[Closed] Are we witnessing the self desstruction,of the conservative party in early 2013

I think they should concentrate more on education.

I'm pretty surprised that Cameron is pushing for it. It'seems a pretty brave move for a Tory leader.

I'm trying to work out what they're actually forcing through under the distraction of gay marriage.
I mean, there can't really be any other reason for whipping up such a fuss, can there?

😀

I can't understand why there's so much fuss about it when it only affrects 0.1% of the population, according to one statistic I've read.

It's no ones right to tell you who to spend your life with. I can not believe that they are being soooo uptight about it.

I was listening to a debate about a month ago on this very subject and the only argument the panel could come up with is... It just doesn't feel right .
I almost laughed, but felt very sad indeed.

Smoke and mirrors, dear boy.
Don't look at the shiny lights, see what's really happening behind them.

Nah Europe will do them more harm
TBH I am not sure why CMD has taken it up with such vigour tbh.

I am less sure why anyone else cares who marries who or how it impacts on their own marriage

Your right they have no rational argument they just dont want "them" to be treated like "us".

Just perhaps DC and NC have had enough, cant resign as that would be seen as political suicide, so engineer a ploy using a minority group to cause the rest of the condems ,to pass a vote of no confidence in them, and then they can just slide out easily.

As its what the party decided.

Isn't all the noise more to do with some Tories seeing the abandonment [for now] of the married couples tax break - which was a manifesto promise - being anti traditional family and at the same time, finding the will and time to rush through the gay marriage legislation

It's no ones right to tell you who to spend your life with.

The law prohibits marriage between a great many people

Brother/Sister
Parent/Child
Grandparent/Grandchild
Aunt or Uncle/Nephew or Niece
Adopted Child/Parent
Stepparent/Stepchild

Would you suggest that these were also legalised?

If your argument is that the state cannot/should not interfere with who can marry each other in any way, then I can see no justification for retaining these prohibitions. Especially the adopted/stepchildren one, as they have no blood relation.

DC is taking a principled stand against a vocal and well-organised section of his party.

Looking at the group at 10 Downing St this afternoon it is noticeable that only one of them looked to be under 70 years old.

For what its worth, I think its fantastic for democracy that a party can allow disagreement and discussion on issues that carry strong feelings.

I think that its a shame, and reflective on the recent history of parliamentary democracy, that the press should choose to portray any disagreement as a crisis.

Perhaps a referendum would be the way forward...

Of the many land mines that look likely to explode underneath the coalition this year, I too wonder why this issue, and why now? Do the backwoods, back benchers feel strong enough to Dump Dave (and Nick) and go to the country with an even more extreme form of right wing manifesto?

I do hope so 😆

Why they are getting so hysterical about this is beyond belief

The law prohibits marriage between a great many people

Brother/Sister
Parent/Child
Grandparent/Grandchild
Aunt or Uncle/Nephew or Niece
Adopted Child/Parent
Stepparent/Stepchild

Would you suggest that these were also legalised?

I thought one of these couplings brought you to us zulu

Nah, pure bred reptilian here mate!

the conservative party has a spectacular history of suicidal party behaviour.
they seem to elect candidates who although under the same banner have entirely different views from the manifesto/ leadership and rejoice at the opportunity to seek publicity to declare thier opposition to the above
the way it is reported you d think that some conservative mps believe that gay marriage will be compulsory for all..when in fact it wont even be compulsory for gay folk.

i m a believer in live and let live as long as it has no negative impact on others..
if you want to get married get married if you want to marry a gay couple that should be okay. if you dont thats okay too.

what is overlooked is that the church can and often does refuse to marry same sex couples so please dont feel denied of the faith of choice shuts the door

Zulu-Eleven - Member
For what its worth, I think its fantastic for democracy that a party can allow disagreement and discussion on issues that carry strong feelings.

Bedroom tax, benefits, council cutbacks, redundancies, shrinking of the armed forces,health care reforms,fuel costs, petrol and diesel costs,unemployment,failing companies,lack of affordable housuing, and cheap mortgage rates, are real problems for real people not gay marrige that is hogging the headlines, ask any lower paid man or woman and the above will always take presedence over what dc/nc want to make law, but will a change in the law suddenly get rid of queer bashing and homophobia.

No, it want its been used as a smoke screen to divert peoples attention from the real problems with UKPLC, most of which have been brought on by the politicians.

plus ca change

or have you forgotten Labours obsession with over 700 hours of parliamentary time given over to debating fox hunting...

Its no different than the attempt by the press to tell us that the Labour party was split over trident/europe/unions/iraq/immigration etc.

We'll hear that the tories are split on anything and everything, we've heard two years of stories about the coalition being split and about to fall apart. None of it is real news, its just all spin.

I don't understand why he's so strong on this, it does seem excessively divisive in his own party and probably in his voters, and I can't see that it'll cause a flood of happy married gay people to vote tory as it's traditionally the party of guilty repressed homosexuality...

Perhaps it's part of a cynical plan, who knows, I'm inclined to assume it is- but it might actually be that he's found something he actually believes in and is running with it, you never know.

There's more important things but maybe that's why this should be able to get through quickly and cleanly so they can get back to those. If it becomes a Major Thing it's not the fault of those who bring it to the table but those who resist its inevitability.

Firstly I don't have a problem with same sex marriage as long as
there is a certain age set.
The conserve;s ****ed up in the Eighties with Poll Tax Now we are to see
the working class suppressed with Room TAX.

Now that Thatcher sold off the council properties to suppress the working class in the
Eighties that we have such an housing problem within the UK.
As the money so called made from selling off such properties.
Conservatives stopped local councils from using that money to make new homes.

Just cannot wait for the next election as this one is just showing how good the aren't .

what is overlooked is that the church can and often does refuse to marry same sex couples so please dont feel denied of the faith of choice shuts the door

eh?

so callled gay marrige

Well, quite.

or have you forgotten Labours obsession with over 700 hours of parliamentary time given over to debating fox hunting

I don't understand why he's so strong on this, it does seem excessively divisive in his own party and probably in his voters, and I can't see that it'll cause a flood of happy married gay people to vote tory as it's traditionally the party of guilty repressed homosexuality...

Perhaps it's part of a cynical plan, who knows, I'm inclined to assume it is- but it might actually be that he's found something he actually believes in and is running with it, you never know.

Seems an ood issue for a tory to take a principled stance and it seems likely it will cost him dear with his core voters. Does he see it as a Clause 4 moment to make them more appealing to voters other than his core ?

Scrapping Clause Four might have helped Labour in the short term but look where it has left them now! By pushing this marriage issue DC can claim, when the inevitable coalition split occurs, that he kept his side of the bargain, but the 'untrustworthy' Lib-dems didn't do as they'd promised on constituency reform (neatly sidestepping the fact that the Tories didn't deliver on reform of the House of Lords) and so the Lib-Dems can't be trusted. A conclusion that many former LD voters will already have come to...

remind me what the countries majority view is again

We knew in advance what the majority view on hunting was

Whats the countries majority view on gay marriage? I think you'll find its a lot more nuanced and traditional than you'd expect - the poll results very much depend on the wording of the question

it will cost him dear with his core voters.

That problem's solved with the referendum position - who's going to waste a vote when the referendum prize is in sight?

Does he see it as a Clause 4 moment to make them more appealing to voters other than his core ?

Possibly - but perhaps its a way to smoke out problems within the Labour party - there's a fair number of them and their supporters who actually have fairly 'traditional' views.

Scrapping Clause Four might have helped Labour in the short term

Hardly. Most voters were completely unaware of Clause IV until Blair announced that he wanted to scrap it.

Besides, Labour Party leaders had ignored Clause IV for over 70 years, so it's somewhat bizarre to suggest that voters were been put off voting Labour because of it.

As far as the majority view goes- I don't see why it's important. Sometimes the majority can justify imposing their views on others, when others are affected- fox hunting supposedly being one of those (it's not about the hunters, it's about the fox- [i]allegedly[/i]. But even though it's largely cobblers that's the excuse that let it fly)

But gay marriage? It's about the majority telling a minority that they can't have something that the majority take for granted, even though it makes no real difference to them. Hell with that. It's not about the fox and nobody believes it is. You are different therefore you may not have what us normal people have.

Clause Four was a touchstone as to what the Labour party was supposed to stand for. By publicly scrapping it Blair was signalling to the voters the way he wanted to direct the labour movement, as well as making it an issue of his personal authority.

As for the issue. Don't forget how prejudiced some sections of the electorate are. Fermenting hate, be it against gay marriage, or the disabled, or the poor, can resonate with those bigoted voters.

It's about [s]the majority[/s]one religious monority telling another minority that they can't have something that the majority take for granted, even though it makes no real difference to them

Definitely not that simple JY. Polling indicates that there [i]may[/i] be a public majority who oppose gay marriage, and frequently that only a minority support it. And it's certainly not just one religion that's anti.

Again- **** 'em. I'm not that fussed whether one religion is upset about it or 10. I'm fully in support of their right to be upset.

Though, to be fair I never have understood why some gay couples seem so determined to work with a faith that rejects them- "We want a christian marriage, despite Leviticus." But then that's religion I guess, just avoid the bits you don't like.

Yes you are right. However the religious are the only group I am aware of actively campaigning for it to not happen.
I agree the division is not that clear cut.

I say we should ban religious marriage so they can get why it is such a big deal

Equality isn't a minority issue. its a basic pillar of modern society, and the fact that it's taken so long to get around to sorting this out is a disgrace and an embarrassment.

Oh ad the pounds collapse against the euro will rip the tories apart much more effectively than this.

The pounds collapse????? The world and his wife is now engaged in competitive devaluation with the exception of the poor guys who need it most.

It's a deliberate policy. Weak currency = injection, stong currency = withdrawal.

If anything a weaker £ will work in the Tories favour.

forum glitch bump

But the devaluation of the pound is a deliberate measure to boost exports and get the growth curve back on the positive.

And, don't think for one second that the can that the eurozone kicked down the road isn't going to come back and bite again very soon, plus, have you seen the latest US growth figures?

(Edit: aha - at THM says, didn't see due to the glitch)

If anything a weaker £ will work in the Tories favour.

.Not really as we have to find more to fund state.

Trouble is they DON'T devalue the Euro that should be on its knees
But Europe cannot devalue the Euro hence why they do in house loans
with well below negotiated interest rates to keep this Mystical myth alive.

The pound isn't currently falling because the government are devaluing it, its falling because the markets are now more concerned with the UK's long term future, than they are about europes.

[img] [/img]

I still don't understand why we have to have a party political system - where people form private schools pretend to have some from of 300yo politcal ideology behind them. Why can't we just have MPs to represent local issues and have internet refferendums on everything? It's not like most of the issues are polarised across the political spectrum anyway.

Using technology to create democratic decision making at a more granular level...

God NO! have you learned nothing from strictly come diving on ice?

MSP - Member
The pound isn't currently falling because the government are devaluing it, its falling because the markets are now more concerned with the UK's long term future, than they are about europes.

Mmmm, yes and no. There is no doubt that we are engaged in a policy of competitive devaluation as are many of the world's leading economies. However, you are correct that the most recent weakness in the £ was caused by relative weak economic data for the UK magnified by hedgies covering short € positions. So yes, the short term movement was not politically engineered but I doubt you will find anyone in the Government, Treasury or Bank of England who are doing anything to prevent it - indeed just the opposite!

There are plenty of things to throw at the Tories (and Gordon Brown) but exchange rate policy is probably not the most obvious! For the poor (Periphery) Europeans, however..........?

But getting your knickers in a twist over gay marriage is very odd!

Edit: tomorrow's FT will include an interesting article from Gavyn Davies on this very topic (currency wars) with interesting research on what happens when these get out of hand. The are few winners in the history but definite losers as those in Europe should be only too well aware.

Using technology to create democratic decision making at a more granular level...

I reckon more people voted in strictly than the general election where I live.

The short answer to the OP is no.(Which is a shame)

Surely gay people can be just as religious as the typical tory voter. I think marriage is a right that gay people should expect in this day and age.
To compare gay relationships with incestuous ones is complete nonsense bordering on offensive.

You would think that the typical tory voter (good Chritian) has to barricade themselves inside the church they attend weekly to defend themselves from a horde of mincing sodomites intent on banging down the door to get a ring on their finger. (Village People meets Shaun of the Dead)

I think they should take all of the gay people who want a church marriage, and all of the Christians who don't want them to do it to a small community centre somewhere and explain to them that if the want to have this debate they all have to pay £250000 each. It is bit of a waste considering the tiny number of people it effects.

A bit like that "how long can we hold terrorists suspects for" stuff - how many times did they use that? isn't this the kind of thing the high court is meant to sort out quietly and sensibly?

Why don't they have gay fridays at all the churches, I know they might have to reschedule messy church or something, but it's not like they're THAT busy

Not enough of a waste to stop you putting your tuppence worth in olivered1981.

It's costing me more than tuppence - might as well get my money's worth.

to be fair I know a few pretty right wing gay folk, this mightnt be as stupid a move as it looks

however im sure its all a distraction from the failure of osbornes economic 'plan', the credit agencies about to dump us down a grade and our biggest ever fall against the euro the other day thanks to daves referendum spunk up

The issue isn't that people don't want gay people to be together. It's that they don't want it called 'marriage' because they think that it alters the dictionary definition of the word. Well, WGAF? I think it's a religiously motivated thing, because the bible says marriage has to be between man and woman - apparently.

Anyway, I think Dave is rushing through his personal agenda before he gets kicked out/loses.

There's a certain irony to what has happened here, as opposed to what CMD set out to achieve. The opposite has happened.

Dave - love him or hate him, is a shrewd bastard. Far more so than the nutters in his party. Not that he'll ever get any credit for it, from his own barking mad back-benchers.

So he is looking at the polls, and Millibean's lead, and knows full well that to win a Tory majority then he has to appeal to the centre ground, not the rabid right wingers he's presently been courting over Europe.

So he picked the issue of gay marriage to demonstrate "Hey... look at us. I've detoxified the Tory brand. We're not like we used to be. We're all inclusive, and multicultural and lovely nowadays. Not a bunch of nasty, small-minded, petty, reactionary, right wing bigots at all. Not a bit of it"

Unfortunately, the reaction of his own back-benchers has clearly demonstrated to everyone that the Tory party is absolutely chock full of nasty, small-minded, petty, reactionary, right wing bigots

D'oh!!!!!

The issue isn't that people don't want gay people to be together. It's that they don't want it called 'marriage' because they think that it alters the dictionary definition of the word. Well, WGAF?

Well, to be fair, calling it 'marriage' doesn't carry any real legal distinction or give anyone any more rights than being in a civil partnership, so its purely the dictionary definition of the word that is under discussion, so, like you say, WGAF? why can't the 'rights' lobby leave it alone? why do they have to have their way? why do they have to 'own' the word as well, when it does not make any difference, its just a word - isn't that what tolerance and acceptance is about. accepting that other people might have strong feelings about something and that forcing them to change the meaning of the word just to make you happy may cause offence?

If its just a word, why do people need to change it?

Marriage clearly predates Christianity by some distance. They should not be allowed to own it nor dictate what others may do.

Clause Four was a touchstone as to what the Labour party was supposed to stand for. By publicly scrapping it Blair was signalling to the voters the way he wanted to direct the labour movement, as well as making it an issue of his personal authority.

why do they have to 'own' the word as well, when it does not make any difference, its just a word

It's about equal treatment by the state in the course of its everyday operation. It's not the business of the state to be discriminating between people on the basis of sexual orientation unless there's a [i]bloody[/i] good reason. That there is a nebulous undefined majority that don't like the idea of men marrying each other is not a good enough reason. I don't like the idea of orange-skinned harpies marrying tattoo-sleeved steroid abusers but that's not a good enough reason for the state not to do it.

Perhaps this is Cameron's "M&S moment" which may or may not lead to self-destruction. The Tories have a long, proud and illustrious history of self destruction (normally and most recently with Europe) but this could well be a new one. Cameron will win the vote but has stirred up far more of a hornets nest that he surely imagined? But he remains an enigma - what does he and for that matter Milliband really stand for. I can't work out whether Cameron really is a liberal conservative (?) or whether his stances on education, gay marriage etc are designed to make him electable or whether they are true convictions. But like M&S his real failing may be losing those who traditional support him/shop there. People do not go to M&S to be hip and trendy, similarly I doubt they vote Tory to focus in gay marriage and criticise private education (especially if they themselves have benefitted from it). All very odd?

Junkyard - Member
Marriage clearly predates Christianity by some distance. They should not be allowed to own it

I agree...

nor dictate what others may do.

...but I am happy for them to stick to their principles with their own places of worship. The Orthodox religions have clear stances on homosexuality and I see no reason why others should dictate to them and vice versa (hence my agreement with JY above, they should no be allowed to monopolise marriage). But with the more relativist, "blowing in the wind" CoE who know what they stand for either.....so there it is! The missing link between Cameron, the CoE and the current debate!!!

Marriage clearly predates Christianity by some distance

The term 'wife' is first used in Genesis 2.
The first time marriage is talked about is in Genesis 34.

Which are both quite a while before 'Christianity' was first used to label the faith/religion popularised by Jesus Christ.

The marriage stuff mentioned BC is (Biblically/religiously speaking) from God, and is therefore the same 'marriage' that Christianity goes on about. So it's not something hijacked by Christianity.

😀

Anyhow, this isn't really the point of the thread ...

Actually, I'd forgotten about this but I did hear one of the opponents on R4 a month or two back outlining his opposition. It went like this:

Opponent: The government must not be allowed to force our church to marry gay people against our beliefs.

Jim McNaughty: They won't though, it says right here that you can opt out

Opponent: Yeah, but I bet they'll change that.

[img] [/img]

So it's not something hijacked by Christianity.

Possibly it has been re-branded by religious groups.

There is a good anthropological argument that stable relationships are a pre-requisite for societies to flourish and therefore propagate, so marriage-like relationships pre-dated Christianity. NB The same argument goes for all 10 commandments, Christianity just adopted the obvious and re-branded it all.

It's not about the meaning of a word - this argument is a complete red herring. State decree can't change the meaning of a word - if the majority of people don't consider the marriage of two men or two women a marriage - well, that's not the state's business to worry about.

It's about equal treatment by the state in the course of its everyday operation.

In what way does the state not treat couples in a civil partnership equally with married ones?

Well, to be fair, calling it 'marriage' doesn't carry any real legal distinction or give anyone any more rights than being in a civil partnership

Actually I'll answer my own question above - there are a couple of interesting legal distinctions, but I don't think they're the reason why same sex couples want to get married rather than have a civil partnership and strangely they're ones the campaigners for same sex marriage are keen to play down...

I'm entirely happy they are going towards strict equality, just think they are going about it in exactly the wrong way. Equality could just as easily be achieved by the state removing itself completely from marriage. Then let consenting adults make whatever arrangements they feel suit them best. Why does the state need to be involved at all?

Smoke and mirrors by Cameron to appease the rabid right.

He knows he can't really do the euro-referendum thing, so he's trumpeting the gay marriage bill knowing that he will back down eventually. The right-wing nutjobs will be appeased and won't be so miffed when he backs down from the euro-referendum.

Either that or he's in the process of back-dooring some legislation to sell off something that the state owns to an Eton crony.

Just saying like...

I just don't understand why everyone doesn't adopt the same attitude as me. I look upon the gay population with utter disgust. With their fashionable flamboyant clothes, designer drugs, elaborate facial hair, Euro disco and rampant and depraved sexual practices. Its frankly appalling that they're enjoying themselves to this degree!!

Why should they bloody well get away with it? eh? I ask you? Why the hell shouldn't they be miserable, hen-pecked, world-weary and downtrodden like the bloody rest of us eh?

We shouldn't just be allowing them to get married, we should be [i]demanding[/i] that they do. The bastards!!!

You're probably going to also have to force them to have kids, binners.

I say force them to vote Conservative, that way the shame will eat away at their sole from inside and turn them into twisted bigots and they'll no longer care about freedom and respect for others.......

therefore the same 'marriage' that Christianity goes on about. So it's not something hijacked by Christianity

In what way does the state not treat couples in a civil partnership equally with married ones?

Is it the not letting them get married bit

<has a feeling we're going in circles here>

So the state is simply denying them from using a certain word? A word which state decree can't change the meaning of?

Yes it can though, that's the point. By removing the same sex bar on marriage.

We had marriage here before we had christianity and before we had christian marriage..

We also had widespread polygamy, underage marriages and incest - it was the codification of marriage by the christian church that put an end to this and made 'marriage' into the institution that we, as a society, accept it as today.

it is not their ceremeony - that is marriage does not exist because of religion it exists anyway and religion claims it

Other religions and countries widely accept polygamous marriages, are you suggesting that we should allow polygamy in the UK in the interest of christiantity not 'owning' marriage?

We had marriage here before we had christianity and before we had christian marriage..it is not their ceremeony

Look at where we get the name for [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymen_(god) ]Hymen [/url]from for instance

Polygamy already happens in the UK, it's just the participants don't bother to try to force a man in a frock to mutter some incantations over them and give them a certificate.

Polygamy already happens in the UK, it's just the participants don't bother to try to force a man in a frock to mutter some incantations over them and give them a certificate.

So, as a society, we have chosen not to give official sanction to a lifestyle choice that tha majority don't believe is in accordance with the widely accepted principles of 'marriage', although the participants are free to continue their chosen lifestyle without interference

Interesting!

Now, why exactly do we need to legalise gay marriages again?

it was the codification of marriage by the christian church that put an end to this and made 'marriage' into the institution that we, as a society, accept it as today.

Dont agree at all and if it did it is only becaus ethe state and the church were indistinguishable at the time

So the state is simply denying them from using a certain word? A word which state decree can't change the meaning of?

I could say i was a married gay lemon frisbee if i wanted to but it wont make it true.

If straights get one thing and gays get another [ having never been allowed a straight version]it is obvious we are treating people differently
I done see much point in debating this tbh.
I agree the law was designed to make them both broadly equivalent but they are not the same what with them being different words , laws and ceremonies. I also agree it will largely be a symbolic victiry and will change very little on the ground but it is still an important aim

Pretty sure the state is depriving them of the right to have a ceremony we call a wedding rather than use the word married.

Ah - in which case what is the difference between a wedding ceremony and a civil partnership ceremony apart from the words used to describe them (and the substitution of words in a few places during the ceremony)?

If straights get one thing and gays get another [ having never been allowed a straight version]it is obvious we are treating people differently

Yes, we treat people differently all the time on the basis of lifestyle choices - see the example of polygamous marriages above.

I agree the law was designed to make them both broadly equivalent but they are not the same

But isn't that the point, they're not the same, as since time immemorial society where we live has accepted that marriage has involved one man and one woman (other societies have viewed this differently)

you can't argue that we as a society and state should change the definition of man and woman without also accepting the validity of an argument for changing it to include peoples desire for polygamous relationships.

Zulu-Eleven - Member
But isn't that the point, they're not the same, as since time immemorial society where we live has accepted that marriage has involved one man and one woman (other societies have viewed this differently)

They're not the same because of tradition? Well that's changed my mind.

Well apart from the fact one is a wedding and the other is not a wedding and one leads to a spouse and a marriage and one does not
To repeat I get the point that they are broadly similar in outcome but we are after equal[ identical] treatment - you may as well argue that because black people were given their own water drinking point or bus seat that it is the same and fair [ i suspect that was argued]

Not getting into this further as I dont think we disagree that much on this tbh

They're not the same because of tradition? Well that's changed my mind

Why do people want to be 'married' rather than 'civil partners' if it carries no significant legal distinction?

Tradition?

Well apart from the fact one is a wedding and the other is not a wedding and one leads to a spouse and a marriage and one does not

I think we all agree the words used are different.

I'm kind of disappointed that nobody has taken my point about the actual substantive differences any further - can I assume that the lack of query means you all know the functional legal differences between marriage and a civil partnership? Though as I mentioned, strangely the supporters of same sex marriage don't actually seem to think those parts of the law are all that important.

you may as well argue that because black people were given their own water drinking point or bus seat that it is the same and fair

You might if you wanted to go into orbit.

😆