|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Will "gay marriage" destroy the Tory Party or save it?
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There seems to be a view abroad that this will all be forgotten a few months after the first so-called gay marriage. That's just the first skirmish.
Why what are you going to do? Start picketing gay weddings a la Fred Phelps?
Look just call me to Hell rather than make your snide comments. If you think I'm a God--hates-fags-type Christian then you're both an arsehole and a bigot.
So go on, enlighten us about what your ongoing, tolerant skirmishing will consist of?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would say that "Tory party does something right" is news, but since the majority voted against it, I'm left thinking that Cameron is actually more decent (in this respects at least) than the rest of his party.
I'm still struggling with his motivation. It's not something he had to go to the wall on, and it's not like he's a reputation for being a social radical. Perhaps we have a stopped-clock situation here, but I genuinely don't know.
A lot of journos are saying it's about detoxifying the party. Seems plausible to me. Also appeal to young people?
Nice cartoon in the Guardian yesterday, with various Colonel Blimps demonstrating, with one placard 'Retoxify the party', and another 'My third marriage is sacred'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
When I lived in Canada I worked with some conservative Christians who, strongly rallied against gay marriage, but then after passage, almost seemed to welcome it because they believed it would lead to the oppression and persecution of "true" Christians. That would give them a rallying cry for support from more nominal conservatives ("enough is enough") as well as a chance to prove how faithful they were. They seemed to be greatly disappointed when no such persecution happened.
I'll simply never understand the fundy mind.
[ 05. February 2013, 20:17: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There seems to be a view abroad that this will all be forgotten a few months after the first so-called gay marriage. That's just the first skirmish.
Why what are you going to do? Start picketing gay weddings a la Fred Phelps?
Look just call me to Hell rather than make your snide comments. If you think I'm a God--hates-fags-type Christian then you're both an arsehole and a bigot.
An if clause does not make a statement less of a personal attack. You know better. Cut it out.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A lot of journos are saying it's about detoxifying the party. Seems plausible to me. Also appeal to young people?
Nice cartoon in the Guardian yesterday, with various Colonel Blimps demonstrating, with one placard 'Retoxify the party', and another 'My third marriage is sacred'.
Demographics have the potential to kill the Tories dead, in the same way the Republicans lost this year - so perhaps Cameron does have his eye on that. Except then all the opposition have to point out is that over half the sitting MPs voted against a government-sponsored Bill, indicating that yes, they are still toxic.
Also, "My third marriage is sacred" rofls.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Interesting that Thatcher supported the decriminalization of homosexuality, way back in 1967. So there is some Tory tradition of backing gay rights; they are not all 'damn sodomy'. Then again, she put forward clause 28.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Beware Greeks bearing gifts... or paranoia?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Paranoia, definitely.
List of non-Tories voting against also quite illuminating. Sarah Teather, anyone?
And if you want a giggle - whichever side of the line you're on - read the words of Christopher Chope in Hansard. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Simon Hughes was also sounding deeply confused.
The best speeches (by a mile) came from Tories: Freer, Herbert and James particularly stood out.
Interesting fact: while church and Tory party tearing themselves apart over this "vital" issue there was only 1 (ONE) anti protester outside Parliament...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Paranoia, definitely.
List of non-Tories voting against also quite illuminating. Sarah Teather, anyone?
And if you want a giggle - whichever side of the line you're on - read the words of Christopher Chope in Hansard.
Simon Hughes was also sounding deeply confused.
The best speeches (by a mile) came from Tories: Freer, Herbert and James particularly stood out.
Interesting fact: while church and Tory party tearing themselves apart over this "vital" issue there was only 1 (ONE) anti protester outside Parliament...
Agreed re Tory speeches - the only stand-out Labour one was from David Lammy. Would add Crispin Blunt and Sarah Wollaston to the Tories.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting that Thatcher supported the decriminalization of homosexuality, way back in 1967. So there is some Tory tradition of backing gay rights; they are not all 'damn sodomy'. Then again, she put forward clause 28.
It's all a bit of a mixed bag - the Wolfenden Committee was set up by a Tory Home Secretary (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, albeit grudgingly) no doubt in part as a result of widespread sympathy for the Tory peer Lord Montagu (and others) who had been jailed for homosexual offences.
The Bill decriminalising homosexuality was (I think) put forward by a Tory and Thatcher and Enoch Powell voted in favour.
Thatcher was responsible for Section 28 but Labour and the Liberals didn't vote against it - at the time they only called for the provisions to be watered down.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Just checked the full breakdown of votes. I live in a solid blue area; I e-mailed my MP asking him to support the Bill but he voted against. On the other hand, an ex-student of mine is now a Tory MP (in another true blue constituency) and he voted for it. Quite irrationally that makes me feel happy.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My own Tory MP told me he'd vote against and I'll check to see this in the morning. It won't change my mind.
With respect, that seems a very odd attitude to take. Especially in a country such as yours where party discipline is not so rigid that an individual MP's positions mean nothing.
Why would you punish your local MP if he votes the way you want him to vote? If you want the Tories to be more reflective of your values, then surely you should support those particular Tories that reflect those values. Otherwise you are abdicating any opportunity to affect the overall composition of the Tories.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My own Tory MP told me he'd vote against and I'll check to see this in the morning. It won't change my mind.
With respect, that seems a very odd attitude to take. Especially in a country such as yours where party discipline is not so rigid that an individual MP's positions mean nothing.
Why would you punish your local MP if he votes the way you want him to vote? If you want the Tories to be more reflective of your values, then surely you should support those particular Tories that reflect those values. Otherwise you are abdicating any opportunity to affect the overall composition of the Tories.
I might be able to change my mind if there was any evidence that my vote could affect the composition of the Tory Party. But it would have to be in the context of a potentially effective tactical voting campaign.
The next election is likely to be conducted along presidential lines. That is a determining factor.
Furthermore, I reject the smugness of same-sex 'marriage' proponents that opposition will just die away. Voting patterns of opponents will be part of future campaigning.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Furthermore, I reject the smugness of same-sex 'marriage' proponents that opposition will just die away. Voting patterns of opponents will be part of future campaigning.
Despite all the evidence from other parts of the world where this has become, if not a non-issue, a very minority beef?
When the US presidential elections go off and barely a word mentioned about same-sex marriage? Any illusory smugness I might harbour is trumped by the facts.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I think that a few of the votes by Tories against the bill were more for public consumption back in their constituency parties. They have to be reselected (or can be deselected) for the next election and I suspect that some were pandering to the Chairs of their constituency Conservative Party.
They knew the vote would go through easily, so they voted against to shore up their own positions back home. I think some of the “nays” were actually “eyes”!
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Robert: quote:
I live in a solid blue area; I e-mailed my MP asking him to support the Bill but he voted against.
I wrote to my MP when the C of E response was made public to explain that I supported the Bill and that not everyone in the C of E was against it. I could tell by his reply (which was diplomatic but vague) that he was against it himself.
I replied again to the further points he'd made in his letter, but it was a free vote so MPs were entitled to vote according to their conscience. And it would have been dishonest to threaten not to vote for him because I don't vote Tory anyway... so the fact that he voted against will not affect my decision on who to vote for in 2015 at all.
The big issues for me at election time are education and health, with a caveat that I will not vote for wackoes like the BNP or UKIP. If it was a choice between the BNP and the Tories in my constituency I would hold my nose and vote Tory (as the lesser of two weevils), but that's the only situation in which I'd consider it. So for me at least, the economy doesn't trump everything but I certainly wouldn't choose which party to support on the basis of who can get married to who.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would say that "Tory party does something right" is news, but since the majority voted against it, I'm left thinking that Cameron is actually more decent (in this respects at least) than the rest of his party.
I'm still struggling with his motivation. It's not something he had to go to the wall on, and it's not like he's a reputation for being a social radical. Perhaps we have a stopped-clock situation here, but I genuinely don't know.
I'm guessing that Blair's commitment to market forces managed to attract to Labour a fair number of people who are actually quite Tory in economics but who couldn't stomach the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' faction of the party. Cameron is hoping to get them back. That's the best explanation I can think of, anyway.
ETA: realistically, since the majority of seats in Parliament are held by parties that are notionally to the left of the Tories, Cameron will have to attract votes from the left if he doesn't want another hung Parliament.
[ 06. February 2013, 08:21: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Furthermore, I reject the smugness of same-sex 'marriage' proponents that opposition will just die away. Voting patterns of opponents will be part of future campaigning.
Despite all the evidence from other parts of the world where this has become, if not a non-issue, a very minority beef?
When the US presidential elections go off and barely a word mentioned about same-sex marriage? Any illusory smugness I might harbour is trumped by the facts.
Selective facts, no doubt. This is all very new so the very fact that there isn't very much media reporting of problems in countries which have same sex marriage should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there aren't outcomes and problems ahead. In Spain, For example, I would be asking the question of what happens to the cohesion of a society when in the long term the 'marriages' of some of its citizens are volubly disputed by a substantial minority.
Furthermore when I look across to your side of the Atlantic I see stark divisions. I don't think you can gloss over the plebiscites you have held in some states as barely a word mentioned about gay marriage.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
For example, I would be asking the question of what happens to the cohesion of a society when in the long term the 'marriages' of some of its citizens are volubly disputed by a substantial minority.
... as, for example, with the remarriage of divorcees?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
For example, I would be asking the question of what happens to the cohesion of a society when in the long term the 'marriages' of some of its citizens are volubly disputed by a substantial minority.
... as, for example, with the remarriage of divorcees?
Not quite the same thing as has been pointed out far too many times before. Divorcees are not conceived of as a 'community'. Divorce is not a protected characteristic. Being divorced is not an orientation or an identity.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I enjoyed Yvette Cooper, who was lively and interesting.
Has to be the first time I've ever heard praise for Ed Ball's wife... ever...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Not quite the same thing as has been pointed out far too many times before. Divorcees are not conceived of as a 'community'. Divorce is not a protected characteristic. Being divorced is not an orientation or an identity.
And how (as I have asked several times before) is that relevant to the argument as you presented it?
You say that society is divided if some marriages are recognised by some sectors of society but not others. The remarriage of divorcees is recognised by civil society but not the Catholic Church. How is it relevant that divorce is not an orientation or an identity?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I enjoyed Yvette Cooper, who was lively and interesting.
Has to be the first time I've ever heard praise for Ed Ball's wife... ever...
It is somewhat jarring to refer to her in this context only in relation to her husband. She stands a greater chance than him of high government office in the future. And her speech was one of the better ones from opponents (though by concentrating on the wedding day she played into the hands of opponents).
Maria Miller's speech deserves some criticism because she quoted so copiously from her own article in The Times. All of a piece with government by spin. Her role in the quadruple lock fiasco should also give cause for concern. The idea that the government was proposing to ban the C of E and C in W from performing gay marriages was a typical example of party political dishonesty.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I enjoyed Yvette Cooper, who was lively and interesting.
Has to be the first time I've ever heard praise for Ed Ball's wife... ever...
Yes, I've only ever seen her on Question Time and the like, where she usually seems quite gauche. But in a longer speech, she actually was lively and kind of fun and thoughtful.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I enjoyed Yvette Cooper, who was lively and interesting.
Has to be the first time I've ever heard praise for Ed Ball's wife... ever...
Yes, I've only ever seen her on Question Time and the like, where she usually seems quite gauche. But in a longer speech, she actually was lively and kind of fun and thoughtful.
Having been working most of the day, and then out with the dog in the early evening, I missed most of the speeches and only got back in time to hear the vote results announced... I shall have to go and find her spech and listen to it.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I would be asking the question of what happens to the cohesion of a society when in the long term the 'marriages' of some of its citizens are volubly disputed by a substantial minority.
Bluntly put, they will die off and the younger generation won't give two hoots. Divorced-and-remarrieds find themselves in the same fortunate position regarding their own marital status, due to generational change.
Back to the OP. I'd like to believe that Conservative divisions over this continue to play out across the airwaves and the front pages for weeks and months to come, but it'll probably only surface when someone says something particularly reprehensible. I'd much rather they got turned over for their handling of the economy, the benefits system and their handing out favours for the rich while screwing the poor.
Still, every little helps.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Maria Miller's speech deserves some criticism because she quoted so copiously from her own article in The Times.
This sentence is uttter bull and makes no sense in the real world.
By your logic it would seem an author should never reuse their own material in discussion or debate - seems like academics are going to have an awful lot more work to do.
If the SoS wrote an article on this subject, and then presents an argument on this in debate of course the two are going to overlap and share common features in terms of arguments.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I don't think it will lose the Conservatives the right-wing vote other than casue some to stay away from the polling booths (possibly) as the promise of a referendum on the EU has made UKIP far less of a bolting-hole for those types. If anything, it is likely to increase the Tory vote by attracting back the 'Worcestershire Woman' voter beloved of New Labour.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
How extraordinary. "And other matters"? It looks like you want to have it both ways, but I can't tell whether you're trying to overstate the influence of this vote (in which the Tories as a group voted against) to emphasise your displeasure, or just covering up kneejerk bigotry.
But then, nor can I decide which option would make me respect you less.
No, I don't want it both ways but there's often a last straw and this is it for me. I'll ignore the remark about bigotry and respect (partly because I don't give a damn about your opinion) since this is not Hell or Dead Horses. I'll just put it to you that there's little point in having a thread about the effect of gay marriage on the fortunes of the Tory party if you don't tolerate evidence from people who will withdraw support over this?
I'm interested in what people think, but I'm under no obligation to like or approve of any given reaction.
What bothers me is that you're acting as if this single vote (however your own MP voted, and despite the fact that the Tories as a party remain mostly opposed) will ensure that you never vote for the party again. However ludicrous and frankly unpleasant I find that opinion, it's a data point of interest.
Or it would be, if you hadn't hinted darkly at "other matters" which were being weighed in your decision. That rings alarm bells with me. It suggests that if it hadn't been this bill, it would have been something else next week, or the week after. It tells us nothing of interest, because you're obfuscating over the precise role this legislation has played in that decision. All I can reliably conclude is that you're pissed off that you lost, which I could have guessed anyway.
But you may be able to explain something that's puzzling me. You knew this legislation was coming. You surely knew it was overwhelmingly likely to be passed in the Commons. And it duly was, despite a majority of Tories opposing the bill. So why do you now say you'll never vote for them again? They represent the only mainstream opposition on this issue, and if you're basing your decision on the actions of the leadership (which is changeable, making such an absolute statement all the stranger) there's been no change in their actions. You have no less reason to vote for them today than yesterday, or last week, or last month.
It's common for people to make dramatic statements in the wake of high-profile votes, but it doesn't make any sense to me at all, so I'm interested in your reasoning.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd much rather they got turned over for their handling of the economy, the benefits system and their handing out favours for the rich while screwing the poor.
Still, every little helps.
I'm sure you know the one about the scorpion and the frog?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
What bothers me is that you're acting as if this single vote (however your own MP voted, and despite the fact that the Tories as a party remain mostly opposed) will ensure that you never vote for the party again. However ludicrous and frankly unpleasant I find that opinion, it's a data point of interest.
Or it would be, if you hadn't hinted darkly at "other matters" which were being weighed in your decision. That rings alarm bells with me. It suggests that if it hadn't been this bill, it would have been something else next week, or the week after. It tells us nothing of interest, because you're obfuscating over the precise role this legislation has played in that decision. All I can reliably conclude is that you're pissed off that you lost, which I could have guessed anyway.
No, it's not just the Second Reading vote but the fact that the Party I voted for is putting this through this without a manifesto commitment and after a closed and truncated consultation process - no white paper etc. Last night's vote merely confirmed for me that this it is virtually impossible to defeat the government on this in spite of a slight majority of Tories opposing it.
Voting is always a matter of holding your nose. I strongly disagree with some key things that this government has done but that would not be enough to cause me to withdraw my vote for a constituency MP I know and like. This redefinition of marriage is a deal breaker for me at the next election, though I don't want to give the impression that I will have the same strategy and identical calculations at all future elections.
I don't think I'm in a tiny minority on this one. It could cause some interesting voting patterns (and perhaps even some upsets). We'll see.
Ricardus cannot see how continuing disputes over the nature of marriage is different in the case of divorce and orientation. It is partly the fact that though the remarried divorcee might feel hurt he/she won't feel that their identity is being attacked. There is also the fact that the characteristic of divorce cannot be the ground for the sort of legal disputation we might see in future.
Doc Tor suggests that opposition will just die off. It may reduce by natural wastage over time but will not completely die out. Who know what the future holds? At any rate I anticipate the churches being around for a long time to come.
Sergius-Melli says my criticism of Maria Miller is bull. Not at all, she read out her Times article in her speech. All of a piece with successive governments which trail their initiatives in the press rather than first subjecting themselves to Parliamentary scrutiny. At the very least it demonstrates laziness that she can't be bothered to write a new speech.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
They [Tory MPs] knew the vote would go through easily, so they voted against to shore up their own positions back home. I think some of the “nays” were actually “eyes”!
Listening to some of the speeches, I think some of them may have voted against because the Bill is atrociously drafted.
While in favour of gay marriage in principle, I'm also very much in favour of well-drafted and well thought through legislation. If I was a Tory MP, I would probably have voted in favour, but I think it would have been a close run thing.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
No, it's not just the Second Reading vote but the fact that the Party I voted for is putting this through this without a manifesto commitment and after a closed and truncated consultation process - no white paper etc. Last night's vote merely confirmed for me that this it is virtually impossible to defeat the government on this in spite of a slight majority of Tories opposing it.
How did it confirm anything? What did you expect - that the Speaker would stand up yesterday and say that the government had decided it was a pretty daft idea, so the debate was cancelled and everyone could go home? Based on your stated arguments and criteria, I can see no rational reason for deciding not to vote Tory at the next election yesterday, as opposed to months ago.
quote:
Voting is always a matter of holding your nose. I strongly disagree with some key things that this government has done but that would not be enough to cause me to withdraw my vote for a constituency MP I know and like. This redefinition of marriage is a deal breaker for me at the next election, though I don't want to give the impression that I will have the same strategy and identical calculations at all future elections.
Voting is indeed a matter of holding your nose. Yet you don't want to do so. You say your own MP's vote is irrelevant, even though it was a free vote. And despite a belief that the battle isn't over, you're withdrawing your support from a party that's the only significant source of opposition to the bill, while claiming that a single vote is a deal-breaker. I just can't join up these dots into a coherent picture.
[Code fail]
[ 06. February 2013, 11:32: Message edited by: The Great Gumby ]
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't think it will lose the Conservatives the right-wing vote other than casue some to stay away from the polling booths (possibly) as the promise of a referendum on the EU has made UKIP far less of a bolting-hole for those types. If anything, it is likely to increase the Tory vote by attracting back the 'Worcestershire Woman' voter beloved of New Labour.
That depends on what you mean by "Worcestershire Woman". Are you referring to Emma of Evesham or Rebecca of Redditch?
Unless Emma & Rebecca are an item I doubt this will be in their minds come the next election.
[ 06. February 2013, 11:41: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The middle-class, socially progressive but economically fairly conservative women who (or so we were told) voted for Blair and Co in 1997.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The middle-class, socially progressive but economically fairly conservative women who (or so we were told) voted for Blair and Co in 1997.
That would be more likely to be Emma then.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Sergius-Melli says my criticism of Maria Miller is bull. Not at all, she read out her Times article in her speech. All of a piece with successive governments which trail their initiatives in the press rather than first subjecting themselves to Parliamentary scrutiny. At the very least it demonstrates laziness that she can't be bothered to write a new speech.
So she shouldn't have bothered writting an article for a newspaper on an issue that is under her direct oversight then to avoid possible overlap in her argument and description (since she couldn't not give a speech in the House on the subject)?
As I say, you seem to be expecting people to re-invent the wheel everytime they speak on a subject, which nobody does, MP's have blogged on this issue since it was announced, I imagine (as I haven't checked but it is a safe and fairly logically sound presumption) that most will have utilised the wording they used in their blogs in their speeches in the House yesterday... It is even possible that what they said in their speeches was verbatum things discussed around the dining table of an evening - should they have avoided reusing arguments and thoughts they had already worked their way through just so that you didn't have to listen to the same arguments again?
The SoS's article was an explanation and defence of the Bill, the SoS's speech in the House yesterday was an explanation and defence of the Bill... they were going to sound like the same words regardless of whether the SoS had written a completely new speech or not, cut the SoS some slack, and realise that in the real world people reuse speeches time and time again.
(In fact some politicians share the same speeches completely and only change one or two bits as evidenced here )
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Doc Tor suggests that opposition will just die off. It may reduce by natural wastage over time but will not completely die out. Who know what the future holds? At any rate I anticipate the churches being around for a long time to come.
Whilst it is unlikely (please God the indoctrination takes) that the Torlets will ever vote Tory for a whole raft of reasons, it is also likely that, and I pray for, their continued involvement in the church.
All the surveys show that there's a majority of Christians under 40 (evangelical Christians to boot) who want equality for gays. Indeed, who knows what the future holds, but on current trends, opposition - both political and religious - to gay marriage will decrease with every passing year.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Doc Tor suggests that opposition will just die off. It may reduce by natural wastage over time but will not completely die out. Who know what the future holds? At any rate I anticipate the churches being around for a long time to come.
Whilst it is unlikely (please God the indoctrination takes) that the Torlets will ever vote Tory for a whole raft of reasons, it is also likely that, and I pray for, their continued involvement in the church.
All the surveys show that there's a majority of Christians under 40 (evangelical Christians to boot) who want equality for gays. Indeed, who knows what the future holds, but on current trends, opposition - both political and religious - to gay marriage will decrease with every passing year.
You're assuming that social attitudes inevitably move in only one direction.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
On this particular issue, yes. Is there ANY evidence of growing opposition to gay marriage in any of the countries that already have it?
[ 06. February 2013, 12:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You're assuming that social attitudes inevitably move in only one direction.
Fair point, but I do see storm warnings for the Tories if, as I suspect (and ken indicated earlier) subsequent polls show a disaffection benefit for UKIP.
Here is UKIP policy.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... they were going to sound like the same words...[QUOTE]
They were in large part exactly the same words. Good journalists always start from scratch; the best teachers always adapt their lesson plans for different children and good preachers engage in a similar process. Perhaps I expect too much from government ministers but I certainly don't expect them to recite previously published material.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... they were going to sound like the same words...
They were in large part exactly the same words. Good journalists always start from scratch; the best teachers always adapt their lesson plans for different children and good preachers engage in a similar process. Perhaps I expect too much from government ministers but I certainly don't expect them to recite previously published material.
Those seem like odd analogies, particularly the teacher one, because surely there isn't a different audience from the previous audience. The general public is the audience in both cases.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You're assuming that social attitudes inevitably move in only one direction.
If you're suggesting that subsequent generations might look back at this one's dalliance with gay rights as a dangerous affectation, I think denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Yes, certainly, if all the Daily Mail headlines about Islamification come true, then gays will be stoned in the street, along with adulterers and the women showing too much flesh. Otherwise, no.
We haven't seen any reversals of egalitarian attitudes before. We are now less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we were even twenty years ago.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
On this particular issue, yes. Is there ANY evidence of growing opposition to gay marriage in any of the countries that already have it?
Haven't seen anything of the sort in Canada or New York.
In fact, in Canada, after the passage of gay marriage by the Liberal Government in 2004, the opposition Conservative Party vowed to have another vote on the issue if it came to power. After the Conservative Party became the government, they held such a vote in 2006 and same sex marriage passed by even a greater margin than before (158-133 in 2004 and 175-123 in 2006). There haven't been any calls to revisit the issue since.
[ 06. February 2013, 13:12: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
They were in large part exactly the same words. Good journalists always start from scratch; the best teachers always adapt their lesson plans for different children and good preachers engage in a similar process.
Three really bad analogies:
1. Journalists rarely write the same article twice (by which I mean, an article that is to cover exactly the same salient points). They might write a similar article, but will approach it from a different pov, or with a different intent, or with fresh new knowledge. The SoS was giving the same argument, covering hte same points, with no new knowledge or arguments as there were none that were necessary to raise.
2. Teachers adapat because things have not worked properly in one class, or there are very different needs in another class. With this point you seem to be indicating that the SoS is required to write over 62 million individualised speeches on the same topic to ensure that differentiation is covered. What a load of tosh. The SoS is still a busy person, they produced an article and speech that were intended to cover as much ground as clearly as possible whilst being intelligiable to the widest number of people in the country. I don't demand a lecturer to reinvent their research results presented in a book for a lecture, why demand a SoS to reinvent their argument...
3. Preachers of course do go over the same thing over and over again (eventually regardless of what lectionary you use) but there is not just one meaning to any piece of Scripture, there are multiple meanings, links to be made, understanding to be gleaned, the need to listen afresh and be open to the new thigns that it teaches us everytime we read it. The SoS was not engaging in Biblical exegises, she was presenting an argument on something that doesn't really have hidden meanings and fresh new insights each year...
It seems that you are just bitter that the Conservative Party has done something you don't like and you're being a little childish in your response to it.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We haven't seen any reversals of egalitarian attitudes before. We are now less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we were even twenty years ago.
Praise God from whom all blessings flow.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... they were going to sound like the same words...
They were in large part exactly the same words. Good journalists always start from scratch; the best teachers always adapt their lesson plans for different children and good preachers engage in a similar process. Perhaps I expect too much from government ministers but I certainly don't expect them to recite previously published material.
Those seem like odd analogies, particularly the teacher one, because surely there isn't a different audience from the previous audience. The general public is the audience in both cases.
Well a speech to the House of Commons should be mainly addressed to MPs through the Speaker, whereas her Times article was aimed at the general public. It's difficult to argue they're the same audience given her need to address dissent in her own party.
-sorry x-posted with Sergius-Melli-
[ 06. February 2013, 13:25: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Simple answer to the original question - No, neither - obviously.
The Tories have been around since about 1700. They were eclipsed from 1715 until the 1780s. Since then, they've survived predictions of their doom in the C19, the aftermath of the First World War (when the Whigs did go down), 1945, 1997, and ongoing over Europe each of which has been a much greater threat to their continuity.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... We haven't seen any reversals of egalitarian attitudes before. We are now less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we were even twenty years ago.
B****cks. Sadly, and disturbingly, people are far more openly prejudiced against chavs, the working class, the lower orders now than they were fifty years ago.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
