05-21-2015, 10:35 PM | #451 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
No, you know what? This is not a matter of religious freedom. It completely fucking is not. Religious freedom means you have the freedom to practice your own religion. It does not mean you have the freedom to force anybody else to practice your own religion. It does not mean you get to have the freedom to force anybody else to go by the morals of your own religion. Religious freedom stops at you.
Marriage is not religious. The fact that people have made it so is their own problem. Marriage existed way before Catholicism. It may even have existed before Hinduism, which as far as I know is the oldest religion. If you want to exercise your religious freedom and not marry someone of the same sex, you have that freedom. If you want to exercise your religious freedom and force someone else to not marry someone of the same sex, you do not. For the same reason that since first world countries are not Saudi Arabia, extremist Muslims cannot force women not to drive or people not to drink. This has nothing to do with religious freedom. And frankly, you're right. If my viewpoint is going to lead to this clash between me and some hickey in the Bible Belt, I will stand right here and continue speaking.
__________________
Spoiler: show |
05-22-2015, 12:16 PM | #452 | ||||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
I am bisexual and consider myself to have the same chance of settling down, for life, with a same-sex partner as I would with an opposite-sex partner. I do not oppose the government's ability to impose gay "marriage" in the sense that two people who share their lives together should be considered to be together in every sense of the word. Gay marriage would not be a big deal if civil unions were actually equal in any way to marriage. There are over a thousand ways in which marriage is better than a civil union. I'm not quite sure where I'm even going with this but I think the point is that it's a really complex issue and isn't solved by "LET'S LET THE GAYS MARRY ALREADY." Quote:
Besides, this isn't the Gay Marriage Thread. This is the Britain Thread. And in Britain (and America, which shares a large number of parallels with British politics on this specific issue), marriage is absolutely a religious thing. Quote:
Quote:
I understand now.
__________________
|
||||
05-23-2015, 03:55 AM | #453 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Can you not marry without the involvement of someone religious in Britain? Because googling told me that you can do it with a civic registrar, two witnesses, and in a legal building. Oh, and in America it varies statewise, but it is most definitely not a requirement in every state.
__________________
Spoiler: show |
05-23-2015, 09:48 AM | #454 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
No such thing as a legal religious ceremony in the UK. Your church ceremony ia just for show, you have to either have a registrar there or go to the registry office.
|
05-23-2015, 11:52 AM | #455 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
My mistake, then. I was conflating my idea with marriage with the state's idea of marriage.
__________________
|
05-23-2015, 12:14 PM | #456 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Which is basically my point: You can't hide this behind religious freedom. Marriage is no more religious than food or clothes. You can't force everyone to be vegetarian or to wear cotton only specifying your religion, even though to you your food and clothes may be deeply religious.
__________________
Spoiler: show |
05-27-2015, 10:33 AM | #457 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
>Talon/Shuckle
Yeah sorry if my original post was a bit incoherent/unclear, I was really tired!
__________________
Quote:
|
|
08-11-2015, 06:37 AM | #458 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
So Corbyn. Would he actually make Labour unelectable? I was under the impression that polling suggests support for nationalizing railways and certain other industries was quite high, and he'd be a proper socialist leader (when Labour are bleeding huge chunks of their left to the SNP and Greens) and the least pro-EU of both the Labour candidates and other major leaders (at a time when everyone is bleeding support to UKIP). Like, this seems to me to be a recipe for far and away the most likely to be elected option Labour have. I would appreciate if someone with a better grasp of politics could help me with why so much of the Labour party seems in such a blind panic about him being leader.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 08-11-2015 at 06:48 AM. |
|
08-11-2015, 10:13 AM | #459 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
So the thing about the rail nationalisation polling is that the Green Party has the most popular policies of any in the UK and they have, what. One MP, a handful of MEPs, they control one council. People don't really vote on policies that much but many vote on the basis of perceived competence. People may like the idea of rail nationalisation but that doesn't mean they're going to vote for Labour.
As for why people are panicking, the received wisdom is that after the longest suicide note in history, Britain (England) basically said they weren't interested in socialism. Blairism is essentially Thatcherism so you can see why that would be a persuasive argument to people who pay attention to Westminster politics. A lot of the media and a lot of the top tier of Labour is from that mould. They think that the electorate has moved to a space where they won't vote for Corbyn's kind of politics. And even if they don't, they know that their own positions will be under threat if someone like him, who has few ties to the Blairite movement, becomes leader and starts appointing people to do things and take power. A counter argument to this is that Labour councillors are further left than most MPs (or at least to the MPs who made up the last Government). They, and various backbenchers, would be happy to see a left wing Labour party and would argue that actually it's better to try and pick up all of the votes on the left, rather than try to pick up a lot of votes on the centre left, the centre and one or two right wingers. This is all a little moot given that Corbyn has absolutely no experience. He's a longstanding protest backbencher, which is wonderful in opposition, but he will not be able to form a strong shadow cabinet, he probably won't do a very good job of running the elections and will probably end up out on his ear within two years. I still think Cooper is going to win though. |
09-12-2015, 06:20 AM | #460 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Holy balls Corbyn actually won. And comfortably as well.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
09-12-2015, 06:25 AM | #461 |
Ducks gonna duck
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,824
|
Indeed. To put Corbyn's victory into perspective, Blair won his leadership race with 57%, when there were only three candidates to the 2015 race's four. Maybe this means Labour will actually do its job of opposing the Tory government? It's going to be an interesting few months.
|
09-12-2015, 06:53 AM | #462 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Will be interesting to see how it goes (and whether he'll be ousted before 2020 election). Were I a labour member I'd have probably voted Cooper, I probably won't be voting for a Corbyn led Labour party in 2020 but who knows.
On the front of "actually opposing the Tories", yeah kind of see what you mean. Miliband was good up until like five months before the election when he seemed to just...stop disagreeing with the Tories. Like at all. Lost my vote with his campaign.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
09-13-2015, 07:17 AM | #463 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Yeah about that.
I am part of the reasonably prevalent view that he will probably last until May 2017 but that if he hasn't done well in the various electoral tests between now and then he will find it difficult to stay on. Hopefully I'm wrong. But Osborne vs Corbyn will be one to watch. |
09-14-2015, 02:43 PM | #464 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
|
09-14-2015, 02:51 PM | #465 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Beautiful.
|
09-15-2015, 08:16 AM | #468 |
Ducks gonna duck
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,824
|
oh snap
|
09-15-2015, 12:39 PM | #469 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
For all your British pride that British politics are more grounded in sanity than American politics, we have never had a president publicly say something like this while in office.
We are really more alike, you and us, than I think you'd like to admit.
__________________
|
09-15-2015, 02:36 PM | #470 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Not really. You guys are backwards corrupt nutjobs with a God complex we just have a condescending PM.
|
09-15-2015, 04:49 PM | #471 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Yeah it has been particularly bad in recent years. The entire run-up to the election was "Labour and the SNP will team up to ruin the country!". Notwithstanding that I half agreed with that insofar I didn't want either major nationalist party (UKIP or SNP) anywhere near power, it was kind of ridiculous.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 09-15-2015 at 05:03 PM. |
|
09-16-2015, 12:10 PM | #472 |
Ducks gonna duck
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,824
|
Hey, that's not completely fair. Cameron is also corrupt!
|
09-16-2015, 12:14 PM | #473 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
British politics is squeaky clean and my new job as an energy policy consultatant has no bearing on my position.
Go nuclear! |
09-20-2015, 05:28 PM | #474 |
Ducks gonna duck
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,824
|
In other news: our Prime Minister has reportedly had his penis in a pig's mouth.
EDIT: A dead pig's mouth. Last edited by SoS; 09-20-2015 at 06:09 PM. |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|