IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Big Gay Lords Debate
Simon Kirby
post Jun 3 2013, 08:00 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



The Gay Marriage Bill is up for debate in the Lords today.

Arch anti-gay lord Carey spluttered:

QUOTE
same-sex marriage would set a "dangerous precedent" which could lead to sibling marriage or polygamy.

In an article for think tank Civitas, he said did not want to be "alarmist", but said it could logically be extended to "say, two sisters bringing up children together" or "multiple relationships, such as two women and one man".


And the eyes in the Tory grassroots swivelled:
QUOTE
"deep concern" about "the negative effect of the gay marriage bill on both Conservative Party morale and electoral appeal".

The Conservative Grassroots group has called on peers to reject the bill.

"It is alienating much of our core support while failing to attract new voters with under two years to go before the general election," chairman Robert Woollard wrote.


As it is polling suggest that gay marriage may marginally alienate voters, but it's marginal. It is an exaggeration to say that "much of our core support" will be alienated, though polling suggests that a substantial minority of Tories, maybe 10%, would vote elsewhere, but that a similar number would vote Tory because of the gay marriage reforms, so I can't find the justification for Robert Woolard's comments. But in any case, shouldn't the government try and do what's right, not just what the party die-hards want?

But again on the polling, ask someone whether they'd be more or less likely to vote Tory if they introduce the gay marriage bill and you get one answer, but ask people what it is that will decide their voting preference at the next election and you get quite a different answer. Asked directly it's true that Tories lose a marginal 2-3% of their vote (they lose around 12%, but gain around 10%) - but asked about issues few actually mention gay marriage, and the majority of those who do will vote for the party that introduces it. It's the problem of false prominence.

So while the agitation of powerful activists such as Lord Carey makes gay marriage look like a terribly divisive issue, the reality is that it's not something that most people are fussed about either way, and of those who are, they support it.

Anywho, there's a wrecking motion in today's debate so the Lords may possibly try and derail the Bill, and that would be pretty poor democracy.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sherlock
post Jun 3 2013, 08:52 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 12-January 12
Member No.: 8,467



Oh dear, Simon, you're in for it now. It's one thing annoying Newbury Town Council but now you've gone and hacked-off the Creator of heaven and Earth, the Lord God Almighty.

God made it absolutely clear via what He presumably felt was the best possible methods at His disposal - including alleged letters from someone or other to some other people and sundry Hebrew texts* - that He hates gays and that only happy heterosexual people can be allowed to marry and/or fornicate in His name. No less an authority that the former Archbishop of Canterbury has confirmed that this is the case, so who are you to argue?

May the Lord have mercy on you.

Amen.

* Nb. Given Leviticus 20:13 'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them', we should perhaps be grateful that his Eminence only wants to ban gay marriage!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jun 3 2013, 12:51 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



Leviticus is rather left field as regards opinions.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pbonnay
post Jun 3 2013, 02:24 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 318
Joined: 4-August 12
Member No.: 8,791



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 3 2013, 09:00 AM) *
Arch anti-gay lord Carey spluttered:

And the eyes in the Tory grassroots swivelled:


You sound rather prejudiced on this matter!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jun 3 2013, 03:50 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Sherlock @ Jun 3 2013, 09:52 AM)
upon them', we should perhaps be grateful that his Eminence only wants to ban gay marriage!

To lie in the nude may be terribly rude but to lie in the house is a sin..


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jun 3 2013, 03:50 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Sherlock @ Jun 3 2013, 09:52 AM)
upon them', we should perhaps be grateful that his Eminence only wants to ban gay marriage!

To lie in the nude may be terribly rude but to lie in the house is a sin..


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jun 3 2013, 03:51 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Sherlock @ Jun 3 2013, 09:52 AM)
upon them', we should perhaps be grateful that his Eminence only wants to ban gay marriage!

To lie in the nude may be terribly rude but to lie in the house is a sin..


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sherlock
post Jun 3 2013, 04:16 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 12-January 12
Member No.: 8,467



QUOTE (On the edge @ Jun 3 2013, 04:51 PM) *
To lie in the nude may be terribly rude but to lie in the house is a sin..


Very good, but I liked it best the first time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sherlock
post Jun 3 2013, 04:23 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 12-January 12
Member No.: 8,467



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jun 3 2013, 01:51 PM) *
Leviticus is rather left field as regards opinions.....


Well, at least the old boy said what he was thinking. I found the quote here and most of the other experts quoted are a bit mealy mouthed.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-...t-Gay-Marriage/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jun 3 2013, 07:37 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Sherlock @ Jun 3 2013, 05:23 PM) *
Well, at least the old boy said what he was thinking. I found the quote here and most of the other experts quoted are a bit mealy mouthed.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-...t-Gay-Marriage/


Leviticus sets out Law on a huge range of topics. Some clerics say no-one can live and not disobey a Law of Leviticus. Context is all important.

Interesting that selective interpretation of the Qu'ran is a basis for saying someone is 'radical'......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jun 3 2013, 07:43 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jun 3 2013, 08:37 PM) *
Leviticus sets out Law on a huge range of topics. Some clerics say no-one can live and not disobey a Law of Leviticus. Context is all important.

Part of that context is that Levitical law doesn't apply to gentiles, so it really has very little to do with how we construct the civil laws in England.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jun 3 2013, 08:03 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Sherlock @ Jun 3 2013, 05:16 PM) *
Very good, but I liked it best the first time.



Really sorry. thick fingers, small key pad and bumpy train..... that's my excuse anyway!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jun 3 2013, 08:10 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 3 2013, 08:43 PM) *
Part of that context is that Levitical law doesn't apply to gentiles, so it really has very little to do with how we construct the civil laws in England.


But Islam follows the teachings of the Old Testament....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jun 3 2013, 08:21 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jun 3 2013, 09:10 PM) *
But Islam follows the teachings of the Old Testament....

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to argue against your point about radicalisation in Islam, I know next to nothing about Islam. I was simply arguing that Levitical law shouldn't be used as a basis for English civil law.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
x2lls
post Jun 3 2013, 10:30 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,605
Joined: 25-November 09
Member No.: 511



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jun 3 2013, 08:37 PM) *
Leviticus sets out Law on a huge range of topics. Some clerics say no-one can live and not disobey a Law of Leviticus. Context is all important.

Interesting that selective interpretation of the Qu'ran is a basis for saying someone is 'radical'......



Don't you mean selective interpretation of the cran is a basis for committing atrocities?


--------------------
There their, loose loser!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jun 3 2013, 11:42 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (x2lls @ Jun 3 2013, 11:30 PM) *
Don't you mean selective interpretation of the cran is a basis for committing atrocities?

Selective war warmongering probably plays a part too. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jun 4 2013, 06:52 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



Both of the above are equally correct. I was just flagging that the Old Testament has some fairly bloodthirsty verses, and that Islam follows the Old Testament as well as the Qu'ran. Ergo, maybe there is not such a gulf apart from that created by the (very) few.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jun 4 2013, 01:07 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



I good round-up of the gay lords debate here.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blake
post Jun 5 2013, 08:48 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 507
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 75



I think this idea is allowing them to marry is outrageous. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed; should we then expect any less?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
massifheed
post Jun 5 2013, 09:09 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 1-November 10
Member No.: 1,215



QUOTE (Blake @ Jun 5 2013, 09:48 AM) *
I think this idea is allowing them to marry is outrageous. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed; should we then expect any less?



Where's the popcorn-eating emoticon when you need it. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 09:26 PM