View Full Version : Fair play to the SNP
weezer 316
25-Jul-12, 13:40
Rare moment of congratulation from me goes to the SNP for the gay marriage bill. Just shows they can get somethings right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/25/scotland-legalise-same-sex-marriage
This is good news, good to see that the Guardian article unlike the BBC one (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18981287) doesn't class two MSPs as a party split. I think almost everyone part in Scotland is favour of it, but regardless the SNP can pass it if not.
EDIT: Nevermind seems they've removed their petty 'SNP split' point, must have realised how childish it sounded.
Expecting a huge backlash from Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church. My attitude to that?
Dry your eyes!
Rare moment of congratulation from me goes to the SNP for the gay marriage bill. Just shows they can get somethings right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/25/scotland-legalise-same-sex-marriage
I am sure you will see lots of good things come from the SNP in the years to come Weezer.
It's not about Braveheart and hating the English as a lot of people seem to believe!
They are years ahead of the other three parties who seem to be copying a lot of idea's that originated in Scotland.
I think a lot of people are put off the SNP because they aren't keen on Alex Salmond but one person does not make a party.
Who knows, in a few years time you may become an avid supporter, you could do a lot worse!!
C3.............;)
Expecting a huge backlash from Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church. My attitude to that?
Dry your eyes!
I thought it was only a vocal minority in the church that really cared and had campaigns I thought the vast majority were fine or indifferent. My understanding is that there was a big campaign in the US to stuff the consultation with negative results.
equusdriving
25-Jul-12, 22:54
[QUOTE]It's not about Braveheart and hating the English as a lot of people seem to believe!
No you have already explained that they are your personal thoughts not those of the SNP
They are years ahead of the other three parties who seem to be copying a lot of idea's that originated in Scotland.
care to elaborate on some of the ideas ?
I think a lot of people are put off the SNP because they aren't keen on Alex Salmond but one person does not make a party.
that's strange considering that you normally dismiss the other parties by the actions of their leaders
Who knows, in a few years time you may become an avid supporter, you could do a lot worse!!
that may well be true, but surely we should be aiming for the best possible leaders, not just someone that's not the worst, which seems your default reason for voting SNP oh yeah and of course the fact that if we get independence they will rid the country of unemployment, poverty, crime, child abuse, sex crimes, fraud and all the other terrible things that are caused by being in the Union
I thought it was only a vocal minority in the church that really cared and had campaigns I thought the vast majority were fine or indifferent.
I'd agree with that. But the problem is that it is the leaders of the Church who are being so vocal.
I still don't understand why these church leaders get such media attention over these moral issues.
Good to see the SNP totally ignoring the consensus of opinion against Gay Marriage as per last nights TV News 64 / 36 against as i understand it. They asked the question , it was answered, they ignored. If this is the SNP idea of democracy i'll be making every effort to vote elsewhere.
Good to see the SNP totally ignoring the consensus of opinion against Gay Marriage as per last nights TV News 64 / 36 against as i understand it. They asked the question , it was answered, they ignored. If this is the SNP idea of democracy i'll be making every effort to vote elsewhere.
You're actually going to value a throwaway self-selecting TV news poll over a public consultation?!? That just seem disingenuous and I'd like to note that it's a public consultation which even after attempted manipulation by the US religious right came out in favour.
I think all marriage is BS and I'd just have civil partnerships for all but I don't see the difference between Christian Marriage, Gay Marriage, Jewish Marriage or Muslim Marriage. Well except that gay people don't have forced marriages or marry children.
Good to see the SNP totally ignoring the consensus of opinion against Gay Marriage as per last nights TV News 64 / 36 against as i understand it. They asked the question , it was answered, they ignored. If this is the SNP idea of democracy i'll be making every effort to vote elsewhere.
Sometimes you have to ignore the consensus of opinion & just do what is the morally correct thing to do...
If things where only ever done if public opinion was behind it then we would still be living in the dark ages...
In this case the ban on gay marriage is blatant homophobic discrimination & needed correcting no matter what public opinion on the matter is.
I think all marriage is BS and I'd just have civil partnerships for all....
Have to agree on that & the next thing that should be changed is to open up civil partnerships to hetrosexual couples.
Sometimes you have to ignore the consensus of opinion & just do what is the morally correct thing to do...
If things where only ever done if public opinion was behind it then we would still be living in the dark ages...
In this case the ban on gay marriage is blatant homophobic discrimination & needed correcting no matter what public opinion on the matter is.
Have to agree on that & the next thing that should be changed is to open up civil partnerships to hetrosexual couples.
Not that I'm against gay marriage or civil partnerships for all, not bothered either way tbh..it is a matter of supreme indifference to me, as it likely is for most of the Scottish population...but society now is more and more starting to resemble toddlers playing in a sandpit.
There's this wee boy who is filling a wee blue dumper truck with sand and running it over roads he has made. And along comes this other wee boy, who doesn't have a truck at all...and he wants that one...and only that one because somebody else has it, and if somebody else has it, it can only be because it is worth having.....and he wants it.......and screams and screams until his parent goes and buys him a truck....but the problem is that the parent couldn't get another blue one, so the wee boy got a yellow one.
Now while this fulfilled the same functions as the wee blue truck it wasn't blue, but he took it, said thank you, mummy, and made his own roads...but all the time, he was still coveting the wee blue truck..and got to thinking that while he quite liked the yellow truck, he really deserved two trucks, because he had red hair and the other wee boy had a snotty nose, and people without red hair and with a snotty nose didn't really deserve a truck at all, particularly not that special blue one. At the same time, the wee boy with the blue truck was thinking on the same lines re the yellow truck...and the next thing their respective parents knew was they had a pitched battle over possession of the trucks in the sandpit.
The parents dived in separated the toddlers, gave them each back their own truck, and suffered tantrums for half an hour as both demanded both trucks. Eventually one parent, let's call him Alex, hied off to the toy shop to get another yellow and another blue truck to shut the whining kids up (I'd have thrashed them black and blue, personally, [lol])......but there were no yellow trucks left, though by good luck a new delivery of blue trucks had arrived, so he bought a blue truck and took it back to the sandpit, where he gave it to the wee boy with the red hair and without the snotty nose who already had the yellow truck.....so that meant he had both and the other kid had only one.
The wee boy with two trucks took his mummy's hand and went away happy......Alex's wee boy kicked up such hell, because he didn't have a yellow truck that Alex asked the shoppie keeper to phone him when he had a new delivery of yellow trucks....and he is still waiting, and his wee boy is still whining. At some stage, there will be a new delivery, and Alex's wee boy will get his yellow truck to be upsides with the wee boy with the red hair and without the snotty nose......and in the meantime, every person in the vicinity within earshot would happily strangle the wee boy because they are sick of hearing him stamping his feet pouting and screaming.
Apply the above to any special interest group who thinks another one is being favoured to their exclusion.
;)
Lol, I have seen both of those trucks treble parked in Lybster......I think I might have clapped eyes on the snotty nosed kid with the red hair also!!
C3...........:roll:;)
Not that I'm against gay marriage or civil partnerships for all, not bothered either way tbh..it is a matter of supreme indifference to me, as it likely is for most of the Scottish population...but society now is more and more starting to resemble toddlers playing in a sandpit.
There's this wee boy who is filling a wee blue dumper truck with sand and running it over roads he has made. And along comes this other wee boy, who doesn't have a truck at all...and he wants that one...and only that one because somebody else has it, and if somebody else has it, it can only be because it is worth having.....and he wants it.......and screams and screams until his parent goes and buys him a truck....but the problem is that the parent couldn't get another blue one, so the wee boy got a yellow one.
Now while this fulfilled the same functions as the wee blue truck it wasn't blue, but he took it, said thank you, mummy, and made his own roads...but all the time, he was still coveting the wee blue truck..and got to thinking that while he quite liked the yellow truck, he really deserved two trucks, because he had red hair and the other wee boy had a snotty nose, and people without red hair and with a snotty nose didn't really deserve a truck at all, particularly not that special blue one. At the same time, the wee boy with the blue truck was thinking on the same lines re the yellow truck...and the next thing their respective parents knew was they had a pitched battle over possession of the trucks in the sandpit.
The parents dived in separated the toddlers, gave them each back their own truck, and suffered tantrums for half an hour as both demanded both trucks. Eventually one parent, let's call him Alex, hied off to the toy shop to get another yellow and another blue truck to shut the whining kids up (I'd have thrashed them black and blue, personally, [lol])......but there were no yellow trucks left, though by good luck a new delivery of blue trucks had arrived, so he bought a blue truck and took it back to the sandpit, where he gave it to the wee boy with the red hair and without the snotty nose who already had the yellow truck.....so that meant he had both and the other kid had only one.
The wee boy with two trucks took his mummy's hand and went away happy......Alex's wee boy kicked up such hell, because he didn't have a yellow truck that Alex asked the shoppie keeper to phone him when he had a new delivery of yellow trucks....and he is still waiting, and his wee boy is still whining. At some stage, there will be a new delivery, and Alex's wee boy will get his yellow truck to be upsides with the wee boy with the red hair and without the snotty nose......and in the meantime, every person in the vicinity within earshot would happily strangle the wee boy because they are sick of hearing him stamping his feet pouting and screaming.
Apply the above to any special interest group who thinks another one is being favoured to their exclusion.
;)
Who did what with who now? This is so filled with fallacies that I don't know where to being. I agree that special interest groups are a problem but you can't class everyone in favour of equality as a special interest. What you're saying is like saying all women are a special interest group, all working class people are a special interst group or all ethnic minorites of a certain colour are a special interest group etc.
For the record I'm neither gay nor religious, just a guy in favour of equality and fairness.
oldmarine
27-Jul-12, 15:39
I thought it was only a vocal minority in the church that really cared and had campaigns I thought the vast majority were fine or indifferent. My understanding is that there was a big campaign in the US to stuff the consultation with negative results.
I personally believe most are indifferent.
oldmarine
27-Jul-12, 15:41
I prefer women - my wife.
Sometimes I'm really embarrassed to be a church member and this is one of them. As with all discrimination, it seems to come from the top and it's disgraceful that the church lags behind the state when it comes to equality. So, yes, for once I agree with the SNP (doesn't often happen but credit where due).
Lets call it what it is. We are back to having other peoples sexual preferences shoved down our throats. I do'nt give a damn what they do. I just wish they would keep it to themselves.
I am not a church goer, or a believer but believe in the sanctity of the family " Mum, Dad and the kids" if you have them, or choose not, or cannot (as the case maybe)
I maybe in a minority, but it will be a large minority.
I preferred it when what happened in the bedroom stayed in the bedroom - or whereever
Do we really care so much? Do any of us care if the couple of women sat at the table are sisters? or friends? or lovers? Do any of us care if that couple of blokes wandering down the road are a "COUPLE"? Do any of us make a value judgement about people based on what they do to other consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. People just love whoever they love and they should be allowed to marry that person. Why would we deny them that? Someone else said that if you are against gay marriage dont marry someone who is gay and that's actually about the size of it. I also saw written somewhere that the same arguments against gay marriage were made against interracial marriages years ago. There are all sorts of families today and as long as they create a happy, loving home where children are encouraged to thrive and grow does it matter?
Who did what with who now? This is so filled with fallacies that I don't know where to being. I agree that special interest groups are a problem but you can't class everyone in favour of equality as a special interest. What you're saying is like saying all women are a special interest group, all working class people are a special interst group or all ethnic minorites of a certain colour are a special interest group etc.
For the record I'm neither gay nor religious, just a guy in favour of equality and fairness.
But what is equality? Is it having everything and everyone exactly the same......or is it simply ensuring people have exactly the same rights as everybody else, even if those rights are provided in a slightly different way because all people are different? I don't really have a problem with gay marriage, just as I don't have a problem with civil partnerships for non-gays, as in I don't give a toss either way.......but I do fail to see what difference either not having both will have in the scheme of equality under the law. A Civil Partnership is the equivalent of a Registry office marriage which is the equivalent of a Civil Partnership, as far as I can see. Both are at liberty to arrange some kind of religious based blessing or something on top if that is what grabs them. To an extent, I can see some small justification in the option of a religious marriage for gays, though I don't really understand why anyone would want that enough to kick up a fuss about it if not just to make a point.......but I'm struggling to work out why non-gays would be wanting a Civil Partnership when they already have the Registry Office (or anywhere else non religious but licenced) option which does the same thing.
But what is equality? Is it having everything and everyone exactly the same......or is it simply ensuring people have exactly the same rights as everybody else, even if those rights are provided in a slightly different way because all people are different? I don't really have a problem with gay marriage, just as I don't have a problem with civil partnerships for non-gays, as in I don't give a toss either way.......but I do fail to see what difference either not having both will have in the scheme of equality under the law. A Civil Partnership is the equivalent of a Registry office marriage which is the equivalent of a Civil Partnership, as far as I can see. Both are at liberty to arrange some kind of religious based blessing or something on top if that is what grabs them. To an extent, I can see some small justification in the option of a religious marriage for gays, though I don't really understand why anyone would want that enough to kick up a fuss about it if not just to make a point.......but I'm struggling to work out why non-gays would be wanting a Civil Partnership when they already have the Registry Office (or anywhere else non religious but licenced) option which does the same thing.
The problem is that if there is no difference between marriage & civil partnership then why didn't they just allow gay marriage in the first place instead of dreaming up this whole civil partnership thing instead...
To me the issue is that the difference between marriage & civil partnership is that marriage has religious overtones to it so as a devout atheist the idea of a civil partnership is more appealing to me... Of course if they had never dreamed up this concept of civil partnership in order to placate the church & the "sanctity of marriage" I would be none the wiser about any form of alternative to marriage so there would be no issue to discuss here.
The SNP are going to flush Scotland down the pan, Homosexuals having the right to get married has been done to secure the gay vote, Alex Salmond would skin a turd for a vote. I don't think I could trust the SNP with an independent Scotland....
The SNP are going to flush Scotland down the pan, Homosexuals having the right to get married has been done to secure the gay vote, Alex Salmond would skin a turd for a vote. I don't think I could trust the SNP with an independent Scotland....
You won't necessarily have to. If the vote is for independence in 2014, there will be an election in 2015, at which you will have the liberty to vote for whichever party you want.
What with the Commonwealth Games 2014 in Glasgow and the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn, we should brace ourselves for a shameless summer showcase of political mind manipulation for pro independence.
What with the Commonwealth Games 2014 in Glasgow and the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn, we should brace ourselves for a shameless summer showcase of political mind manipulation for pro independence.
So not a lot different to what has been going on with the Olympics, then, in the pro-Union stakes. And I rather think we are in for two years of the media shamelessly manipulating opinion on behalf of the government.
You do know, I assume that the Commonwealth Games bid was won long before there was the remotest snowball's chance in hell of any referendum ever taking place. It was serendipity........not a deliberate ploy in order to manipulate! :D
As for Bannockburn - Bring it on - it will be a fantastic year for our reenactment group - We are one of best groups in Scotland and the only group that specialises in the Scottish Wars of Independence and we are all looking forward to Bannockburn anniversary as a chance to showcase our best work. The Bruce festival at Dunfermline this year is set to be the best it has been for several years. BTW our group is non political - we are proud of the fact that our group has many nationalities as members and we are proud that our presentations of the Bruce consider his failures as well as his successes.
Bannockburn was a great victory and it makes a super story - the story of the victory of the underdog over an opressive bully. That is always a good story and it makes for a great show. It is as much something to be celebrated and be proud of as any other historical event.
Homosexuals having the right to get married has been done to secure the gay vote, Its been done because it is the right thing to do and in the 21st century we shouldn't have the church dictating our equality laws.
weezer 316
02-Aug-12, 08:18
Indeed. for the life of me I ant thnk of any other groups unfounded and unjustifiable beliefs that we need to pander to on any issue othe than the church. imagine we had to stop teaching about world war two becuase s eom special groupd believed whole heartedly that Germany won the war? It really is as daft as that
You do know, I assume that the Commonwealth Games bid was won long before there was the remotest snowball's chance in hell of any referendum ever taking place. It was serendipity........not a deliberate ploy in order to manipulate! :D
The honest answer to my post would be....
Yes, the SNP will be milking the Commonwealth Games in 2014 to showcase Scottish independence, why pass up on a great opportunity?
A less snide answer would be
Yes, the Scottish government will be using the Commonwealth Games in 2014 to show off Scotland at its best to the whole world.
Shall we cancel them then Rheghead? Don't we LOVE living here Rheg? You and I have chosen Scotland as our home dont we WANT the Commonwealth Games to show off our beautiful country to the rest of the world as the great place it is? The commonwealth games will not suddenly turn everyone into nationalists just like the Olympics isnt going to turn everyone into Unionists.
Everyone needs to stop being such curmudgeons - we can enjoy the olympics whatever our politics and we can enjoy the commonwealth games whatever our politics. This year we have had the Jubilee and the Olympics - 2014 we will have Bannockburn and the Commonwealth games - lets relax and enjoy them all
Its been done because it is the right thing to do and in the 21st century we shouldn't have the church dictating our equality laws.bollocks...
bollocks...
That's not a nice reply to a Lady.......Shame on you!!!
C3................[disgust][disgust]
Do we have any one who can define the word marriage, it's meaning and status in law?
I am very curious as to it's standing under scottish statute.
Do we have any one who can define the word marriage, it's meaning and status in law?
I am very curious as to it's standing under scottish statute.
It is defined as between a man and a woman, LIZZ ( or was). Check http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/113328/0027452.pdf
bollocks...
Ahhh the art of debate! :lol:
Ahhh the art of debate! :lol:ok squidge explain to me how the church dictate our equality laws, as I understood it the Scottish government held a public consultation about homosexual marriage, they engaged with most of the main stream religious bodies including the catholic and church of Scotland, the position of the church of Scotland is that although they consider homophobia to be a sin they also welcome homosexuals in the church and do not prevent homosexuals from being ordained as ministers or practising their religious beliefs. The book of Leviticus chapter 20 Gods decrees to his people says mankind should not lie with mankind as you would with womankind. Therefore it would be considered blasphemous to allow same sex marriage in the church.. end of. On the other hand Scottish government have decided following this public consultation that it would be prudent to change the law in Scotland, which states that marriage can only exist between a male and a female, ( which is about as basic as I can make it) to allow for same sex marriage. The Scottish government have made provision to allow any religious organisation the right to opt out or refuse on the grounds of their religious beliefs to conduct such ceremonies. So to your statement that the church dictates our equality laws.... I still say bollocks!!!!!
i didnt say the church DID dictate our equality laws Maverick - I said they shouldnt and I should actually have said they MUSTNT be allowed to dictate our equality laws. IF the pressure that the churches brought to bear had prevented this change that is exactly what they would have been doing. I support gay marriage and actually striaght civil partnerships if that what people want. I read something which said that the same arguments being made today about gay marriage were made about inter-racial marriage. The arguments made no sense then and they make no sense now.
Squidge by saying that the church shouldn't dictate our equality laws, you are inferring that the the church does. I believe this to be untrue. Should the church be opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds is that not their right? By saying that they mustn't be able to dictate our equality laws, suggests that they would, I also believe this to be untrue. The only laws that the church are interested in are those decreed by God, the church also accept that the laws of the land must be observed. Arguments about inter-racial marriage and gay marriage are in my opinion incomparable. Homosexual marriage is about people of the same sex being being allowed to wed. Inter-racial marriage is about people of different race being allowed to wed. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, my basis for this is on my religious experience and belief's, I also respect the law of the state that same sex marriage is to be allowed in registry offices, although I believe the law is being amended for the purpose of political gain. Squidge I respect your right to be in support of gay marriage as I would hope that you would respect my right to be opposed to it.....
i didnt say the church DID dictate our equality laws Maverick - I said they shouldnt and I should actually have said they MUSTNT be allowed to dictate our equality laws. IF the pressure that the churches brought to bear had prevented this change that is exactly what they would have been doing.
I don't think that the church dictate our modern laws, but they certainly try to, and they are are often perceived to hold some sort of moral right on such issues.
A significant section of every news article I saw regarding this subject was given up to the views of one religious leader or another. Why we donate so much news space to an organisation that less than 10% of us attend on a regular basis is beyond me.
I don't think that the church dictate our modern laws, but they certainly try to, and they are are often perceived to hold some sort of moral right on such issues.
A significant section of every news article I saw regarding this subject was given up to the views of one religious leader or another. Why we donate so much news space to an organisation that less than 10% of us attend on a regular basis is beyond me.probably the same reason we give space to people who quote Adolf Hitler........ their right to do so...
probably the same reason we give space to people who quote Adolf Hitler........ their right to do so...
The same Adolf Hitler the Catholic Church supported?
I agree with you that everybody should have their right to an opinion. I just don't understand how the opinion of a minority organisation such as the church gets (or should get) so much air time.
The same Adolf Hitler the Catholic Church supported?
I agree with you that everybody should have their right to an opinion. I just don't understand how the opinion of a minority organisation such as the church gets (or should get) so much air time.yes I understand that the catholic church suported hitler prior to the outbreak of war but I believe the church had adopted a different opinion of him following the discovery of the war crimes commited by his political ideals. to answer your question I do not believe the church to be the minority you think it is, especially in England where Her Majesty is the head of the church many people who do not attend church still support it and look toward it for spiritual and moral support, church is not a building or an organisation as such, the church is primarily its congregation who come together to worship God and to have fellowship with each other.
to answer your question I do not believe the church to be the minority you think it is, especially in England where Her Majesty is the head of the church many people who do not attend church still support it and look toward it for spiritual and moral support,
15% of the population of the UK go to church at least once a month. That is a minority.
http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php
Even the church of England admit less than half of people in England consider themselves to be members of the church. Only 1.7 Million (Out of a population 51 Million) go each month, and only 3 Million at Christmas, their main religious festival.
http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/facts-stats.aspx
church is not a building or an organisation as such, the church is primarily its congregation who come together to worship God and to have fellowship with each other.
And I have no problem with that. Live and let live.
But your leaders should let those representing the majority, or the large minorities, have the biggest say in democratic matters.
So if the law currently states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman then not only will the law be changed but also the definition of marriage if my understanding is correct.
Point of curiosity as Leviticus is a book of hebrew law what possible relevance does it have to christianity which begins with the birth of christ and should follow his teachings .
So if the law currently states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman then not only will the law be changed but also the definition of marriage if my understanding is correct.
Point of curiosity what as Leviticus is a book of hebrew law what possible relevance does it have to christianity which begins with the birth of christ and should follow his teachings .Ok LIZZ , christianity goes further than the birth of Jesus, the bible tells us that man will not live by bread alone, but by every word from the mouth of God. Which at the time of Jesus relates to the old testament and the prophicies and teachings thereof. Christians consider the bible to be the word of God. Therefore Leviticus is relevant because it contains the decrees of God.
What with the Commonwealth Games 2014 in Glasgow and the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn, we should brace ourselves for a shameless summer showcase of political mind manipulation for pro independence.
I dunno so much. It is the British Commonwealth afterall. Maybe Liz would kick out an independent Scotland?
Sorry but have to disgree maverick as you statement would make christians merely reformed jews but that's another topic and nothing to do with this thread.
Sorry but have to disgree maverick as you statement would make christians merely reformed jews but that's another topic and nothing to do with this thread.LIZZ you are correct Christians are reformed or repentant jews in fact all christians from all walks of life are repentant sinners, without going into to much detail seeking forgivness and repenting of your sins is the core principals of Christianity..
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.