NationStates

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:51 pm**

Lunaka wrote:I for one, am glad that same-sex marraige may finnaly become legal.

Will, not may. It's inevitable. Just a matter of time.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:54 pm**

Baltenstein wrote:
(Image)

Is that an actual campaigning poster?

Because he looks both scary and hilarious at the same time.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:55 pm**

Baltenstein wrote:
(Image)

Is that an actual campaigning poster?

Because he looks both scary and hilarious at the same time.

yes

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:55 pm**

The IASM wrote:Why am I always the minority?

Do you support equality? If not, then that's the reason.

Hevzane wrote:I'm against it. I'm not homophobic, but Britain has been Christian for over 1700 years. I know, it's all civil rights and stuff, but to be honest, a Christian like me should not be supporting gay marriage. I can't believe David Cameron calls himself a Christian

Being Christian has nothing to do with opposing LGBT rights. It has everything to do with supporting them.

Totalise wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:It will pass.
The labour party will HAVE to support it or they might actually lose the next election. It'd also be the straw that broke a lot of camels backs.

Around half the tory party is the Libertarian strain (or they are pretending to be.) and so have to support it.
The only people opposing are creepy statists and clerical fascists, thankfully a minority in both parties.

Whether or not they WANT it passed is another matter. They know the people won't stand for it not passing.

is being a Fascist bad? i am a Fascist and i think that same-sex "marriage" will cripple socity as a whole

And you'd be wrong.

Olde Engelond wrote:
I'm glad to say that the MPs who I share alumnus with voted against the bill.

Why?

Olde Engelond wrote:
Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
Why are you glad that your MP is entirely out of step with the majority of the population and doesn't want equality for gay people?

He isn't my MP. I said several of the MPs who were educated at my old school voted against it. Anyway, I am glad that they voted against it as they carried out their duty as Conservatives to defend our country's ancient institutions.

There's NOTHING to defend marriage from.

Olde Engelond wrote:
Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:

Where is it stated that the duty of Conservatives is to discriminate against homosexuals?

I see as much a problem with discriminating against homosexuals as I do with discriminating against criminals. In other words I don't. Homosexuality is a sin.

No, it isn't. Also, brilliant job, comparing one action that doesn't deprive anybody of their rights without informed consent to a group of actions that DO deprive people of their rights without informed consent. What's next? Are you going to tell me that an apple is a citrus fruit?

Oneracon wrote:
Olde Engelond wrote:
I see as much a problem with discriminating against homosexuals as I do with discriminating against criminals. In other words I don't. Homosexuality is a sin.

According to? [Please select from the options below]

If you're going to say Leviticus 18:22 or any other part of the OT
The Hebrew Bible contains the law for Jews, not for Christians

If you're going to cite Romans or any other NT quote relating to homosexuality
Any mentions to homosexuality being sinful were written in Paul's letters, well after Jesus left the Earth.

If the Son of God truly believed that homosexuality was so sinful, why was it never mentioned in any of the four editions of his biography (the Gospels)? Or for that matter in any other books in the New Testament?

Not to mention that Leviticus is such an anal retentive book anyways. I mean, if somebody's going to use it to tell me I shouldn't have gay sex, then they should at least have the common fucking decency to use it to tell me I shouldn't eat bacon, wear clothes of mixed fabrics, eat shellfish, or perform the environmentally-beneficial practice of crop rotation (if I were a farmer).

Also, I'd say that even Paul wasn't saying it was a sin. Given the fact that Paul made up the word arsenokoitai, instead of using the already existing Greek word for homosexuals.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:00 pm**

Divair wrote:
Scholencia wrote:Why do everybody hate torries?

Because they're a shit party.

I remember when I was ~7 I liked them purely because they were represented by the colour blue...

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:01 pm**

San Leggera wrote:
Divair wrote:Because they're a shit party.

I remember when I was ~7 I liked them purely because they were represented by the colour blue...

Back when life was simple.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:06 pm**

Oh, I thought this was the Canadian House of Commons...nevermind...

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:16 pm**

Divair wrote:
Scholencia wrote:Why do everybody hate torries?

Because they're a shit party.

Well all parties are shit but the tory prime minister looks like a clown. I really wonder are his voters alsp so retarded as he is.

The UK in Exile wrote:
Scholencia wrote:Why do everybody hate torries?

they long nostalgically for a time where everyone except them was poorer and whiter.

So, the UK was racist long time ago?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:17 pm**

Scholencia wrote:So, the UK was racist long time ago?

Are you kidding?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:18 pm**

Scholencia wrote:Well all parties are shit but the tory prime minister looks like a clown. I really wonder are his voters alsp so retarded as he is.

That much is obvious. Few parties aren't shit, but the Tories tend to be the shittiest in the UK.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:19 pm**

Divair wrote:
Scholencia wrote:Well all parties are shit but the tory prime minister looks like a clown. I really wonder are his voters alsp so retarded as he is.

That much is obvious. Few parties aren't shit, but the Tories tend to be the shittiest in the UK.

Shittiest major party. There are a lot of smaller parties out there that make the Conservatives look like peace loving hippy sharers.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:22 pm**

Scholencia wrote:
Divair wrote:Because they're a shit party.

Well all parties are shit but the tory prime minister looks like a clown. I really wonder are his voters alsp so retarded as he is.

David Cameron's problem is that he has too much forehead. He's like 90% forehead. That's too much.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:24 pm**

Helertia wrote:
Scholencia wrote:Well all parties are shit but the tory prime minister looks like a clown. I really wonder are his voters alsp so retarded as he is.

David Cameron's problem is that he has too much forehead. He's like 90% forehead. That's too much.

They call that a fivehead. Perhaps a sixhead in his case.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:24 pm**

Priory Academy USSR wrote:
Divair wrote:That much is obvious. Few parties aren't shit, but the Tories tend to be the shittiest in the UK.

Shittiest major party. There are a lot of smaller parties out there that make the Conservatives look like peace loving hippy sharers.

Of course. Same applies to every country, really.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:31 pm**

Helertia wrote:
Scholencia wrote:Well all parties are shit but the tory prime minister looks like a clown. I really wonder are his voters alsp so retarded as he is.

David Cameron's problem is that he has too much forehead. He's like 90% forehead.

Looking at him, one can almost hear the "wnnn**wnnn**wnnn* sound that cartoon villains with gigantic heads and psychic/telekinetic powers usually make.

*beingamajorhypocriteduetohavingaratherlargeforeheadtoo*

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:35 pm**

Scholencia wrote:
Divair wrote:Because they're a shit party.

Well all parties are shit but the tory prime minister looks like a clown. I really wonder are his voters alsp so retarded as he is.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:23 pm**

Nemezree wrote:Legally, she can still dissolve Parliament

Zanzor wrote:The Queen does dissolve parliament, she does it before a general election, admittedly she is asked to by the prime minister.

Neither of these statements are true.

Which can be effectively explained by the concise and clear opinion already offered by Naughtania: de jure, but not de facto.

No.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:33 pm**

The Matthew Islands wrote:
Nadkor wrote:
No.

And the easiest way to avoid this shitty debate is to accept that I know what I'm talking about.

I don't understand it. You consistently provide excellent explanations and sources that show you know exactly what your talking about and how your correct, and people just keep ignoring it.

To be fair, I'm mostly done with that. Because, well, as you say...

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:35 pm**

What is there to debate?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:39 pm**

Nadkor wrote:
The Matthew Islands wrote:I don't understand it. You consistently provide excellent explanations and sources that show you know exactly what your talking about and how your correct, and people just keep ignoring it.

To be fair, I'm mostly done with that. Because, well, as you say...

People like being right. They will then ignore anything that proves them otherwise.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:42 pm**

Olde Engelond wrote:
Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:

Where is it stated that the duty of Conservatives is to discriminate against homosexuals?

I see as much a problem with discriminating against homosexuals as I do with discriminating against criminals. In other words I don't. Homosexuality is a sin.

Relevant

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:58 pm**

It is about time that England did this. Canada did this back in 2005, and the netherlands did it in 2001. On a side note, I don't see what oppostion there could be for a passing of a bill like this. The only people against this would obviosly be straight people and, if you are straight, how does a bill like this affect you? Seriously, if anyone is against this, please, let me hear your argument, because I've yet to hear a valid one.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:21 pm**

Hevzane wrote:I'm against it. I'm not homophobic, but Britain has been Christian for over 1700 years. I know, it's all civil rights and stuff, but to be honest, a Christian like me should not be supporting gay marriage. I can't believe David Cameron calls himself a Christian

Where in the bible does it say marriage is for 'one man and one woman?' And how many wives did King Solomon have?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:27 pm**

Responding to the news that 175 MPs voted against and a further 70 plus abstained, or were absent at Second Reading, Colin Hart, Campaign Director for Coalition for Marriage commented: “The scale of the opposition against the Government’s profoundly undemocratic plans is astonishing, and sends a clear message to the Prime Minister that he faces a lengthy and damaging battle to redefine marriage.

ahahahahahah they're so mad

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:28 pm**

Souseiseki wrote:Responding to the news that 175 MPs voted against and a further 70 plus abstained, or were absent at Second Reading, Colin Hart, Campaign Director for Coalition for Marriage commented: “The scale of the opposition against the Government’s profoundly undemocratic plans is astonishing, and sends a clear message to the Prime Minister that he faces a lengthy and damaging battle to redefine marriage.

ahahahahahah they're so mad

They are gonna be so butthurt when we get lesbian (WOMEN AND QUEERS?)archbishops marrying eachother, I hope it happens before I die just so I can die laughing.

NationStates

House of Commons Debates Same-Sex Marriage