I'm here parky.
Is this you when you troll through really old threads looking for very specific posts which suit your agenda?
http://www.troll.me/images/boris/i-am-invincible.jpg

 

Polls are already a cross section of society, if they had no basis in fact, peopel would not pay for them to be done, and the link I posted gives a breakdown of a number of polls all of which show a majority support for Gay marriage, which in turn suggest even greater support for civil partnerships.

Your assertion that there is some deep rooted aversion is without basis. Unless you can back it up with some reseach as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

You are in the minority

 

What about your children(assuming you have some) being taught about gays in school?

 

Agree with this.
Lets really see how saintly some of these supporters really are.

 

You are confusing "liking" something and "accepting" something. You don;t have to "like" homosexuality, but you cannot discriminate.

Why are you keen for the right to discriminate against people that have no more control over their sexuality than you do over yours?
This again. Why do some people have this bizarre notion that the Government can only cope with working on one thing at a time?

I mean don't you think that social, health, defence, the economy , defra, all work at the same time on various things? Why do you think there are Government departments for all these things?

You do know that none of things you listed have suffered as a result fo this legilsation, right?

 

I would say the same to him as my Dad said to me.
'Listen to everyone but make up your own mind.'

 

If you are going to try attempts at satire learn to use the image tag ********!!!!!

 

No, click if you want to see

There you go again, I bet the image on your ! key is badly faded

 

Rubbish. Time and money have been spent on this yes?
Are you saying it couldn't have been better used elsewhere. Waiting times in A&E are the highest they have been for 10 years and yet we are devoting essential governement time and money discussing whether two men or two women can marry.

Of course I realise that the government has hundreds of issues to deal with everyday. That is what government is all about. But when I can see first hand what a ****e state of affairs our social care system is in, it saddens me to think that there are people out there who feel that the subject of gay marriage is a more important.

Do you know what, I actually think we should pass it through. Fine, let them get married and be done with it. At least then we can move on and start tackling serious issues.

That's right, I really don't feel that the issue of gay marriage is a serious issue.

 

I am saying that the Department of Health, which is responsible for the NHS , would not have a massive overhead contribution to the issue of Gay Marriage. In fact, it would have had zero affect. You see the NHS does not stop working just becasue a the Health minister might be involved in a cabinet meeting discussing Gay Marriage.

The lengthening of NHS waiting times is a policy decision by this Government when they abandoned the 18 week limit.


What makes you think they feel its more important? The Gay Marriage issue is an incredbily simple one, and shows the Tories in a nice fluffly light for minimum effort. (well the 40% that actually voted for it anyway) and its virtually no effort, with instant results.

Other, more complex issues take time and effort.
Thats's probably because you have never been told you are not allowed to get married because you are gay. I suspect, as with most discrimination issues, you would feel rather differently if you were on the other side of it, or indeed had any empathy.

 

That's true of Government, but not of Parliament, they debate one thing at a time. The 5 hours spent discussing this in parliament could have been spent debating much more important matters, like food safety, NHS, immigration, Europe, etc.

 

And which of these issues do you feel could have been solved in 5 hours of debate?

 

None, but they would be 5 hours closer to being solved.

 

"They"? You can only debate one at a time. Which one are you going to pick and why? What do you think would be achived on your choice in 5 hours of debate?

 

They = any one of the above. Debate 5 hours on one means the next thing can be debated 5 hours earlier, hence 'they would all be 5 hours closer to being solved'. I would pick any of those above gay marriage. The same would be achieved as is normally achieved during 5 hours in parliament.

 

So the government should throw away thier list of priorities and concentrate on what is currently in the media?

5 hours of government time. Have you any idea how much that costs?
Take 10 subjects like is and you have lost an incredible amount of time and money. Money that apparently we haven't got!

I'm sorry, but you won't change my view on this.
I don't mean to sound rude either but you would not believe the amount of waste, red tape and an utter unwillingness to help when it comes to dealing with the council over my Dads nursing care.

Subjects like gay marriage just fade into insignificance as far as I'm concerned.
Say it is passed through. What is the result? A small number of people can feel a little bit better about who they are. Hoo bloody Rah!

 

Thats a complete non-answer. You have explicitly said that there would be some value in debating these issues in Parliament for 5 hours. Well, what is that? Quantify it. If you are going to hold it up as a reason not to debate and vote on Gay marriage (which was solved in the 5 hours) then presumably you must have some idea as to what would have been solved instead. Which particular issues on which particular matter?

Otherwise it means you are just spouting rhetoric about it being a waste of parlimentary time without actually having the first clue as to what could have been done instead.

Out of interest, which other issue count as not being worth discussion and vote in parliment? How about weekely bin collections? For example.

 

Of course gays should be able to marry - Why shouldn't they suffer like the rest of us !

 

Just because I am not a member of parliment doesn't mean I can't have a view on what subjects have more merit for discussion than others.
Being a member of parliment also doesn't mean that they always act for the common good, as we all know from the expenses scandal.

 

That's just it, I don't. You have never contributed a single worthwhile post to this place as far as I am concerned!!! You are neither witty nor educated and certainly not intelligent, therefore why the f**k would I click something you posted ******* muppet!

 

What an odd thing to say. Are you suggesting that government policy is not affected by public opinion?
Yes I do actually, its pretty easy to work out.

There's 649 MPs, on an average of £67K . An hourly rate of £33. Times that by 649 and you get £21,417, then times that by 5 and you get £107,085.

Of course there was nothing like 649 MPs for the duration of that debate. So let's half that.

So, total cost of 5 hours= £53,542.

Not bad for giving equality to millions. Pretty good value i'd say.

Although I presume you also have worked out how much it costs, otherwise you wouldn't have asked me. And I also presume that since you propose that money would have been better "saved" (a nonsensical proposition since you pay the MPs salary whether they debate in parliment or not) I would be interested to hear just what difference you feel £53,542 would make to, say, the NHS. Which spends £100,000,000 per day.
I'm not trying to. I'm just pointing out the nonsencial illogical nature of discrimination.

Rude? Not at all. Although I am confused as to what your Dad's nursing care has to do with Gay Marriage.

You mean number of people can stop being discrimanated agains ton the basis of sexuality. It should be celebrated. I mean its absolutely no different to racial discrimination. There's a small number fo Nepalese people in this country (far less than there is Gay), is the fact there aren't very many of them justification for discrimination?

 

No expenses? No hotel bills? Come on. Add those on top and you can easily double that figure. £100k might seem cheap in the grand scheme of things I guess. And if you think like that, no wonder we are broke.

Carry on Pete. Not playing.

I have said how I feel but you obviously can't except another persons opinion unless it matches your own.

 

Not as all. I just won't accept discrimination against a trait a person has no control of. Be that race, disability or sexuality.

 

[QUOTE=PeteBrant;10991193]What an odd thing to say. Are you suggesting that government policy is not affected by public opinion?


I'm not trying to. I'm just pointing out the nonsencial illogical nature of discrimination.


QUOTE]

I think you have done that already.

 

Well consider yourself a hero then Pete.

All this political correctness truely disgusts me.

 

So you want to be able to discriminate on the basis of Race, disability or sexuality?

Wow.

 

Depends if they drive their yaks up and down the highstreet or not.

 

But yet you reply to the posts - that makes you the ******* muppet then

Your posts generally just seem to be disagreeing with people - so they're really worthwhile contributions

Witty/Educated/Intelligent - you haven't got a clue

 

Now put your toys back in your pram Mr. Bigot!

Hey your poll's going well

 

More replies eh