Fair play to the SNP

[weezer 316]

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/20...e-sex-marriage

[RecQuery]

This is good news, good to see that the Guardian article unlike the BBC one 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.

[ducati]

Expecting a huge backlash from Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church. My attitude to that?

Dry your eyes!

[Corrie 3]

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/20...e-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.............

[RecQuery]

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]

[QUOTE=Corrie 3;965880]

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

[theone]

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.

[Camra]

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.

[RecQuery]

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.

[Alrock]

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.

[Oddquine]

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, )......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.

[Corrie 3]

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...........

[RecQuery]

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, )......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]

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]

I prefer women - my wife.

[badger]

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).

[JimH]

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

[squidge]

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?

[Oddquine]

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.

[Alrock]

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.