View Poll Results: Vote on Gay Marriage - Yea or Nay?
Voters: 157. You may not vote on this poll
Gay Marriage Vote - cast yours!
05 February 2013, 10:58 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 February 2013, 08:25 AM
#95
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
60% of Conservatives voted against their own party..... lol
Nice to see Cameron is bringing his party together.... the Tories seem to enjoy self flagellation
Nice to see Cameron is bringing his party together.... the Tories seem to enjoy self flagellation
06 February 2013, 08:55 AM
#98
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
06 February 2013, 08:57 AM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the same 60% who are anti-Europe, or is there now 60% anti-Europe and 60% anti-gay marriage (with 20% against both)? They obviously want to lose the next election.
06 February 2013, 09:32 AM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as the in/out Europe debate goes we are told that a referendum would currently result in an 'out' vote. The impression I get indicates that 'in' is more likely and that Cameron's renegotiation is the right approach to give the public the encouragement that they are making the right decision when the time comes. After all, the 'in' option is the lower risk option and for the most part people are risk-averse.
As far as the gay marriage debate goes we are told that the majority are for this issue, whereas this seems totally at odds with what I perceive and more than half of Conservative M.Ps seem to agree. It appears that the pro gay marriage side are happy to count the 'don't cares/ not bothereds' as votes for rather than abstentions. I would suggest the majority of the 'don't cares/ not bothereds' are infact uncomfortable with gay marriage but too spineless to stand up and be counted, worried they will become pariahs in our enlightened society ( there is a hint of sarcasm from me here). After all the choice seems very black and white (unlike Europe), why would you not be either for or against?
06 February 2013, 09:52 AM
#102
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although under normal circumstances a divided party is not viewed positively by the public, perhaps on the two issues you have mentioned the effect may be less than expected as the views of the public appear misrepresented to me in both instances.
As far as the in/out Europe debate goes we are told that a referendum would currently result in an 'out' vote. The impression I get indicates that 'in' is more likely and that Cameron's renegotiation is the right approach to give the public the encouragement that they are making the right decision when the time comes. After all, the 'in' option is the lower risk option and for the most part people are risk-averse.
As far as the gay marriage debate goes we are told that the majority are for this issue, whereas this seems totally at odds with what I perceive and more than half of Conservative M.Ps seem to agree. It appears that the pro gay marriage side are happy to count the 'don't cares/ not bothereds' as votes for rather than abstentions. I would suggest the majority of the 'don't cares/ not bothereds' are infact uncomfortable with gay marriage but too spineless to stand up and be counted, worried they will become pariahs in our enlightened society ( there is a hint of sarcasm from me here). After all the choice seems very black and white (unlike Europe), why would you not be either for or against?
As far as the in/out Europe debate goes we are told that a referendum would currently result in an 'out' vote. The impression I get indicates that 'in' is more likely and that Cameron's renegotiation is the right approach to give the public the encouragement that they are making the right decision when the time comes. After all, the 'in' option is the lower risk option and for the most part people are risk-averse.
As far as the gay marriage debate goes we are told that the majority are for this issue, whereas this seems totally at odds with what I perceive and more than half of Conservative M.Ps seem to agree. It appears that the pro gay marriage side are happy to count the 'don't cares/ not bothereds' as votes for rather than abstentions. I would suggest the majority of the 'don't cares/ not bothereds' are infact uncomfortable with gay marriage but too spineless to stand up and be counted, worried they will become pariahs in our enlightened society ( there is a hint of sarcasm from me here). After all the choice seems very black and white (unlike Europe), why would you not be either for or against?
As for over half the Tory MPs being against it you will forgive me if I refuse to count that as a real world measure of the situation given that most MPs, especially Tories, are so detached form the real world they wouldn't know it if it hit them on the head not to mention the fact that many seem to be living in the past... I expect they would all like their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen too!
06 February 2013, 10:21 AM
#103
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
I *really* can't see this getting through the House of Lords TBH.
Mostly they are all ancient, and I would have thought, dead set against anything so blasephemous (in their eyes), so where does it go from there?
Mostly they are all ancient, and I would have thought, dead set against anything so blasephemous (in their eyes), so where does it go from there?
06 February 2013, 10:23 AM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather than being spineless and vehemently against it as you summise maybe they just genuinely don't know how they feel about it or feel it is such a non-issue they can't be bothered to have an opinion on it.
As for over half the Tory MPs being against it you will forgive me if I refuse to count that as a real world measure of the situation given that most MPs, especially Tories, are so detached form the real world they wouldn't know it if it hit them on the head not to mention the fact that many seem to be living in the past... I expect they would all like their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen too!
As for over half the Tory MPs being against it you will forgive me if I refuse to count that as a real world measure of the situation given that most MPs, especially Tories, are so detached form the real world they wouldn't know it if it hit them on the head not to mention the fact that many seem to be living in the past... I expect they would all like their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen too!
I said UNCOMFORTABLE, not VEHEMENTLY AGAINST.
You suggest 'maybe they just genuinely don't know how they feel about it'. Why not, are they dithering idiots? It's simple, surely?
You suggest that maybe they 'feel it is such a non-issue they can't be bothered to have an opinion on it'. Why not, are they dithering idiots? How much time does one need to devote to this for an opinion to arise? This is exactly the cop-out I was refering to.
Please don't count any individual who falls into either of the two categories above as a 'yes' vote.
06 February 2013, 10:24 AM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More seriosuly though, why on earth do you think that this has, in anyway, detracted from other government departments working on their respective responsibilities?
For example, could you clarify what work do you think has not been done on economic recovery as a result of this vote?
The Tory party have not showered themselves in Glory on this one. Its like Section 28 again, and a load of front line MPs have desperately tried to exaplain themselves as to why they voted against getting rid of it. Theresa May was on Radio 4 last night saying how "she had changed her mind on the issue and would vote differently today"
However, its clear there remains a significant section of the party that beleive that Gays should be treated unequally, and its going to cost them with the electorate.
06 February 2013, 10:26 AM
#106
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They aren't a no, either. They simply don't care if two people want to get married.
06 February 2013, 10:28 AM
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, Maria Miller refused to rule out using it last night if it came to it.
06 February 2013, 10:46 AM
#108
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
Why must you always twist and/or exaggerate everything to suit the argument you are promoting (this is a rhetorical question of course, as I'll probably come out of the closet before you respond directly to anything).
I said UNCOMFORTABLE, not VEHEMENTLY AGAINST.
You suggest 'maybe they just genuinely don't know how they feel about it'. Why not, are they dithering idiots? It's simple, surely?
You suggest that maybe they 'feel it is such a non-issue they can't be bothered to have an opinion on it'. Why not, are they dithering idiots? How much time does one need to devote to this for an opinion to arise? This is exactly the cop-out I was refering to.
Please don't count any individual who falls into either of the two categories above as a 'yes' vote.
I said UNCOMFORTABLE, not VEHEMENTLY AGAINST.
You suggest 'maybe they just genuinely don't know how they feel about it'. Why not, are they dithering idiots? It's simple, surely?
You suggest that maybe they 'feel it is such a non-issue they can't be bothered to have an opinion on it'. Why not, are they dithering idiots? How much time does one need to devote to this for an opinion to arise? This is exactly the cop-out I was refering to.
Please don't count any individual who falls into either of the two categories above as a 'yes' vote.
06 February 2013, 10:58 AM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More seriosuly though, why on earth do you think that this has, in anyway, detracted from other government departments working on their respective responsibilities?
This is without doubt a distraction, in the same way someone stood in front of you pulling faces while you juggle three eggs would be.
For example, could you clarify what work do you think has not been done on economic recovery as a result of this vote?
Because the "Nasty" tory party of old are unelectable.
They do however appear to have been elected, semantics aside.
The Tory party have not showered themselves in Glory on this one. Its like Section 28 again, and a load of front line MPs have desperately tried to exaplain themselves as to why they voted against getting rid of it. Theresa May was on Radio 4 last night saying how "she had changed her mind on the issue and would vote differently today"
However, its clear there remains a significant section of the party that beleive that Gays should be treated unequally, and its going to cost them with the electorate.
It's perfectly feasibleto be ambivilent about an issue.
Being ambivalent about Murdoch's latest aquisition bid is understandable for some as they would feel it has no bearing on them in any way. The same can hardly be said about any Gay Right's issue as they are constantly being rammed down our throats (so to speak).
They aren't a no, either. They simply don't care if two people want to get married.
I have opinions on plenty of things I don't care about. So, I expect, do the majority of individuals with a modicum of intelligence.
Being ambivalent about Murdoch's latest aquisition bid is understandable for some as they would feel it has no bearing on them in any way. The same can hardly be said about any Gay Right's issue as they are constantly being rammed down our throats (so to speak).
They aren't a no, either. They simply don't care if two people want to get married.
I have opinions on plenty of things I don't care about. So, I expect, do the majority of individuals with a modicum of intelligence.
Last edited by c_maguire; 06 February 2013 at 11:00 AM.
06 February 2013, 11:00 AM
#110
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway thankfully the vote got passed so intelligence and common sense won the day rather than deep rooted bigotry!
Last edited by f1_fan; 06 February 2013 at 11:03 AM.
06 February 2013, 11:06 AM
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So no, it isn't 'just like Europe'
You are falling foul of 'F1-itis'.
06 February 2013, 11:19 AM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is exactly the type of ignoramus attitude which is destroying civilization.
Changing the definition of Marriage will have HUGE repercussions for EVERYONE. Perhaps the effects won't be felt immediately, but know that there could be negative ramifications and repercussions if our current definition of Marriage is redefined to what they are proposing.
If you actually have an iota of intelligence, why don't you read into the facts yourselves and make a decision based upon the truth of the matter, instead of posting moronic, ignorant statements containing absolute non-sense.
http://c4m.org.uk/marriage-minutes/
Changing the definition of Marriage will have HUGE repercussions for EVERYONE. Perhaps the effects won't be felt immediately, but know that there could be negative ramifications and repercussions if our current definition of Marriage is redefined to what they are proposing.
If you actually have an iota of intelligence, why don't you read into the facts yourselves and make a decision based upon the truth of the matter, instead of posting moronic, ignorant statements containing absolute non-sense.
http://c4m.org.uk/marriage-minutes/
06 February 2013, 11:21 AM
#117
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 February 2013, 11:23 AM
#118
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you are a 'dithering idiot' 
06 February 2013, 11:25 AM
#119
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I voted yes. If you voted no, why do you think you have the right to stop people getting married that want to, why do you care?
Also, why do people think that parliment is only capable of handling one issue at a time? It's not like "ah, we are going to sort out the Gay marriage question so all work on the economy stops".
Also, why do people think that parliment is only capable of handling one issue at a time? It's not like "ah, we are going to sort out the Gay marriage question so all work on the economy stops".
If you really want to know more on the topic, C4M have a very strong case on keeping the current definition of marriage.
See http://c4m.org.uk/marriage-minutes/
06 February 2013, 11:25 AM
#120
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is exactly the type of ignoramus attitude which is destroying civilization.
Changing the definition of Marriage will have HUGE repercussions for EVERYONE. Perhaps the effects won't be felt immediately, but know that there could be negative ramifications and repercussions if our current definition of Marriage is redefined to what they are proposing.
If you actually have an iota of intelligence, why don't you read into the facts yourselves and make a decision based upon the truth of the matter, instead of posting moronic, ignorant statements containing absolute non-sense.
http://c4m.org.uk/marriage-minutes/
Changing the definition of Marriage will have HUGE repercussions for EVERYONE. Perhaps the effects won't be felt immediately, but know that there could be negative ramifications and repercussions if our current definition of Marriage is redefined to what they are proposing.
If you actually have an iota of intelligence, why don't you read into the facts yourselves and make a decision based upon the truth of the matter, instead of posting moronic, ignorant statements containing absolute non-sense.
http://c4m.org.uk/marriage-minutes/
Originally Posted by C4M
The Coalition is backed by politicians, lawyers, academics and religious leaders