Just a welfare message, what has happened to the Sunil on Sunday? I know I have been away for a long time but is the youngster OK does anyone know?
I too worry about Sunil, he's working in the West Midlands at the moment, and I'm worried he might end up sounding like a Brummie the next time I see him.
He is working? Proper work, biochemisty stuff, not shelf stacking in a supermarket or playing with train sets? That is spiffing news! Good for Sunil! I knew the boy would come good eventually. If he ends up speaking like a Brummie, well its a price worth paying.
Hows is your accent these days , Mr Eagles? A cross between Yorkshire and Mordor I suspect and so unintelligible to any civilised person.
Ahoy there, Mr Llama, thanks for enquiring! I am working at a Uni near the great pirate seaport of Coventry, albeit part-time. Started in November should have guaranteed work till the end of April.
Belike and all that!
Avast, Cap'n Doc. 'Tis gratified I am by the news. What chance an extension after April? Is it a field in which you are interested? How, when we come down to it, is your mum?
Twitter Stephen Tall @stephentall 3m You can always rely on Chris Davies to take a delicate issue requiring political leadership and instead apply the sledgehammer of stupidity.
Gaby Hinsliff @gabyhinsliff 4m Rennard affair now building into a real test of Clegg's authority, in a party that has never really liked the idea of authority.
As I said, it ain't whistleblowing, it's just an opportunity to get in trouble. I hope if Mike had anything to say about Savile or the BBCs involvement, he'd go to the relevant authorities, rather than post about it on here.
If Mike Smithson has gone to the authorities about Jimmy Savile, then that is indeed praiseworthy. Please give us the details of how the police failed to put a stop to this monster so we can punish the force involved.
So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason? How unDarwinian of you.
The consequences of a demographic event takes years to work through, so don't take succour from the World not ending just yet.
BTW, stop calling those who oppose same sex marriage mentally ill. Or do you want us to respond in kind to homosexuals?
Let's keep it civil and treat each other with mutual respect.
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Did God marry the mother of His only begotten son?
No, Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she conceived, but he did the more than decent thing and married her anyway.
What's interesting is that Joseph was of the House of David (that's why they went to Bethlehem, the old capital) and it is through him that He is descended from David/Jesse.
@TSE This scandal does make me less inclined to vote Lib Dem. I accept that I'm a fairly unusual floating voter in many respects.
Now that is interesting.
I guess what drives my view, not everyone is interested in politics and follows the minutiae of stories like us.
It's not the minutiae that bother me. It's the sense of the Lib Dem peers evidently regarding themselves as entitled men who are above criticism or censure from little people.
I understand that, that said, I've been reading up on this story in detail today, via The Sunday Times, and I'm developing some sympathy for Lord Rennard, they've not even given him a copy of the report, despite multiple requests.
I think there has been mistakes on both sides of this report, and he should have given a non-apology apology
"I apologise if my behaviour was misinterpreted and caused hurt feelings, that was never my intentions"
I would like to think I am closer to the outlook of a Lib Dem activist than yourself and I can tell you now members need to know 100% that Clegg and co absolutely deplore this stuff. If they don't believe that they will leave.
@christopherhope: EXC Twenty-strong English party committee will try to suspend Lord Rennard's membership at lunchtime tomorrow. Desperate times for the DPM.
Imagine him stumbling towards you with his hand outstretched and his tongue peeping out his mouth. It might make you less sympathetic to his plight in relation to membership of the parliamentary party.
Imagine him stumbling towards you with his hand outstretched and his tongue peeping out his mouth. It might make you less sympathetic to his plight in relation to membership of the parliamentary party.
When I said some sympathy, it's about at the same level of sympathy I have for David Moyes.
I did like your suggestion of introducing him to Brian Coleman however.
@politicshome: Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies tells @BBCWestminHour Rennard scandal "has become like the Salem witch trials".
@christopherhope: EXC Nick Clegg was going to meet Liberal Democrat peers to appeal to them to withdraw the whip from Lord Rennard, according to sources
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Why would anyone want to stop 80-year old women marrying their partners? If they love their partner, good. Let them have a few twilight years of happiness together. Or in fact any woman long after the menopause.
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
Clegg should smash Rennard and everyone who backs him. It would do his standing among the activists a huge amount of good. He needs that good will for the euro elections.
@JohnRentoul: MT @christopherhope: Clegg pulled out after learning that just over half of 40 LDpeers phoned by officials over weekend would back [Rennard]
I would like to think I am closer to the outlook of a Lib Dem activist than yourself and I can tell you now members need to know 100% that Clegg and co absolutely deplore this stuff. If they don't believe that they will leave.
You are free to make a fool of yourself.
As I said, people lose their heads in this situation.
@JohnRentoul: MT @christopherhope: Clegg pulled out after learning that just over half of 40 LDpeers phoned by officials over weekend would back [Rennard]
Come on, Mr. Brooke, you can hardly have expected any Chancellor to have moved this far and fast in so short a time!
Well of course I can Mr P, that;s why I post what I post and have stopped voting blue. If GO had time to dick about with stupid budgets, nonsense dividing lines, internal bickering and other such stupidities then he had times to tackle reform but has just chosen not to. Frankly nobody will be in a much better position than GO for reform for quite some time but he has ignored his big chance to play politics.
Huzzah! Well said Mr Brooke.
Yet there are those who claim that Osborne and Cameron's lack of action is down to Nick Clegg and to those I would say, "Who pushed through the fixed term Parliament act (without which Clegg would have had the influence his votes entitled him)?"
They should state pronto that any member who continues to make public comment on the matter (other than through their solicitor) is bringing the party into disrepute, and risks (unlike Rennard) lawful disciplinary action under the party's rules.
Any competent organization would have already done this.
@TSE This scandal does make me less inclined to vote Lib Dem. I accept that I'm a fairly unusual floating voter in many respects.
Now that is interesting.
I guess what drives my view, not everyone is interested in politics and follows the minutiae of stories like us.
It's not the minutiae that bother me. It's the sense of the Lib Dem peers evidently regarding themselves as entitled men who are above criticism or censure from little people.
I understand that, that said, I've been reading up on this story in detail today, via The Sunday Times, and I'm developing some sympathy for Lord Rennard, they've not even given him a copy of the report, despite multiple requests.
I think there has been mistakes on both sides of this report, and he should have given a non-apology apology
"I apologise if my behaviour was misinterpreted and caused hurt feelings, that was never my intentions"
Have to agree with that - it would be interesting to know why he was not given sight of the report. There might be good reason: for instance witness testimony that they may have decided he'd better not see. But if that was the case, why not blank those sections?
How am I making a fool of myself? Certainly no more than someone who insisted that Obama wouldn't even make it on the 2012 ballot paper. I am making the simple observation that people who volunteer for a party won't do so if they don't believe in the leadership. There are many Lib Dems who have given a hell of a lot these last few years when each election has been a horror show. If this vanguard lose respect for Clegg then the Lib Dems will end up in a world of pain that they haven't even experienced yet. Clegg and the Libs cannot afford that.
Please feel free to correct me if you have a history of volunteering regularly for a political party.
I don't think you get political parties and their members. If Clegg told members they would be disciplined for condemning Rennard's behaviour he would be out by lunch the next day.
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Why would anyone want to stop 80-year old women marrying their partners? If they love their partner, good. Let them have a few twilight years of happiness together. Or in fact any woman long after the menopause.
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
You are making out as if the difference between being in a civil partnership and being married is the difference between misery and happiness. Why?
@patrickwintour: Lib Dem regional party committee will meet today to consider inquiry into whether Rennard has brought party into disrepute by non-apology.
Come on, Mr. Brooke, you can hardly have expected any Chancellor to have moved this far and fast in so short a time!
Well of course I can Mr P, that;s why I post what I post and have stopped voting blue. If GO had time to dick about with stupid budgets, nonsense dividing lines, internal bickering and other such stupidities then he had times to tackle reform but has just chosen not to. Frankly nobody will be in a much better position than GO for reform for quite some time but he has ignored his big chance to play politics.
Huzzah! Well said Mr Brooke.
Yet there are those who claim that Osborne and Cameron's lack of action is down to Nick Clegg and to those I would say, "Who pushed through the fixed term Parliament act (without which Clegg would have had the influence his votes entitled him)?"
I fear Mr L that as the election approaches we will be entering a period of acute re-writing of history. We've already had 4 years of labour claiming the biggest economic screw up in modern times had nothing to do with them; now we'll have the Tories doing a Brucie on Osborne - " didn't he do well ?". When in fact he has been an average CoE in extraordinary times.
How am I making a fool of myself? Certainly no more than someone who insisted that Obama wouldn't even make it on the 2012 ballot paper. I am making the simple observation that people who volunteer for a party won't do so if they don't believe in the leadership. There are many Lib Dems who have given a hell of a lot these last few years when each election has been a horror show. If this vanguard lose respect for Clegg then the Lib Dems will end up in a world of pain that they haven't even experienced yet. Clegg and the Libs cannot afford that.
Please feel free to correct me if you have a history of volunteering regularly for a political party.
I never insisted anything of the kind, and not only did he appear, but I ended £5k up from his re-election!
You are a fool if you don't understand the binding rules of a party or club of which you are a member, and contumaciously challenge them in public, trying to replace the rule of law with the rule of the mob...
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Why would anyone want to stop 80-year old women marrying their partners? If they love their partner, good. Let them have a few twilight years of happiness together. Or in fact any woman long after the menopause.
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
You are making out as if the difference between being in a civil partnership and being married is the difference between misery and happiness. Why?
The best thing about gay marriage was how it got all those people who hated civil partnerships to suddenly back them. I'm looking at you Anne McIntosh.
@TimGattITV: Lib Dem peer on Rennard vowing to sit w/LDs in Lords tomo RT meralhece: @TimGattITV Until he apologises he should not, and I hope, will not
@patrickwintour: Lib Dem regional party committee will meet today to consider inquiry into whether Rennard has brought party into disrepute by non-apology.
They are insane. The answer can only be negative, since the demand was unlawful.
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Why would anyone want to stop 80-year old women marrying their partners? If they love their partner, good. Let them have a few twilight years of happiness together. Or in fact any woman long after the menopause.
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
Terribly sorry, you lose.
Civil partnerships are available for such things.
The fact that marriage requires consummation shows that at least the attempt to procreate is vital in marriage, if not the successful conclusion.
I don't think you get political parties and their members. If Clegg told members they would be disciplined for condemning Rennard's behaviour he would be out by lunch the next day.
You really need to calm down, and realise this subject is not within your competence...
He is a down market version of Peter Mandelson, without the charm.
Because of his life peerage he has the right to sit on the legislative process, ruling us until he dies, and is also a powerful argument for the abolition of the House of Lords.
He is a down market version of Peter Mandelson, without the charm.
Because of his life peerage he has the right to sit on the legislative process, ruling us until he dies, and is also a powerful argument for the abolition of the House of Lords.
@TSE This scandal does make me less inclined to vote Lib Dem. I accept that I'm a fairly unusual floating voter in many respects.
Now that is interesting.
I guess what drives my view, not everyone is interested in politics and follows the minutiae of stories like us.
I'm sure that's true, and as I said I didn't meet any voters who mentioned it this weekend. However, it's the sort of row which demoralises activists, especially as it reinforces an image of Clegg as a bit useless. He'd be better off if he'd either demanded Rennard's resignation or said that the presumption of innocence unless proved guilty trumps everything. As it is, he appears to be bleating ineffectively.
Is it in fact - as Rod and the peers appear to think - the position that Lord Rennard claims that all the allegations are false and he has behaved impeccably throughout his life? If not, a generalised expression of regret at any distress inadvertently caused to anyone might have been a reasonable fudge.
Is it in fact - as Rod and the peers appear to think - the position that Lord Rennard claims that all the allegations are false and he has behaved impeccably throughout his life?
I think Chris Davies gives the game away - they just dont think that this kind of behaviour is all that bad.
The LibDems have had a turbulent three years, but even their political enemies grudgingly admit they have retained discipline under the most heavy fire.
And now, faced with an embarrassing and difficult, but relatively minor, process-driven internal scandal about events which happened years ago, involving a figure no longer central in the party, they seem to have completely lost their heads and descended into civil war.
So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason? How unDarwinian of you.
The consequences of a demographic event takes years to work through, so don't take succour from the World not ending just yet.
BTW, stop calling those who oppose same sex marriage mentally ill. Or do you want us to respond in kind to homosexuals?
Let's keep it civil and treat each other with mutual respect.
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Did God marry the mother of His only begotten son?
No, Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she conceived, but he did the more than decent thing and married her anyway.
What's interesting is that Joseph was of the House of David (that's why they went to Bethlehem, the old capital) and it is through him that He is descended from David/Jesse.
It's a parable. Your post reads as if you believe a woman actually conceived without having intercourse.
Is it in fact - as Rod and the peers appear to think - the position that Lord Rennard claims that all the allegations are false and he has behaved impeccably throughout his life?
I think Chris Davies gives the game away - they just dont think that this kind of behaviour is all that bad.
Davies's comments were unhelpful, to Rennard and the party, to say the least.
But so, unfortunately, have been the interjections of every other legally-ignorant twunt, from Clegg down...
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
Party members aren't going to think about it legally. They are going to think the leadership thinks this stuff isn't all that bad, sod campaigning for them then.
Activists make huge sacrifices for their party and their leaderships. They won't do it if they lose confidence in them
I fear Mr L that as the election approaches we will be entering a period of acute re-writing of history. We've already had 4 years of labour claiming the biggest economic screw up in modern times had nothing to do with them; now we'll have the Tories doing a Brucie on Osborne - " didn't he do well ?". When in fact he has been an average CoE in extraordinary times.
I notice that none of the Osborne fan club are willing to take up my bet that he meets the borrowing targets he made in his 2010 budget.
Is it in fact - as Rod and the peers appear to think - the position that Lord Rennard claims that all the allegations are false and he has behaved impeccably throughout his life?
I think Chris Davies gives the game away - they just dont think that this kind of behaviour is all that bad.
Davies's comments were unhelpful
Who needs opponents when your own supporters think you're guilty?
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
Against - as siblings are quite rightly not allowed to have sex nor should they be allowed to marry. Homosexuals are allowed to have sex hence they should be allowed to marry.
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
Incest is illegal, but gay sex has been legal since the 1960s.
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
What medical reasons are there to prohibit relationships between two brothers or two sisters?
Also 99.9% of cases of incest involve a form of emotional or physical subjection by one of relatives. Almost - but not always - a dominant male. For this reason it should not be sanctioned by the state. For the same reason we don't sanction 15 year old having sex with 30 year olds.
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
What medical reasons are there to prohibit relationships between two brothers or two sisters?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
This is actually not true. There are perfectly sound medical reasons why siblings should not procreate. There are no medical reasons why two siblings should not have intimate relations. Of course despite this you won't hear people making the logical step and saying that same sex sibling marriages should at least be allowed
I am not a Lib Dem member! As a Labour member I am quite happy to see them destroy their activist base. I am just explaining to you - someone who doesn't clearly understand what being an activist entails - why this is so important. And why Clegg needs to deal with it by condemning Renard.
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Why would anyone want to stop 80-year old women marrying their partners? If they love their partner, good. Let them have a few twilight years of happiness together. Or in fact any woman long after the menopause.
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
You are making out as if the difference between being in a civil partnership and being married is the difference between misery and happiness. Why?
The best thing about gay marriage was how it got all those people who hated civil partnerships to suddenly back them. I'm looking at you Anne McIntosh.
Seems to me that every "marriage" in law should be a civil partnership, and marriage should be a religious ceremony for people that are religious, reliant on the church wishing to marry them, that the state has no business meddling in
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
Incest is illegal, but gay sex has been legal since the 1960s.
Incest can quite easily be made legal, as homosexuality was.
Also, what you are suggesting is discriminatory.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my mother? We both love each other.
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
Says someone who seems to think that babies are delivered by storks!
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
What medical reasons are there to prohibit relationships between two brothers or two sisters?
Increased likelihood of deformity in any children between brother and sister.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
I'll try and dig out to a link my father contributed to, which discussed this, and other problems such as marriages between first cousins.
Why shouldn't you be able to marry a 15 year old. Because we don't accept that the majority of 15 year olds can give consent. I don't believe that the majority of people in an incestuous relationship can give consent as they are in what is almost certain an abuse relationship
So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason? How unDarwinian of you.
The consequences of a demographic event takes years to work through, so don't take succour from the World not ending just yet.
BTW, stop calling those who oppose same sex marriage mentally ill. Or do you want us to respond in kind to homosexuals?
Let's keep it civil and treat each other with mutual respect.
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Did God marry the mother of His only begotten son?
No, Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she conceived, but he did the more than decent thing and married her anyway.
What's interesting is that Joseph was of the House of David (that's why they went to Bethlehem, the old capital) and it is through him that He is descended from David/Jesse.
It's a parable. Your post reads as if you believe a woman actually conceived without having intercourse.
I actually do. It's called a miracle. This is a mainstream Christian belief.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my mother? We both love each other.
Set up a party to campaign for your right to marry your mother. When you can secure a majority in parliament for this cause your wish will come to pass.
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
You're narrow mindedness is disappointing.
In the next century, or maybe later in this one, people will laugh at those with views like yours and call for them to be expelled from political parties.
I have always wondered what it would be like for people in the middle ages to come back and see how much they didn't know and got wrong. For those people who are homophobic this experience has actually occurred in their life time.
I am not a Lib Dem member! As a Labour member I am quite happy to see them destroy their activist base. I am just explaining to you - someone who doesn't clearly understand what being an activist entails - why this is so important. And why Clegg needs to deal with it by condemning Renard.
OK, so your 'advice' to Clegg, etc is not even well-meaning, wrong-headed advice. It's mischievous advice....
And FYI, I have been an activist at 5 GEs and multiple locals, though not recently.
So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason? How unDarwinian of you.
The consequences of a demographic event takes years to work through, so don't take succour from the World not ending just yet.
BTW, stop calling those who oppose same sex marriage mentally ill. Or do you want us to respond in kind to homosexuals?
Let's keep it civil and treat each other with mutual respect.
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Did God marry the mother of His only begotten son?
No, Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she conceived, but he did the more than decent thing and married her anyway.
What's interesting is that Joseph was of the House of David (that's why they went to Bethlehem, the old capital) and it is through him that He is descended from David/Jesse.
It's a parable. Your post reads as if you believe a woman actually conceived without having intercourse.
I actually do. It's called a miracle. This is a mainstream Christian belief.
Unlike TSE, I do not expect it to re-occur.
It has only re-ocurred this week
Salvadorian nun gives birth, despite chastity claim
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Why would anyone want to stop 80-year old women marrying their partners? If they love their partner, good. Let them have a few twilight years of happiness together. Or in fact any woman long after the menopause.
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
You are making out as if the difference between being in a civil partnership and being married is the difference between misery and happiness. Why?
The best thing about gay marriage was how it got all those people who hated civil partnerships to suddenly back them. I'm looking at you Anne McIntosh.
Seems to me that every "marriage" in law should be a civil partnership, and marriage should be a religious ceremony for people that are religious, reliant on the church wishing to marry them, that the state has no business meddling in
Seems to me that every "marriage" in law should be a civil partnership, and marriage should be a religious ceremony for people that are religious, reliant on the church wishing to marry them, that the state has no business meddling in
Nope marriage should not be state sanctioned in the least. There should be the option of taking out a civil contract detailing how property is to be split in the event of the termination. That is all that is needed. The state has no business being in peoples bedrooms and with the exception of incest with the possibility of producing offspring should keep its damn nose out of it.
If this were to happen it would matter in the least whether you wanted same sex, heterosexual, polygamous or polyandrous or any other combination you can come up with. The only thing at issue is division of assets and child disposition. As long as the contract covers those bases and is legally binding problem solved. They can then have whatever ceremony they can persuade their favoured creed to bestow
Why shouldn't you be able to marry a 15 year old. Because we don't accept that the majority of 15 year olds can give consent. I don't believe that the majority of people in an incestuous relationship can give consent as they are in what is almost certain an abuse relationship
Nonsense. Nobody has mentioned children getting married.
Clearly only adults should be allowed to marry, age to be determined by local custom.
Adult siblings and adult sons/daughters and parents should be allowed to marry each other by TSE's rationale.
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
You're narrow mindedness is disappointing.
In the next century, or maybe later in this one, people will laugh at those with views like yours and call for them to be expelled from political parties.
Well I've always been a disappointment to many people.
Is it in fact - as Rod and the peers appear to think - the position that Lord Rennard claims that all the allegations are false and he has behaved impeccably throughout his life? If not, a generalised expression of regret at any distress inadvertently caused to anyone might have been a reasonable fudge.
The Clegg leadership can hardly claim not to know how Rennard would likely respond after years of this being desperately kept behind the scenes. So any expectation that Rennard would have to give in to Clegg now is a very curious one indeed.
If the demand for an apology was done to try and force Rennard into one then it was extraordinarily poor tactics considering Rennard was always going to retreat into legal justifications and measures. (which Clegg must have known) If the Clegg position on an apology was seen by the Clegg leadership as the only way to somehow keep lib dem members and activists from turning on Clegg then that was also doomed to failure. This entire scandal only serves to highlight just how badly wrong Clegg got this from the start.
Certainly Rennard and his supporters are hardly doing themselves any favours whatsoever with the public at large and the lib dem membership since only an idiot could fail to see that this whole thing reeks and has done for years. Yet the fact is the reason they are doing so and making threats of legal action is precisely because the investigation and allegations were so badly mishandled from the start. There is no 'fudge' available for this now so one way or another either Clegg, Rennard (or probably both) will eventually emerge from this gigantic mess this looking far worse than when it all kicked off.
He is a down market version of Peter Mandelson, without the charm.
Because of his life peerage he has the right to sit on the legislative process, ruling us until he dies, and is also a powerful argument for the abolition of the House of Lords.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Why would anyone want to stop 80-year old women marrying their partners? If they love their partner, good. Let them have a few twilight years of happiness together. Or in fact any woman long after the menopause.
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
You are making out as if the difference between being in a civil partnership and being married is the difference between misery and happiness. Why?
The best thing about gay marriage was how it got all those people who hated civil partnerships to suddenly back them. I'm looking at you Anne McIntosh.
Seems to me that every "marriage" in law should be a civil partnership, and marriage should be a religious ceremony for people that are religious, reliant on the church wishing to marry them, that the state has no business meddling in
Seems to me that every "marriage" in law should be a civil partnership, and marriage should be a religious ceremony for people that are religious, reliant on the church wishing to marry them, that the state has no business meddling in
Nope marriage should not be state sanctioned in the least. There should be the option of taking out a civil contract detailing how property is to be split in the event of the termination. That is all that is needed. The state has no business being in peoples bedrooms and with the exception of incest with the possibility of producing offspring should keep its damn nose out of it.
If this were to happen it would matter in the least whether you wanted same sex, heterosexual, polygamous or polyandrous or any other combination you can come up with. The only thing at issue is division of assets and child disposition. As long as the contract covers those bases and is legally binding problem solved. They can then have whatever ceremony they can persuade their favoured creed to bestow
------------------------------------------------------------------ That's what I was saying I thought!
The only successful sibling marriage in history, was that practiced by the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt. The Pharaoh always married his sister if possible, and if not, by his nearest female relative. This custom lasted a couple of thousand years and was successful in keeping the country in being, as the married couple were considered gods.
Some Roman emperors tried it but not to any lasting benefit to them or to society.
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
What medical reasons are there to prohibit relationships between two brothers or two sisters?
Increased likelihood of deformity in any children between brother and sister.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
I'll try and dig out to a link my father contributed to, which discussed this, and other problems such as marriages between first cousins.
Eh?
He's talking about two brothers marrying or two sisters marrying not a brother marrying his sister
He is a down market version of Peter Mandelson, without the charm.
Because of his life peerage he has the right to sit on the legislative process, ruling us until he dies, and is also a powerful argument for the abolition of the House of Lords.
------------------------------------------------------------------ That's what I was saying I thought!
You were almost saying it but you decided to retain the idiocy that is civil partnerships. These are an unneeded layer as without them groups of two or more people can freely draft contracts of association that suit them (or use one of the off the shelf solutions that will crop up in short order)
Civil partnerships still imply a state sanctioning of relationships and the stamp of approval of the establishment
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
What medical reasons are there to prohibit relationships between two brothers or two sisters?
Increased likelihood of deformity in any children between brother and sister.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
I'll try and dig out to a link my father contributed to, which discussed this, and other problems such as marriages between first cousins.
Eh?
He's talking about two brothers marrying or two sisters marrying not a brother marrying his sister
And so was I, this bit here, less haste old boy.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
I notice that none of the Osborne fan club are willing to take up my bet that he meets the borrowing targets he made in his 2010 budget.
Well, betting on a race after it has been run wouldn't be very clever, would it?
The race is still being run:
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion."
That's total borrowing of £451bn between 2010-11 and 2014-15.
I'll offer evens that government borrowing ** is over £500bn for those five years.
Surely the Osborne fans aren't going to meekly accept that their hero will miss his target by more than 10% ?
That's borrowing from the 'Net Borrowing ex RM and APF' column on page 42 of this ONS report:
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
What medical reasons are there to prohibit relationships between two brothers or two sisters?
Increased likelihood of deformity in any children between brother and sister.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
I'll try and dig out to a link my father contributed to, which discussed this, and other problems such as marriages between first cousins.
Eh?
He's talking about two brothers marrying or two sisters marrying not a brother marrying his sister
He wasn't the only one. Amusingly several other people scanned that sentence and replied based on what they expected to see - not what was written.
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
What medical reasons are there to prohibit relationships between two brothers or two sisters?
Increased likelihood of deformity in any children between brother and sister.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
I'll try and dig out to a link my father contributed to, which discussed this, and other problems such as marriages between first cousins.
Eh?
He's talking about two brothers marrying or two sisters marrying not a brother marrying his sister
And so was I, this bit here, less haste old boy.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
It wouldn't have been so long ago that two men (or two women) wanting to get married would have been deemed to be in need of mental health treatment.
That of course is in this country.
In some less progressive countries two men (or two women) wanting to get married are likely to get some health treatment they wouldn't appreciate right now.
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
What medical reasons are there to prohibit relationships between two brothers or two sisters?
Increased likelihood of deformity in any children between brother and sister.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
I'll try and dig out to a link my father contributed to, which discussed this, and other problems such as marriages between first cousins.
Eh?
He's talking about two brothers marrying or two sisters marrying not a brother marrying his sister
And so was I, this bit here, less haste old boy.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
And a lot of the same reasons were no doubt cited for not legalising homosexuality. Indeed for much of the 20th century homosexuality was considered a mental illness. If people called it such now people like yourself would be up in arms.
It also should be noted that the same issues of abusive relationships has been cited in the past as why homosexuality should be kept illegal.
We have been there and done that. Making it legal would at least make it possible for people to think they could get help for that abusive relationship rather than run the risk of being referred to the police.
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
One of the most astonishing things I find about the gay marriage debate is that when I was studying Humanities at Brighton Universiity in 2010/11, a place where I heard gay, lgbt, bisexual rights talked up more than anyone here could possibly imagine, no one once mentioned the unfairness of marriage only being available to people if the opposite sex
Out of curiosity do the gay "people whgo love each other should have the same reights etc etc" marriage advocates support the legalisation of sibling marriage.
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
There are perfectly sound medical reasons why relationships between siblings are prohibited, if you're not aware of those, I don't think you're qualified to partake in this debate.
What medical reasons are there to prohibit relationships between two brothers or two sisters?
Increased likelihood of deformity in any children between brother and sister.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
I'll try and dig out to a link my father contributed to, which discussed this, and other problems such as marriages between first cousins.
Eh?
He's talking about two brothers marrying or two sisters marrying not a brother marrying his sister
He wasn't the only one. Amusingly several other people scanned that sentence and replied based on what they expected to see - not what was written.
It wasn't my fault, sir! Please don't de-activate me! I told him not to go, but he's faulty, malfunctioning! Babbling on about his mission!
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
I have always wondered what it would be like for people in the middle ages to come back and see how much they didn't know and got wrong. For those people who are homophobic this experience has actually occurred in their life time.
I'm in your camp (as usual) on the various issues on this thread, but I occasionally wonder at the certainty of the winners of history. Might some of the medieval time travellers patiently explain that we'd got it all wrong, and the dark ages were full of vivid creativity which was sadly lost in the following years?
That said, the sheer speed of the change of opinion on homophobia is indeed impressive. The idea that homosexuality should actually be an illegal offence for which you might be imprisoned is now almost extinct in Britain - and yet that was actually the law in living memory.
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Yes it will, so why discriminate against siblings now?
If it's okay to marry a bridge then sooner rather than later someone will want to marry a spaniel. And consummate it. And B&B owners will be forced to rent them rooms.
Let's crack on with the brother-brother thing. It's only fair.
Comments
Belike etc.
Stephen Tall @stephentall 3m
You can always rely on Chris Davies to take a delicate issue requiring political leadership and instead apply the sledgehammer of stupidity.
Gaby Hinsliff @gabyhinsliff 4m
Rennard affair now building into a real test of Clegg's authority, in a party that has never really liked the idea of authority.
Eh?
You're a bit barmy, ain't you?
What's interesting is that Joseph was of the House of David (that's why they went to Bethlehem, the old capital) and it is through him that He is descended from David/Jesse.
I think there has been mistakes on both sides of this report, and he should have given a non-apology apology
"I apologise if my behaviour was misinterpreted and caused hurt feelings, that was never my intentions"
I would like to think I am closer to the outlook of a Lib Dem activist than yourself and I can tell you now members need to know 100% that Clegg and co absolutely deplore this stuff. If they don't believe that they will leave.
"she felt that Lord Rennard had been treated incredibly badly."
http://sosamsaid.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/lorely-burts-views-on-chris-rennard.html
I did like your suggestion of introducing him to Brian Coleman however.
@christopherhope: EXC Nick Clegg was going to meet Liberal Democrat peers to appeal to them to withdraw the whip from Lord Rennard, according to sources
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI
As I said, people lose their heads in this situation.
Pulled out of what?
We need to know.
Yes, I am channelling Finbar Saunders.
Yet there are those who claim that Osborne and Cameron's lack of action is down to Nick Clegg and to those I would say, "Who pushed through the fixed term Parliament act (without which Clegg would have had the influence his votes entitled him)?"
Also, I find it hard to believe a non-Christian such as yourself regards being executed by the civil authorities as "turning out all right."
They should state pronto that any member who continues to make public comment on the matter (other than through their solicitor) is bringing the party into disrepute, and risks (unlike Rennard) lawful disciplinary action under the party's rules.
Any competent organization would have already done this.
How am I making a fool of myself? Certainly no more than someone who insisted that Obama wouldn't even make it on the 2012 ballot paper. I am making the simple observation that people who volunteer for a party won't do so if they don't believe in the leadership. There are many Lib Dems who have given a hell of a lot these last few years when each election has been a horror show. If this vanguard lose respect for Clegg then the Lib Dems will end up in a world of pain that they haven't even experienced yet. Clegg and the Libs cannot afford that.
Please feel free to correct me if you have a history of volunteering regularly for a political party.
I don't think you get political parties and their members. If Clegg told members they would be disciplined for condemning Rennard's behaviour he would be out by lunch the next day.
Your discussion on Jimmy Savile is now closed, you're making comments that could get the site into trouble
You are a fool if you don't understand the binding rules of a party or club of which you are a member, and contumaciously challenge them in public, trying to replace the rule of law with the rule of the mob...
Civil partnerships are available for such things.
The fact that marriage requires consummation shows that at least the attempt to procreate is vital in marriage, if not the successful conclusion.
Is it in fact - as Rod and the peers appear to think - the position that Lord Rennard claims that all the allegations are false and he has behaved impeccably throughout his life? If not, a generalised expression of regret at any distress inadvertently caused to anyone might have been a reasonable fudge.
The LibDems have had a turbulent three years, but even their political enemies grudgingly admit they have retained discipline under the most heavy fire.
And now, faced with an embarrassing and difficult, but relatively minor, process-driven internal scandal about events which happened years ago, involving a figure no longer central in the party, they seem to have completely lost their heads and descended into civil war.
But so, unfortunately, have been the interjections of every other legally-ignorant twunt, from Clegg down...
I don't see any reason why a brother and sister shouldn't get married, or for that matter two brothers or two sisters, if it makes them happy..
So Eagles, Josias and any others, are you for or against ?
Party members aren't going to think about it legally. They are going to think the leadership thinks this stuff isn't all that bad, sod campaigning for them then.
Activists make huge sacrifices for their party and their leaderships. They won't do it if they lose confidence in them
Also 99.9% of cases of incest involve a form of emotional or physical subjection by one of relatives. Almost - but not always - a dominant male. For this reason it should not be sanctioned by the state. For the same reason we don't sanction 15 year old having sex with 30 year olds.
I am not a Lib Dem member! As a Labour member I am quite happy to see them destroy their activist base. I am just explaining to you - someone who doesn't clearly understand what being an activist entails - why this is so important. And why Clegg needs to deal with it by condemning Renard.
Also, what you are suggesting is discriminatory.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my mother? We both love each other.
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
I'll try and dig out to a link my father contributed to, which discussed this, and other problems such as marriages between first cousins.
Why shouldn't you be able to marry a 15 year old. Because we don't accept that the majority of 15 year olds can give consent. I don't believe that the majority of people in an incestuous relationship can give consent as they are in what is almost certain an abuse relationship
Unlike TSE, I do not expect it to re-occur.
In the next century, or maybe later in this one, people will laugh at those with views like yours and call for them to be expelled from political parties.
And FYI, I have been an activist at 5 GEs and multiple locals, though not recently.
Salvadorian nun gives birth, despite chastity claim
http://blogs.babycenter.com/mom_stories/01182013860843/
Nope marriage should not be state sanctioned in the least. There should be the option of taking out a civil contract detailing how property is to be split in the event of the termination. That is all that is needed. The state has no business being in peoples bedrooms and with the exception of incest with the possibility of producing offspring should keep its damn nose out of it.
If this were to happen it would matter in the least whether you wanted same sex, heterosexual, polygamous or polyandrous or any other combination you can come up with. The only thing at issue is division of assets and child disposition. As long as the contract covers those bases and is legally binding problem solved. They can then have whatever ceremony they can persuade their favoured creed to bestow
Clearly only adults should be allowed to marry, age to be determined by local custom.
Adult siblings and adult sons/daughters and parents should be allowed to marry each other by TSE's rationale.
If the demand for an apology was done to try and force Rennard into one then it was extraordinarily poor tactics considering Rennard was always going to retreat into legal justifications and measures. (which Clegg must have known) If the Clegg position on an apology was seen by the Clegg leadership as the only way to somehow keep lib dem members and activists from turning on Clegg then that was also doomed to failure. This entire scandal only serves to highlight just how badly wrong Clegg got this from the start.
Certainly Rennard and his supporters are hardly doing themselves any favours whatsoever with the public at large and the lib dem membership since only an idiot could fail to see that this whole thing reeks and has done for years. Yet the fact is the reason they are doing so and making threats of legal action is precisely because the investigation and allegations were so badly mishandled from the start. There is no 'fudge' available for this now so one way or another either Clegg, Rennard (or probably both) will eventually emerge from this gigantic mess this looking far worse than when it all kicked off.
It made the transition into English usage centuries ago.
If this were to happen it would matter in the least whether you wanted same sex, heterosexual, polygamous or polyandrous or any other combination you can come up with. The only thing at issue is division of assets and child disposition. As long as the contract covers those bases and is legally binding problem solved. They can then have whatever ceremony they can persuade their favoured creed to bestow
------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I was saying I thought!
Some Roman emperors tried it but not to any lasting benefit to them or to society.
He's talking about two brothers marrying or two sisters marrying not a brother marrying his sister
Civil partnerships still imply a state sanctioning of relationships and the stamp of approval of the establishment
For two brothers and two sisters the medical reasons are more of mental health reasons.
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion."
That's total borrowing of £451bn between 2010-11 and 2014-15.
I'll offer evens that government borrowing ** is over £500bn for those five years.
Surely the Osborne fans aren't going to meekly accept that their hero will miss his target by more than 10% ?
That's borrowing from the 'Net Borrowing ex RM and APF' column on page 42 of this ONS report:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_344397.pdf
That of course is in this country.
In some less progressive countries two men (or two women) wanting to get married are likely to get some health treatment they wouldn't appreciate right now.
It also should be noted that the same issues of abusive relationships has been cited in the past as why homosexuality should be kept illegal.
We have been there and done that. Making it legal would at least make it possible for people to think they could get help for that abusive relationship rather than run the risk of being referred to the police.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25804157
Lots of strange numbers appear from nowhere and which have little relation to the real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR20PMLni3U
That said, the sheer speed of the change of opinion on homophobia is indeed impressive. The idea that homosexuality should actually be an illegal offence for which you might be imprisoned is now almost extinct in Britain - and yet that was actually the law in living memory.
If it's okay to marry a bridge then sooner rather than later someone will want to marry a spaniel. And consummate it. And B&B owners will be forced to rent them rooms.
Let's crack on with the brother-brother thing. It's only fair.