Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
QED wrt religion.
People can say some strange shit and it's all ok, apparently.
Well, yes, but [testing a thought out] marriage is to some extent religious. I suspect very very few people who oppose gay marriage (and ISTR this was the majority of the population right up until the time it actually happened) opposed civil partnerships of same-sex couples. It's not the rights (I think?) they oppose, it is the changing the meaning of the thing they thought meant a thing and now means another thing.
I might have a little bit of sympathy with this. But marriage has been a legal contract defined by the state for a long time, and the state has to treat everyone equally. And when marriage was legally completely redefined in the 2nd half of the 19th century to allow married women to be independent legal entities and own their own property etc (arguably a far bigger change than just allowing same-sex marriage), would we have much sympathy for people who were opposed to the change because it changed the meaning of marriage?
If religions want their own kind of arrangements then either call it something other than 'marriage', or take legal marriage away from everyone and call the legal thing a civil partnership, and then marriage would have no legal standing.
I've been trying to work out how I feel about this, and I half think your last three sentences describes my view. Religion played no part in my own wedding, and it would have been no less good for beinh called sonething else. I honestly don't feel massively strongly, and I can't imagine it's a change anyone would find great support for making.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Labour leads by 19%, the first time in 2023 that Labour has led by less than 20%.
Westminster VI (26 March):
Labour 46% (-1) Conservative 27% (+1) Liberal Democrat 10% (-1) Reform UK 8% (+3) Green 4% (-2) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 19 March
ReFUK +3% isn't good news for the Tories. Though it is MoE.
On that poll RefUK could have gained from Labour as they are down and the Conservatives up.
In 2015 remember UKIP took white working class Labour votes not just Conservative votes
Looking at the detailed data tables. The improved conservative vote has arisen from conservative 2019 voters moving from don't know back to conservatives compared with the similar table at the start of March. Similarly, there is a move from C19 don't knows to Reform. The reduction in the Labour vote is partially caused by Lib Dem 2019 voters moving back from Labour to Lib Dem.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
I cannot imagine the pain and the distress of parents being forced to watch their teenage kids self ID and then transition without being able to do anything about it - or without the state intervening, at least to mandate a pause and proper assessment. I have first hand experience of having a teenage child with mental health issues and it is not pleasant. But I also know it is something that can be overcome and got through. The idea that irrevocable and fundamental decisions about a person's entire being might be taken while that person is potentially very ill is just appalling. If that makes me a transphobe and bigot, that's what I am - and proud of it!
Its a horrible balance to find. I agree that the thought of a teenage child being able to do this massive thing without needing adult approval is awful . On the flip side we have a problem with teenage suicide, so does saying "no" to a teen who in their gut feels that their gender is wrong just drive them to the old solution?
Fair point. The whole thing is just too complex for easy answers. It should not be the political football it has become.
But it's worse than that. The Trans Rights Activists don't even want the football match. they want to take the ball home and call off the game, because they have already won. There is no debate. No discussion is allowed. If you disagree with them you are a transphobic bigot and you deserve to have no career
This is no exaggeration. This is their exact approach, Extreme aggression, and a blatant attempt to suppress any debate. It is deeply sinister. It also works
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Is there really such a lobby in schools? Really?
Yes. Middle daughter has been choosing secondary schools recently. Pretty much all of the ones we visited - private, state - had pro-trans messages on posters on the walls. Our local high school had, of its material on the walls, around 40% on issues of sexuality and gender, with another 30% or so on race. I think @ydoethur has suggested that this is not necessarily because the schools believe in this sort of stuff, but that the likes of Stonewall strongarm them into it; and lack of it is reported on negatively by Ofsted. And also because they need something on the walls. Middle daughter ended up at a school which had just as much stuff about sexuality as the others, but slightly less about trans. (Its stuff about sexuality was done in a curiously old-fashioned way, assuring pupils that gay people are 'just like us!'.)
When I was at school we had nothing like that on the wall. But we did have rampant homophobic bullying and the boy who wanted to be called Clarissa did not have a good time at school. Have we lurched too far in the opposite direction? Quite possibly. But we are in a better place than we were thirty years ago, I am certain of that.
Unfortunately, the stats on the mental health of our kids are not so upbeat and optimistic
The gender agenda is just one part of this, of course. Social media is another big problem. Isolation and loneliness get worse. The damage done by the Covid closure of schools is now becoming horribly evident
Canada said, "This is not just poor kids who are living in the urban centers. It's all over America. There's been a dramatic drop in ELA and in math scores. This goes along with the loss of students in school, with the increased violence that's happening, and the behavioral problems that kids are facing. In my career of more than 45 years, I've never seen anything like this."
I dont know if you read the article in the spectator about the damage caused by closure of schools in lockdown. The 140000 lockdown missing kids or something like that. But amazingly most parents supported school closures.
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
The GRR doesn't change the rules in this area. It just makes the process for obtaining a GRC easier. Single sex spaces aren't accessed or policed via possession of a GRC.
Isn't that how rapists ended up in women's prisons?
Prisons policy is separate to GRR. The GRR bill just impacts the process of obtaining a GRC.
Eg a rule that says 'no male-bodied sex offender to serve time in a women's prison' - this can be implemented regardless of whether GRR is passed or not passed.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Is there really such a lobby in schools? Really?
Yes. Middle daughter has been choosing secondary schools recently. Pretty much all of the ones we visited - private, state - had pro-trans messages on posters on the walls. Our local high school had, of its material on the walls, around 40% on issues of sexuality and gender, with another 30% or so on race. I think @ydoethur has suggested that this is not necessarily because the schools believe in this sort of stuff, but that the likes of Stonewall strongarm them into it; and lack of it is reported on negatively by Ofsted. And also because they need something on the walls. Middle daughter ended up at a school which had just as much stuff about sexuality as the others, but slightly less about trans. (Its stuff about sexuality was done in a curiously old-fashioned way, assuring pupils that gay people are 'just like us!'.)
When I was at school we had nothing like that on the wall. But we did have rampant homophobic bullying and the boy who wanted to be called Clarissa did not have a good time at school. Have we lurched too far in the opposite direction? Quite possibly. But we are in a better place than we were thirty years ago, I am certain of that.
Unfortunately, the stats on the mental health of our kids are not so upbeat and optimistic
The gender agenda is just one part of this, of course. Social media is another big problem. Isolation and loneliness get worse. The damage done by the Covid closure of schools is now becoming horribly evident
Canada said, "This is not just poor kids who are living in the urban centers. It's all over America. There's been a dramatic drop in ELA and in math scores. This goes along with the loss of students in school, with the increased violence that's happening, and the behavioral problems that kids are facing. In my career of more than 45 years, I've never seen anything like this."
I dont know if you read the article in the spectator about the damage caused by closure of schools in lockdown. The 140000 lockdown missing kids or something like that. But amazingly most parents supported school closures.
In retrospect the school closures were utterly catastrophic and a terrible error. Sweden bravely bucked that trend and well done them. Other countries, including the UK, will be reaping a bitter harvest from this blunder for a decade or more
Leon for example i would describe as the archetypical boomer conservative. Generally socially fairly liberal but just a bit worried about the recent excesses of the woke movement.
if you peruse the Entire Works of Leon (and what better way to spend an evening?) you will find that I am more than "a bit worried" about Wokeness
I think Woke is a mortal threat to western freedom and the Enlightenment. So I'm more like your younger conservative in that respect (despite being so advanced in years etc etc)
I agree with you. Subdividing people by sex, race and sexuality is incredibly destructive not to mention anti social harmony.
Perhaps if de Santis stopped obsessing about dicks being displayed - other than himself - and tried to do something about guns, he would be doing more to protect children in America from harm.
But he won't because his dick is on permanent display in the middle of his forehead. Easily visible with a microscope.
The Deltapoll that got everyone excited last week turns out to have been an outlier ...
Labour lead is fifteen points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 30% (-5) Lab 45% (-) Lib Dem 10% (+3) Other 15% (+2) Fieldwork: 24th - 27th March 2023
The Deltapoll that got everyone excited last week turns out to have been an outlier ...
Labour lead is fifteen points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 30% (-5) Lab 45% (-) Lib Dem 10% (+3) Other 15% (+2) Fieldwork: 24th - 27th March 2023
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
I don't think disestablishment is on the cards right now.
Already done, if you think about it. It's the C of E that is the holdout of the four home nations.
Wrong, the Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland doesn't even bless homosexual couples like the Church of England does let alone marry them. Nor does the Roman Catholic Church in the UK
I'm being polite and talking about what the previous poster was talking about. Which was disestablishment. A thoroughlfy necessary reform, as the Victorians iknew.
Arguably the Church of Scotland is the established church in Scotland, the King vowing at his coronation to maintain its position as the national Protestant Church of Scotland
"Police probing fraud claims involving fundraising against the SNP have passed a dossier of information to the Crown Office.
Officers investigating allegations that £600,000 of party funds raised by activists to continue the campaign for Scottish independence have “gone missing” say a progress report had been submitted before Nicola Sturgeon left office as First Minister.
Sturgeon previously rejected the claims, insisting she is “not concerned” about the party’s finances.
Police Scotland previously stated that a fraud allegation relating to the funds was “still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required”.
A formal investigation started in July 2021 after at least 19 criminal complaints were made."
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
I don't think disestablishment is on the cards right now.
Already done, if you think about it. It's the C of E that is the holdout of the four home nations.
Wrong, the Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland doesn't even bless homosexual couples like the Church of England does let alone marry them. Nor does the Roman Catholic Church in the UK
I'm being polite and talking about what the previous poster was talking about. Which was disestablishment. A thoroughlfy necessary reform, as the Victorians iknew.
Arguably the Church of Scotland is the established church in Scotland, the King vowing at his coronation to maintain its position as the national Protestant Church of Scotland
But it's not established. It may be the one QE2 attended, but that doesn't make it established. For instance, its Moderatore doesn't have a seat in the Lords. And so on and so forth.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
I'm sure they care quite a lot. But Leon hasn't given any reasons apart from to throw his hands up and wail like the old dad he is at the state of the youth of today.
There are very real concerns about medication and surgery and although I hadn't followed it it looked as though eg the Tavvy overshot, which seems to be being addressed.
With societal change there will always be overshoot and it seems we are all over the place with gender atm.
But that is a long way from Leon's pearl clutching about the issue.
OK, to be specific: I am concerned that - for reasons I don't understand - there is a lobby in schools which is teaching something quite pernicious about gender, which is not only highly suspect in terms of its factual basis but is causing certain vulnerable children - largely, it seems, girls; and also, significantly, autistic children - to want to undergo medical processes that will be greatly harmful to their long-term wellbeing. It is teaching them that the reason they are unhappy uncomfortable or don't conform to traditional gender stereotypes isn't because life is hard or complicated and that there are more than exactly two ways to be, but that they are in the wrong body and that their body needs to be hacked about with.
Is there really such a lobby in schools? Really?
Yes. Middle daughter has been choosing secondary schools recently. Pretty much all of the ones we visited - private, state - had pro-trans messages on posters on the walls. Our local high school had, of its material on the walls, around 40% on issues of sexuality and gender, with another 30% or so on race. I think @ydoethur has suggested that this is not necessarily because the schools believe in this sort of stuff, but that the likes of Stonewall strongarm them into it; and lack of it is reported on negatively by Ofsted. And also because they need something on the walls. Middle daughter ended up at a school which had just as much stuff about sexuality as the others, but slightly less about trans. (Its stuff about sexuality was done in a curiously old-fashioned way, assuring pupils that gay people are 'just like us!'.)
When I was at school we had nothing like that on the wall. But we did have rampant homophobic bullying and the boy who wanted to be called Clarissa did not have a good time at school. Have we lurched too far in the opposite direction? Quite possibly. But we are in a better place than we were thirty years ago, I am certain of that.
Unfortunately, the stats on the mental health of our kids are not so upbeat and optimistic
The gender agenda is just one part of this, of course. Social media is another big problem. Isolation and loneliness get worse. The damage done by the Covid closure of schools is now becoming horribly evident
Canada said, "This is not just poor kids who are living in the urban centers. It's all over America. There's been a dramatic drop in ELA and in math scores. This goes along with the loss of students in school, with the increased violence that's happening, and the behavioral problems that kids are facing. In my career of more than 45 years, I've never seen anything like this."
I dont know if you read the article in the spectator about the damage caused by closure of schools in lockdown. The 140000 lockdown missing kids or something like that. But amazingly most parents supported school closures.
In retrospect the school closures were utterly catastrophic and a terrible error. Sweden bravely bucked that trend and well done them. Other countries, including the UK, will be reaping a bitter harvest from this blunder for a decade or more
I agree with all of this except the first two words.
The Deltapoll that got everyone excited last week turns out to have been an outlier ...
Labour lead is fifteen points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 30% (-5) Lab 45% (-) Lib Dem 10% (+3) Other 15% (+2) Fieldwork: 24th - 27th March 2023
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Well, if the Bible is your criterion, you should be arguing that the death penalty should be brought back for practising homosexuals. And heterosexual adulterers too.
In reality, I reckon your prejudices have very little to do with the Bible.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
QED wrt religion.
People can say some strange shit and it's all ok, apparently.
Well, yes, but [testing a thought out] marriage is to some extent religious. I suspect very very few people who oppose gay marriage (and ISTR this was the majority of the population right up until the time it actually happened) opposed civil partnerships of same-sex couples. It's not the rights (I think?) they oppose, it is the changing the meaning of the thing they thought meant a thing and now means another thing.
I might have a little bit of sympathy with this. But marriage has been a legal contract defined by the state for a long time, and the state has to treat everyone equally. And when marriage was legally completely redefined in the 2nd half of the 19th century to allow married women to be independent legal entities and own their own property etc (arguably a far bigger change than just allowing same-sex marriage), would we have much sympathy for people who were opposed to the change because it changed the meaning of marriage?
If religions want their own kind of arrangements then either call it something other than 'marriage', or take legal marriage away from everyone and call the legal thing a civil partnership, and then marriage would have no legal standing.
In Scotland, marriage *was* a legal contract first and foremost after the Reformation. The religious bit was optional. Some folk liked to have the minister do it, but that wasn't the important bit. The actual agreement to get married was the important bit.
Just goes to show how even extremely religious people can grasp that distinction.
We also had the truly splendid per verba de futuro subsequente copula which surely inspired Meatloaf's Praying for the end of time and which was, of course, based upon the enforceability of a verbal promise.
The Deltapoll that got everyone excited last week turns out to have been an outlier ...
Labour lead is fifteen points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 30% (-5) Lab 45% (-) Lib Dem 10% (+3) Other 15% (+2) Fieldwork: 24th - 27th March 2023
You mean, "The Deltapoll that pretty much everyone thought was an outlier last week"?
There is a difference between PB and the rest of the world. Out there, the poll launched a thousand newspaper stories about the Tories being on course to win the next election!
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Well, if the Bible is your criterion, you should be arguing that the death penalty should be brought back for practising homosexuals. And heterosexual adulterers too.
In reality, I reckon your prejudices have very little to do with the Bible.
Perhaps if de Santis stopped obsessing about dicks being displayed - other than himself - and tried to do something about guns, he would be doing more to protect children in America from harm.
But he won't because his dick is on permanent display in the middle of his forehead. Easily visible with a microscope.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
QED wrt religion.
People can say some strange shit and it's all ok, apparently.
Well, yes, but [testing a thought out] marriage is to some extent religious. I suspect very very few people who oppose gay marriage (and ISTR this was the majority of the population right up until the time it actually happened) opposed civil partnerships of same-sex couples. It's not the rights (I think?) they oppose, it is the changing the meaning of the thing they thought meant a thing and now means another thing.
I might have a little bit of sympathy with this. But marriage has been a legal contract defined by the state for a long time, and the state has to treat everyone equally. And when marriage was legally completely redefined in the 2nd half of the 19th century to allow married women to be independent legal entities and own their own property etc (arguably a far bigger change than just allowing same-sex marriage), would we have much sympathy for people who were opposed to the change because it changed the meaning of marriage?
If religions want their own kind of arrangements then either call it something other than 'marriage', or take legal marriage away from everyone and call the legal thing a civil partnership, and then marriage would have no legal standing.
In Scotland, marriage *was* a legal contract first and foremost after the Reformation. The religious bit was optional. Some folk liked to have the minister do it, but that wasn't the important bit. The actual agreement to get married was the important bit.
Just goes to show how even extremely religious people can grasp that distinction.
We also had the truly splendid per verba de futuro subsequente copula which surely inspired Meatloaf's Praying for the end of time and which was, of course, based upon the enforceability of a verbal promise.
It's also interesting how some southern researchers find it difficult to appreciate that just because a marriage is not recorded in the Established Kirk (i.e. before state registration) that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I;ve known an authoritative academic source insist that someone was born in D&G when in fact any look in the nonconformist registers would yield the chap, completee with the right parents' names, in Ross-shire.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Just as the Church of England formally does not remarry divorcees either only blesses them unless on grounds of spousal adultery
It is not true that the Church of England does not remarry divorcees. It is left to individual vicars to decide whether they will personally officiate and whether they will allow the particular parish church to be used.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Well, if the Bible is your criterion, you should be arguing that the death penalty should be brought back for practising homosexuals. And heterosexual adulterers too.
In reality, I reckon your prejudices have very little to do with the Bible.
On some polls most do want the death penalty brought back, at least for murderers.
The Church doesn't remarry adulterers either, even the King only got a blessing
My wife and I have received our state pension amounts for 23-24 confirming the 10.1% increase
I did chuckle however that the DWP took the opportunity to advise me my pension will see a further increase next February when I become 80 of 25pence per week !!!!!
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
I don't think disestablishment is on the cards right now.
Already done, if you think about it. It's the C of E that is the holdout of the four home nations.
Wrong, the Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland doesn't even bless homosexual couples like the Church of England does let alone marry them. Nor does the Roman Catholic Church in the UK
I'm being polite and talking about what the previous poster was talking about. Which was disestablishment. A thoroughlfy necessary reform, as the Victorians iknew.
Arguably the Church of Scotland is the established church in Scotland, the King vowing at his coronation to maintain its position as the national Protestant Church of Scotland
But it's not established. It may be the one QE2 attended, but that doesn't make it established. For instance, its Moderatore doesn't have a seat in the Lords. And so on and so forth.
It is established as the Monarch vows to uphold it as the national Protestant church of Scotland.
The Lutheran Church of Denmark is established, the Queen attends it but dies not Head it and it has no Lords
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
You haven't read much of the Old Testament, apparently.
My wife and I have received our state pension amounts for 23-24 confirming the 10.1% increase
I did chuckle however that the DWP took the opportunity to advise me my pension will see a further increase next February when I become 80 of 25pence per week !!!!!
I don't ever expect to have a pension. I think the country will probably run out of money before then.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Just as the Church of England formally does not remarry divorcees either only blesses them unless on grounds of spousal adultery
I'm being picky here. Do you mean the 'sight' of God, or is it one of the sites of God (so a church). I've always assumed the phrase was the former, but then there's a little bit of an issue as to why he might have blind spots.
All a bit confused, but then very wisely the CoE doesn't have a person set up as infallible. (I do much prefer the Catholic's music though)
Labour leads by 19%, the first time in 2023 that Labour has led by less than 20%.
Westminster VI (26 March):
Labour 46% (-1) Conservative 27% (+1) Liberal Democrat 10% (-1) Reform UK 8% (+3) Green 4% (-2) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 19 March
At that rate of change, by May elections we will be at Labour 41%, Conservatives 32%.....a 9 point gap with a year and a half to go to the election.
Interesting, for some reason I had never considered extrapolating a one week rate of change between polls to predict future polling. Now I can see that not only will RefUK will be topping the polls by June, but that the Greens are only 3 weeks away from polling negative. Time for a trip to the bookies to get on......
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Well, if the Bible is your criterion, you should be arguing that the death penalty should be brought back for practising homosexuals. And heterosexual adulterers too.
In reality, I reckon your prejudices have very little to do with the Bible.
On some polls most do want the death penalty brought back, at least for murderers.
The Church doesn't remarry adulterers either, even the King only got a blessing
I'm talking about the Biblical death penalty for adulterers, you half-wit!
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
I admit to sympathy for the trans community whom it see as a marginalised and vulnerable group, so maybe biased (but hardly more so than the rather more vocal commentators on the subject in these parts).
Nevertheless I am confident the GRR bill has approximately zero to do with the SNP's travails or with independence.
I know many on these boards have frequently called Peak SNP on these boards, but as a Scottish correspondent, I'm calling Peak SNP.
They had no good choices on this one, and HY is not a popular chap both internally and externally. They'll lose a load of seats in the central belt, and a lot of votes in the Highlands, Islands and Borders, so are unlikely to be the force they were.
My wife and I have received our state pension amounts for 23-24 confirming the 10.1% increase
I did chuckle however that the DWP took the opportunity to advise me my pension will see a further increase next February when I become 80 of 25pence per week !!!!!
I don't ever expect to have a pension. I think the country will probably run out of money before then.
I think there will always be pensions at least til the AI take over, but if you are under 50 or so, expect it to be mostly/wholly means tested.
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Yes, that's why I'm disappointed in this result. I'd like Scotland to prosper. Aside from one caveat*, I'm not greatly exercised about whether it does so within or outside a union with England. To my eyes, this was much more likely to come about with Forbes running the show.
*One caveat is that I have some misgivings about the impact of Sindy on British defence capabilities, in particular the ability of England/Scotland to effectively police the GIUK gap.
I understand the binary tribalism that drives nationalism. You want to be independent and criticism of what you have is either unfair, or the fault of the people holding you back.
Except that with the SNP, that isn't the case. Again, Scotland is a better place to live with regards to services than England. But with the bar set so low that doesn't mean that Scotland is good, just better.
The Scottish government have some serious policy fuckups to their name. Forbes - despite being their Finance Minister - was able to say what those were and how she would do things differently. Yousaf sounds to be in utter denial that anything is wrong, and anything that you may think is wrong isn't their fault blame Westminster.
Whether you want independence or not surely wanting Scotland to prosper has to be a goal. And if the Yousaf government is going to disengage even further from voters then we really are in trouble.
So I now think that the 2024 General Election will be a double kicking. A massive one for the Tories for being malevolent and incompetent, and a smaller one for the SNP for being berks. What that means in seats like my own which is an SNP / Tory battleground remains to be seen.
Maybe Tory gains in Scotland as Sunak is more popular than Boris was in Scotland and Yousaf much less popular in Scotland than Sturgeon was
You don't seem to get that we hate Tories with all our being
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
Excellently piquant final para in a Guardian piece on Yousless
"It is impossible yet to know if Scottish Labour will rise to the occasion and capitalise on the widening faultlines within the SNP. But it is worth noting that there are long-term supporters within the SNP who believe the best thing that could happen to the party would be a term out of office; and that Yousaf as first minister might be the best way to achieve it."
Sturgeon wins again - drove out juuuust enough Members so that in a Members vote enough loyalists remain to defeat Ash 'Loony Tunes' Regan and Kate 'Thou shalt burn in the fires of hell' Forbes.
Moral: If you insist on shooting at the Queen, not only must you make sure that you don't miss, you also need to have a convincing Pretender lined up. Kate Forbes wasn't that Pretender. Maybe they don't exist.
If Yousaf really is that Useless, how long before la Sturge doesn't deny that she would be happy to serve again if asked nicely enough...
The non candidacy of Angus Robertson is the oddest thing. He would have walked it, surely
He could have steadied the post-Sturgeon ship, and prepared the ground for Forbes in five years or so
Why didn't he stand? Perhaps @malcolmg is right and there are too many scandals lurking
Just think Macbeth
Reigned quite a long time,AIUI. Especially for a Scottish king.
Prisons policy is separate to GRR. The GRR bill just impacts the process of obtaining a GRC.
Indeed. And the thing most people will not be aware of is that it is presently impossible to obtain a GRC in Scotland, and the GRR would not, in the near term, have changed that. So all the hot air expended over the GRR is mostly wasted as it would not have, in practical terms, changed anything.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
I don't think disestablishment is on the cards right now.
Already done, if you think about it. It's the C of E that is the holdout of the four home nations.
Wrong, the Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland doesn't even bless homosexual couples like the Church of England does let alone marry them. Nor does the Roman Catholic Church in the UK
I'm being polite and talking about what the previous poster was talking about. Which was disestablishment. A thoroughlfy necessary reform, as the Victorians iknew.
Arguably the Church of Scotland is the established church in Scotland, the King vowing at his coronation to maintain its position as the national Protestant Church of Scotland
But it's not established. It may be the one QE2 attended, but that doesn't make it established. For instance, its Moderatore doesn't have a seat in the Lords. And so on and so forth.
It is established as the Monarch vows to uphold it as the national Protestant church of Scotland.
The Lutheran Church of Denmark is established, the Queen attends it but dies not Head it and it has no Lords
That's a new use of the word - and certainly not the Establismentarianism sense of the word. Doesn't make you right, bending it to fit.
"Yousaf was the “continuity” candidate, the man anointed as Sturgeon’s preferred successor. He enjoyed the clear and obvious and complete support of the outgoing leadership. His chief rival began her campaign by alienating the SNP’s “progressive” wing before proceeding to take a flame-thrower to her own government’s record in office. And yet, despite these apparent setbacks Kate Forbes came within an inch or two of winning."
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Well, if the Bible is your criterion, you should be arguing that the death penalty should be brought back for practising homosexuals. And heterosexual adulterers too.
In reality, I reckon your prejudices have very little to do with the Bible.
On some polls most do want the death penalty brought back, at least for murderers.
The Church doesn't remarry adulterers either, even the King only got a blessing
Again, this is not true. Marrying people who have been married before - regardless of the circumstances in which the marriage ended - is a matter for individual vicars.
Your confusion may be that the Church of England is legally required to marry people who have not been married before (with a legitimate connection to the particular church such as one of them residing in the parish) whereas they aren't legally required to marry people where one or both are divorcees. But they can and often do.
I assume the King and Queen Consort chose to keep it relatively low key and get a blessing simply to avoid controversy. There is not a bar in either civil or ecclesiastical law to their getting a marriage ceremony (assuming the relevant vicar is happy with it) - you're simply wrong on this.
My wife and I have received our state pension amounts for 23-24 confirming the 10.1% increase
I did chuckle however that the DWP took the opportunity to advise me my pension will see a further increase next February when I become 80 of 25pence per week !!!!!
I don't ever expect to have a pension. I think the country will probably run out of money before then.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
In the experience of my local primary school, the years with the big problems are 1/2/3. Riven with problems in ways they haven't seen before.
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
Charles isn't doing so well as the Defender of the CoE!
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
That isn't a practical question. What will we do now? Is. I see no evidence of anything approaching the scale of the problems being suggested anywhere. What there is is focused almost solely on academic achievement. Which isn't the pressing, presenting issue at all.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
Asda ban school children due to bad behaviour and last week 15 girls set about a single girl nearby.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
Yes.
Plus it was Diwali the next day.
Fair enough, I can't remember what I was doing when Sunak became PM.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
My concern with it all is that there is a major mental health crisis among teenagers, girls especially, right now. That can manifest itself in many ways, one of which is through gender ID. Now, it's one thing for a 16 year-old merely to identify as being of the opposite sex; it is quite another for them to self-ID and then begin to transition without any in-depth assessment. How can that possibly be right? Surely, it is much better to wait to see how something develops rather than to dive straight in. The potential harm of a transition that should not have been done strikes me as being much greater than the harm caused by having to wait a couple of years to do one that is genuinely necessary.
Well of course. I agree entirely, and it is heartening to hear you say that
But talk with some of these Stonewall types - and they have enormous influence on public policy - and they will label you a transphobe and a bigot for merely taking this position. Seriously. And careers are being broken by this
I cannot imagine the pain and the distress of parents being forced to watch their teenage kids self ID and then transition without being able to do anything about it - or without the state intervening, at least to mandate a pause and proper assessment. I have first hand experience of having a teenage child with mental health issues and it is not pleasant. But I also know it is something that can be overcome and got through. The idea that irrevocable and fundamental decisions about a person's entire being might be taken while that person is potentially very ill is just appalling. If that makes me a transphobe and bigot, that's what I am - and proud of it!
I've personally witnessed that parental pain, it is harrowing. I've no doubt that gender dysphoria is harrowing as well, but we should always err on the side of caution with teenagers. How can you KNOW you want your breasts to stop growing, age thirteen?
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Just as the Church of England formally does not remarry divorcees either only blesses them unless on grounds of spousal adultery
FWIW I don't think the CoE has yet formally approved and allowed blessing services of same sex couples. I think it is in the process.
What is certain is that CoE clergy have an entire personal discretion over remarriage of divorcees. They can do so sometimes, always or never. This is a statutory discretion, Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, section 8:
(2)No clergyman of the Church of England or the Church in Wales shall be compelled— (a)to solemnise the marriage of any person whose former marriage has been dissolved and whose former spouse is still living; or (b)to permit the marriage of such a person to be solemnised in the church or chapel of which he is the minister.
On another note, Beeching's report 'Reshaping of Britain's Railways' was published sixty years ago today.
I wonder how a contemporary PB would have discussed it? The Conservatives saying how necessary it was, whilst all the Labour people said they wouldn't enact the recommendations if they got power? (Only to enact them when they got power) ?
Meanwhile, old farts would be discussing how the shortening hemlines of girl's skirts meant that the Apocalypse was on its way...
"ScotNews @indyscotnews The body language of @AshReganSNP suggested anger/shock before the result was even announced.
5,559 votes from 70,000 members for the only true pro-independence candidate means the @theSNP membership is no longer pro-indy – or the ballot was, in fact, rigged."
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
@Leon's view on self ID isn't a middle way. It is a busybody, outdated, old-fashioned, static view of the world.
Most people don't give a hoot whether their best mate's daughter's best mate is transitioning. They worry about women's spaces and sport. That's your lot for most people.
Do you have any statistical data whatsoever to underline this point you keep repeating, or is it just 'people don't care', 'many do', 'no they don't', 'yes they do', 'no they don't'?
"ScotNews @indyscotnews The body language of @AshReganSNP suggested anger/shock before the result was even announced.
5,559 votes from 70,000 members for the only true pro-independence candidate means the @theSNP membership is no longer pro-indy – or the ballot was, in fact, rigged."
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
@Leon's view on self ID isn't a middle way. It is a busybody, outdated, old-fashioned, static view of the world.
Most people don't give a hoot whether their best mate's daughter's best mate is transitioning. They worry about women's spaces and sport. That's your lot for most people.
Do you have any statistical data whatsoever to underline this point you keep repeating, or is it just 'people don't care', 'many do', 'no they don't', 'yes they do', 'no they don't'?
It is not terribly insightful so far.
Do you care what gender people on PB are or identify as?
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
Grown old, by the sound of it.
This seems to be your perpetual answer to everything
Nothing is wrong anywhere, and anyone who says there is a problem is an old git
I mean, it's an opinion, but it's not necessarily advancing the cause of interesting debate
As I said I went to a party on Saturday full of friends I made during university days. A dozen close friends. Still hanging out and having a laugh four decades later. It is an enormous blessing. All that shared history. We know each other so well, and we help each other.
These kids won't now have that
eg Here's an account from an actual young person at university during Covid. It is terribly sad. They have missed out on one of the crucial parts of uni life: making friends, establishing networks, learning to live a full life
"In January of 2022, a survey found that 64 per cent of respondents felt that the Covid-19 pandemic had a negative impact on their mental health and wellbeing during Autumn term"
"The same sentiment was shared by a third year law student. 'People have been very cliquey throughout my time here. When people found their group in first year, they didn't want to venture out of that and found comfort in this. In seminars I found I can be friendly with people but it won't form a friendship. It’s kind of sad, on graduation day in a few months, I’m going to be surrounded by people I don’t know, and I will never know who they are. It’s hard to find that community later in the year.'"
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
Grown old, by the sound of it.
Must confess when I read it sounded like the kids haven't changed much since I retired 12 years ago. People really need to get a grip.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
@Leon's view on self ID isn't a middle way. It is a busybody, outdated, old-fashioned, static view of the world.
Most people don't give a hoot whether their best mate's daughter's best mate is transitioning. They worry about women's spaces and sport. That's your lot for most people.
Do you have any statistical data whatsoever to underline this point you keep repeating, or is it just 'people don't care', 'many do', 'no they don't', 'yes they do', 'no they don't'?
It is not terribly insightful so far.
Do you care what gender people on PB are or identify as?
I don't see how that is of relevance. You have stated that people don't care about the issue full stop, not that they don't care what gender their fellow online discussion community participants are identifying as.
Excellently piquant final para in a Guardian piece on Yousless
"It is impossible yet to know if Scottish Labour will rise to the occasion and capitalise on the widening faultlines within the SNP. But it is worth noting that there are long-term supporters within the SNP who believe the best thing that could happen to the party would be a term out of office; and that Yousaf as first minister might be the best way to achieve it."
I do wonder if Kate Forbes will end up feeling a sense of relief at losing this SNP leadership contest despite coming quite close to beating Humza Yousaf, and because what ever the outcome she managed to set out her stall as the future candidate for change. I have said it before and I will say it again, the current new SNP Leader and FM has been handed a poisoned chalice with an overflowing intray of domestic scandals that its become ever more difficult to keep a lid on in recent months.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Just as the Church of England formally does not remarry divorcees either only blesses them unless on grounds of spousal adultery
FWIW I don't think the CoE has yet formally approved and allowed blessing services of same sex couples. I think it is in the process.
What is certain is that CoE clergy have an entire personal discretion over remarriage of divorcees. They can do so sometimes, always or never. This is a statutory discretion, Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, section 8:
(2)No clergyman of the Church of England or the Church in Wales shall be compelled— (a)to solemnise the marriage of any person whose former marriage has been dissolved and whose former spouse is still living; or (b)to permit the marriage of such a person to be solemnised in the church or chapel of which he is the minister.
Synod voted to bless homosexual couples last month
Since 1980 about 45% of insect species have become extinct says Radio 4. If true that is quite an astonishing stat. Puts all other issues into perspective.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
That isn't a practical question. What will we do now? Is. I see no evidence of anything approaching the scale of the problems being suggested anywhere. What there is is focused almost solely on academic achievement. Which isn't the pressing, presenting issue at all.
It is ONE of the issues. The loneliness and lack of social skills - due to lockdowns ets - is also a massive problem. Mental illness is surging in young people
There is no easy answer. Dismissing these concerns as "old git typically worrying about young people" is somewhat puerile
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
We did a terrible thing that needed to be done. First time because there was a genuine crisis and second time because governmental wishful thinking turned a problem into a crisis. Lockdown being what you do as a last resort when other attempts at management have failed.
But we did two bad things. Summer 2020 (June/July) could have been used for outdoor "school on the field'. Not trying to teach academic content, just socialisation. Think an Anglicised Summer Camp. Instead there was a rush to get some classes back to fully normal, which didn't really work and didn't touch some year groups at all. My younger one got half a day between March and July, which wasn't enough.
Then, when schools did return, it was back on the treadmill. Also a mistake. One of the things good schools do is induct pupils into how we all run along together. After the lockdowns, that was needed everywhere, and it didn't happen. Denial was the order of the day.
And it's going to continue causing problems. (The other one I see is kids who just don't get that exams matter.) But some of what we're seeing is what adults have always said about young people, coupled with the shock of seeing two years' change all at once.
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
Yes.
Plus it was Diwali the next day.
Fair enough, I can't remember what I was doing when Sunak became PM.
I was having lunch with JohnO in Claridge’s celebrating.
We have the same amount of water we've always had on earth, so why would we need more?
*) Water to help the colonisation of space - we need water to live. *) Solar power + h20 = hydrogen and oxygen, which just so happens to make brilliant rocket fuel.
Presence of water makes anywhere in space more livable - as long as that water is extractable.
But always take claims with a pinch of salt: all too often doubts are thrown on claims of water having been found elsewhere in the solar system. And even then, it's a case of whether the water is actually realistically extractable or not. Imagine detecting 'water' on Earth, and trying to cope with (say) water at the poles, in the desert, in the Atlantic Ocean, or the Dead Sea. Or in the soil in your back garden.
"Police probing fraud claims involving fundraising against the SNP have passed a dossier of information to the Crown Office.
Officers investigating allegations that £600,000 of party funds raised by activists to continue the campaign for Scottish independence have “gone missing” say a progress report had been submitted before Nicola Sturgeon left office as First Minister.
Sturgeon previously rejected the claims, insisting she is “not concerned” about the party’s finances.
Police Scotland previously stated that a fraud allegation relating to the funds was “still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required”.
A formal investigation started in July 2021 after at least 19 criminal complaints were made."
They were supposedly with Crown office months ago and decision was to proceed. Allegedly UK fraud squad involved now.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
I don't think disestablishment is on the cards right now.
Already done, if you think about it. It's the C of E that is the holdout of the four home nations.
Wrong, the Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland doesn't even bless homosexual couples like the Church of England does let alone marry them. Nor does the Roman Catholic Church in the UK
I'm being polite and talking about what the previous poster was talking about. Which was disestablishment. A thoroughlfy necessary reform, as the Victorians iknew.
Arguably the Church of Scotland is the established church in Scotland, the King vowing at his coronation to maintain its position as the national Protestant Church of Scotland
But it's not established. It may be the one QE2 attended, but that doesn't make it established. For instance, its Moderatore doesn't have a seat in the Lords. And so on and so forth.
It is established as the Monarch vows to uphold it as the national Protestant church of Scotland.
The Lutheran Church of Denmark is established, the Queen attends it but dies not Head it and it has no Lords
That's a new use of the word - and certainly not the Establismentarianism sense of the word. Doesn't make you right, bending it to fit.
The Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church there the Queen is a member she does not Head it and there is no House of Lords.
On another note, Beeching's report 'Reshaping of Britain's Railways' was published sixty years ago today.
I wonder how a contemporary PB would have discussed it? The Conservatives saying how necessary it was, whilst all the Labour people said they wouldn't enact the recommendations if they got power? (Only to enact them when they got power) ?
Meanwhile, old farts would be discussing how the shortening hemlines of girl's skirts meant that the Apocalypse was on its way...
And someone claiming that with slingback the Tories were bound to win in 64.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
Grown old, by the sound of it.
Must confess when I read it sounded like the kids haven't changed much since I retired 12 years ago. People really need to get a grip.
This is a professional lecturer, not given to hyperbole, expressing to me his personal opinion that the kids now going into uni are mentally fucked by what they experienced aged 15-18 during Covid, in a way he has never seen before (unsurprising, given the unprecedented nature of the pando)
And of course there is another cohort, those who were AT uni during Covid, who were fucked in a different way
I recommend reading that linked article below, by a student. It is desperately sad
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
@Leon's view on self ID isn't a middle way. It is a busybody, outdated, old-fashioned, static view of the world.
Most people don't give a hoot whether their best mate's daughter's best mate is transitioning. They worry about women's spaces and sport. That's your lot for most people.
Do you have any statistical data whatsoever to underline this point you keep repeating, or is it just 'people don't care', 'many do', 'no they don't', 'yes they do', 'no they don't'?
It is not terribly insightful so far.
Do you care what gender people on PB are or identify as?
I don't see how that is of relevance. You have stated that people don't care about the issue full stop, not that they don't care what gender their fellow online discussion community participants are identifying as.
So I'll take that as a no.
You don't care, I don't care, and Leon doesn't care.
100% don't care. n =3.
Why do you think there are other factors or environments which greatly differ from a random internet chat room.
My wife and I have received our state pension amounts for 23-24 confirming the 10.1% increase
I did chuckle however that the DWP took the opportunity to advise me my pension will see a further increase next February when I become 80 of 25pence per week !!!!!
I don't ever expect to have a pension. I think the country will probably run out of money before then.
Since 1980 about 45% of insect species have become extinct says Radio 4. If true that is quite an astonishing stat. Puts all other issues into perspective.
That is horrific. Probably rain-forest heavy in the extinction stakes, but we aren't covering ourselves in glory in Europe.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
As marriage for most Christians, Muslims and Jews and indeed Hindus is a religious term related to the lifelong union of a man and woman to produce and bring up children.
Civil marriage for homosexual couples is OK, imposing homosexual marriages on religious bodies without their consent isn't, even if some churches now bless homosexual couples and marriages
In that case, the C of E and other churches ought to be stripped of their right to marry people in law. They don't follow the law, they don't deserve the fruits. Only civil marriages should count in law.
Wrong, for religious people like me only my religious marriage in the site of God counts.
The Church of England can bless homosexual couples but it can't marry them. The Bible is clear marriage should only be for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Well, if the Bible is your criterion, you should be arguing that the death penalty should be brought back for practising homosexuals. And heterosexual adulterers too.
In reality, I reckon your prejudices have very little to do with the Bible.
On some polls most do want the death penalty brought back, at least for murderers.
The Church doesn't remarry adulterers either, even the King only got a blessing
Again, this is not true. Marrying people who have been married before - regardless of the circumstances in which the marriage ended - is a matter for individual vicars.
Your confusion may be that the Church of England is legally required to marry people who have not been married before (with a legitimate connection to the particular church such as one of them residing in the parish) whereas they aren't legally required to marry people where one or both are divorcees. But they can and often do.
I assume the King and Queen Consort chose to keep it relatively low key and get a blessing simply to avoid controversy. There is not a bar in either civil or ecclesiastical law to their getting a marriage ceremony (assuming the relevant vicar is happy with it) - you're simply wrong on this.
Wrong. Synod only approved remarriage of divorcees in certain circumstances.
Priests are expected to ask the couple who are remarrying whether their relationship caused the divorce or if they have already been married more than once. If the answer to either is yes the Vicar is expected to refuse a full remarriage and at most only provide a blessing of the remarriage of the divorcees https://vardags.com/family-law/royal-marriage-meghan-markle-church-england
Comments
I honestly don't feel massively strongly, and I can't imagine it's a change anyone would find great support for making.
"As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
This is no exaggeration. This is their exact approach, Extreme aggression, and a blatant attempt to suppress any debate. It is deeply sinister. It also works
Eg a rule that says 'no male-bodied sex offender to serve time in a women's prison' - this can be implemented regardless of whether GRR is passed or not passed.
That was more fun
Perhaps if de Santis stopped obsessing about dicks being displayed - other than himself - and tried to do something about guns, he would be doing more to protect children in America from harm.
But he won't because his dick is on permanent display in the middle of his forehead. Easily visible with a microscope.
Meanwhile this sort of thing will keep happening.
Nashville Covenant School shooting: Multiple victims, shooter dead
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65092102
Labour lead is fifteen points in latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 30% (-5)
Lab 45% (-)
Lib Dem 10% (+3)
Other 15% (+2)
Fieldwork: 24th - 27th March 2023
https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1640391456052457472
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1640392254282924033?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
https://news.stv.tv/politics/police-scotland-passes-snp-fraud-investigation-progress-report-to-crown-office-as-part-of-probe
"Police probing fraud claims involving fundraising against the SNP have passed a dossier of information to the Crown Office.
Officers investigating allegations that £600,000 of party funds raised by activists to continue the campaign for Scottish independence have “gone missing” say a progress report had been submitted before Nicola Sturgeon left office as First Minister.
Sturgeon previously rejected the claims, insisting she is “not concerned” about the party’s finances.
Police Scotland previously stated that a fraud allegation relating to the funds was “still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required”.
A formal investigation started in July 2021 after at least 19 criminal complaints were made."
In reality, I reckon your prejudices have very little to do with the Bible.
https://www.politico.com/gallery/2023/03/24/the-nations-cartoonists-on-the-week-in-politics-00088502?slide=10
(As a fan of dinosaurs -- and children -- I'm in the latter category.)
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics/desantis-concealed-firearms/index.html
The Church doesn't remarry adulterers either, even the King only got a blessing
I did chuckle however that the DWP took the opportunity to advise me my pension will see a further increase next February when I become 80 of 25pence per week !!!!!
The Lutheran Church of Denmark is established, the Queen attends it but dies not Head it and it has no Lords
We'd never hear about owt else if there were a debate.
All a bit confused, but then very wisely the CoE doesn't have a person set up as infallible. (I do much prefer the Catholic's music though)
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Nevertheless I am confident the GRR bill has approximately zero to do with the SNP's travails or with independence.
They had no good choices on this one, and HY is not a popular chap both internally and externally. They'll lose a load of seats in the central belt, and a lot of votes in the Highlands, Islands and Borders, so are unlikely to be the force they were.
Vain old fool.
Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in.
Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all.
They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
"It is impossible yet to know if Scottish Labour will rise to the occasion and capitalise on the widening faultlines within the SNP. But it is worth noting that there are long-term supporters within the SNP who believe the best thing that could happen to the party would be a term out of office; and that Yousaf as first minister might be the best way to achieve it."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/27/snp-humza-yousaf-leader-scotland-politics?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/mar/27/glass-beads-on-moon-surface-hold-billions-of-tonnes-of-water-scientists-say
Ought to be relatively easily extractable, too.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/98c4490c-ccaf-11ed-adc8-dcfa63cb4163?shareToken=56ea650413cee1435b007cb7aa0befc0
"Yousaf was the “continuity” candidate, the man anointed as Sturgeon’s preferred successor. He enjoyed the clear and obvious and complete support of the outgoing leadership. His chief rival began her campaign by alienating the SNP’s “progressive” wing before proceeding to take a flame-thrower to her own government’s record in office. And yet, despite these apparent setbacks Kate Forbes came within an inch or two of winning."
Your confusion may be that the Church of England is legally required to marry people who have not been married before (with a legitimate connection to the particular church such as one of them residing in the parish) whereas they aren't legally required to marry people where one or both are divorcees. But they can and often do.
I assume the King and Queen Consort chose to keep it relatively low key and get a blessing simply to avoid controversy. There is not a bar in either civil or ecclesiastical law to their getting a marriage ceremony (assuming the relevant vicar is happy with it) - you're simply wrong on this.
What have we done?
Plus it was Diwali the next day.
Daily Mail parent company invokes Human Rights Act to stop naming of journalists
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/27/daily-mail-parent-company-invokes-human-rights-act-to-stop-naming-of-journalists
Bet that’s not how the Mail report it.
What will we do now? Is.
I see no evidence of anything approaching the scale of the problems being suggested anywhere.
What there is is focused almost solely on academic achievement.
Which isn't the pressing, presenting issue at all.
It does make you despair
Teens banned from Asda supermarket in North Wales
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/teens-banned-asda-supermarket-north-26570566#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
Now he has, he risks his coalition collapsing.
What is certain is that CoE clergy have an entire personal discretion over remarriage of divorcees. They can do so sometimes, always or never. This is a statutory discretion, Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, section 8:
(2)No clergyman of the Church of England or the Church in Wales shall be compelled—
(a)to solemnise the marriage of any person whose former marriage has been dissolved and whose former spouse is still living; or
(b)to permit the marriage of such a person to be solemnised in the church or chapel of which he is the minister.
I wonder how a contemporary PB would have discussed it? The Conservatives saying how necessary it was, whilst all the Labour people said they wouldn't enact the recommendations if they got power? (Only to enact them when they got power) ?
Meanwhile, old farts would be discussing how the shortening hemlines of girl's skirts meant that the Apocalypse was on its way...
A vast improvement.
@indyscotnews
The body language of
@AshReganSNP
suggested anger/shock before the result was even announced.
5,559 votes from 70,000 members for the only true pro-independence candidate means the
@theSNP
membership is no longer pro-indy – or the ballot was, in fact, rigged."
https://twitter.com/indyscotnews/status/1640354667216478208
It is not terribly insightful so far.
Nothing is wrong anywhere, and anyone who says there is a problem is an old git
I mean, it's an opinion, but it's not necessarily advancing the cause of interesting debate
As I said I went to a party on Saturday full of friends I made during university days. A dozen close friends. Still hanging out and having a laugh four decades later. It is an enormous blessing. All that shared history. We know each other so well, and we help each other.
These kids won't now have that
eg Here's an account from an actual young person at university during Covid. It is terribly sad. They have missed out on one of the crucial parts of uni life: making friends, establishing networks, learning to live a full life
"In January of 2022, a survey found that 64 per cent of respondents felt that the Covid-19 pandemic had a negative impact on their mental health and wellbeing during Autumn term"
"The same sentiment was shared by a third year law student. 'People have been very cliquey throughout my time here. When people found their group in first year, they didn't want to venture out of that and found comfort in this. In seminars I found I can be friendly with people but it won't form a friendship. It’s kind of sad, on graduation day in a few months, I’m going to be surrounded by people I don’t know, and I will never know who they are. It’s hard to find that community later in the year.'"
https://epigram.org.uk/2023/02/28/ghost-students-the-legacy-of-the-pandemic-on-the-covid-cohort-2/
If true that is quite an astonishing stat.
Puts all other issues into perspective.
There is no easy answer. Dismissing these concerns as "old git typically worrying about young people" is somewhat puerile
But we did two bad things. Summer 2020 (June/July) could have been used for outdoor "school on the field'. Not trying to teach academic content, just socialisation. Think an Anglicised Summer Camp. Instead there was a rush to get some classes back to fully normal, which didn't really work and didn't touch some year groups at all. My younger one got half a day between March and July, which wasn't enough.
Then, when schools did return, it was back on the treadmill. Also a mistake. One of the things good schools do is induct pupils into how we all run along together. After the lockdowns, that was needed everywhere, and it didn't happen. Denial was the order of the day.
And it's going to continue causing problems. (The other one I see is kids who just don't get that exams matter.) But some of what we're seeing is what adults have always said about young people, coupled with the shock of seeing two years' change all at once.
I was nearly delayed by Sunak’s motorcade.
*) Solar power + h20 = hydrogen and oxygen, which just so happens to make brilliant rocket fuel.
Presence of water makes anywhere in space more livable - as long as that water is extractable.
But always take claims with a pinch of salt: all too often doubts are thrown on claims of water having been found elsewhere in the solar system. And even then, it's a case of whether the water is actually realistically extractable or not. Imagine detecting 'water' on Earth, and trying to cope with (say) water at the poles, in the desert, in the Atlantic Ocean, or the Dead Sea. Or in the soil in your back garden.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Denmark
The Church of Scotland is the national Protestant Church in Scotland as established by law
And of course there is another cohort, those who were AT uni during Covid, who were fucked in a different way
I recommend reading that linked article below, by a student. It is desperately sad
And now, to the gym!
You don't care, I don't care, and Leon doesn't care.
100% don't care. n =3.
Why do you think there are other factors or environments which greatly differ from a random internet chat room.
Priests are expected to ask the couple who are remarrying whether their relationship caused the divorce or if they have already been married more than once. If the answer to either is yes the Vicar is expected to refuse a full remarriage and at most only provide a blessing of the remarriage of the divorcees
https://vardags.com/family-law/royal-marriage-meghan-markle-church-england
Does anyone remember him?