun May 19, 2013 10:43 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:12 am
Posts: 7011
Location: Wiltshire
Reply with quote
As long as there is a way of two people signing up to formalise their relationship, or commitment to each other, in the eyes of the law who the hell cares what its called. :roll:

Surely the fact that they have two innies or two outies rather than one of each between them shouldn't matter a damn.

_________________
<input type="pickmeup" name="coffee" value="espresso" />


Sun May 19, 2013 11:43 am
Profile WWW
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:38 am
Posts: 2967
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Reply with quote
cloaked_wolf wrote:
TBH for a good while I've been stating that all "legal unions" should be called civil partnerships and that "marriage" should be confined to religious institutions with no legal implications.


As I didn't get married in a church, I assumed I was in a civil partnership, I find the whole thing very confusing.

_________________
I've finally invented something that works!

A Mac User.


Sun May 19, 2013 12:21 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
I do find the point interesting though - with the legislation as it's proposed at the moment, gay couples will have access to both marriages and civil partnerships, whereas heterosexual couples will only have access to marriages. Surely it would be better just to rationalise the whole damn thing. Personally, although I have no plans (and indeed little interest) in partaking in either, I think if I did decide to make that sort of public statement/commitment about my relationship, I'd definitely prefer something 'civil' over something religious.

Jon


Sun May 19, 2013 12:55 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
Civil partnerships should apply to everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Sun May 19, 2013 1:02 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
the wife and i had a register office marriage then 6 months later had a wedding blessing in the church of our choice
we are seriously thinking of renewing our vows in 3 years time as that would be our 25th anniversary

i cannot see why this cant be the case in same sex partnerships ...

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Sun May 19, 2013 11:14 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
Why to Tory activists try and kill their own party?
Poll after poll shows that the majority of UK citizens supports gay marriage, so why do they try and self destruct over it?

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Mon May 20, 2013 12:12 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5490
Location: just behind you!
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
Why to Tory activists try and kill their own party?
Poll after poll shows that the majority of UK citizens supports gay marriage, so why do they try and self destruct over it?

Because so many of them are good "christians" and believe that it is against gods will. Failing of course to observe the prime tenant of jesus "love thy neighbour" and it allows them to vent thier bigoted hate filled views whilst pretending to be nice people.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2

_________________
johnwbfc wrote:
I care not which way round it is as long as at some point some sort of semi-naked wrestling is involved.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Yes but the opportunity to legally kill someone with a giant dildo does not happen every day.

Finally joined Flickr


Mon May 20, 2013 1:01 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
It's more than that. They think along the lines of Edmund Burke.

Edmund Burke wrote:
An ignorant man who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is however sufficiently confident to think he can safely take to pieces, and put together at his pleasure, a moral machine of another guise, importance and complexity, composed of far other wheels, and springs, and balances, and counteracting and co-operating powers. Men little think how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what they do not understand. Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse for their presumption. They who truly mean well must be fearful of acting ill.


To this world view; traditions represent a set of collective wisdoms that have withstood the test of time, and the moral fabric of society is a delicate and complex thing that shouldn't carelessly be tinkered with. They see a developing society in which people just do things because they want to do them, and expect to have things because they want them, and this strikes them as a creeping moral decadence.

For them, modernity is spoiled by self-indulgence. People don't take their responsibilities seriously enough. There is reckless marriage leading to wanton divorce; parents that simply walk away from their offspring, or fight over them and deny each other access to them. In a society of convenience and shrink wrapped disposable commodities, people, or so they fear, have come to treat each other as similarly short term propositions.

For them, this has the inevitable result that a generation of sybaritic ingrates who have never even had to compete for the honours awarded evenly to all at a school sports day, will march (in a slothful, slouchy manner) to calamity. It doesn't help that they read the Daily Mail, and thus are convinced this has already happened.

What matters for them are two things: Firstly, that it all started with people unraveling social institutions for their own petty benefit. And secondly, that it all has to end with a new moral covenant, when a chastened and failing society realises they were right all along, and everyone abandons their self-indulgence and gets serious about responsibility. In a very genteel way, they are actually political revolutionaries, who happen to be trying to turn the wheel back to it's 361st degree.

The important thing for everyone else to understand, is that this isn't a single knee-jerk reaction. It is part of a cohesive mythology. It's all part of the same simplified, Manichean fairy tale of good men and women standing firm against modernising corruptions that drives every variety of raving doofus to mount the battlements. Whether it is the unwashed anti-globalisation protestor, or the mildly angry vicar, makes very little difference.

The essential mythical construct in each case is largely similar, only the specific details of which over-imagined malign force they hope to confront differentiates them.


Mon May 20, 2013 7:49 pm
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Gay Marriage 'Wrecking Amendment' Rejected

http://news.sky.com/story/1093523/gay-m ... t-rejected

What a shambles.

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon May 20, 2013 11:07 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:20 pm
Posts: 3838
Location: Here Abouts
Reply with quote
Oookay. So we're having a wedding in October but not in a church or with any religious affiliation, I'm calling it "getting married" the implication being it's the legal thing. In my view the religious part is the bit that is most open to interpretation and "Marriage" hasn't been synonymous with "in a church" for lots of years, regardless of the location of the wedding, it's still the start of a marriage?!

_________________
The Official "Saucy Minx" ;)

This above all: To Thine Own Self Be True

"Red sky at night, Shepherds Delight"..Which is a bit like Shepherds Pie, but with whipped topping instead of mashed potato.


Tue May 21, 2013 2:52 pm
Profile
Officially Mrs saspro
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:55 pm
Posts: 4955
Location: on the naughty step
Reply with quote
I'd got further and make religious wedding non legally binding and just a custom and make everyone have civil partnerships.


Tue May 21, 2013 3:20 pm
Profile WWW
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
TheFrenchun wrote:
I'd got further and make religious wedding non legally binding and just a custom and make everyone have civil partnerships.

What will you do to appease bridezillas? I agree, they should all have equal standing.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Tue May 21, 2013 8:30 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 15 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.