Right-Wing Discussion Thread VIII: McCarthy Was Right

[The V O I D]

Why just the traditional family?

Oh, right. Nevermind. Wouldn't be surprised if you advocated forcing a monarch to abdicate their throne if they came out as being lesbian/gay and married as such.

Yes, yes, we know you're such a loud supporter for LGBT rights. You don't have to keep informing us.

What? I'm just pointing something that's probably true out.

[Southerly Gentleman]

I agree with Bakery here. A constitutional monarch must be a role model, that is their main job. They aren't administrators anymore, and it isn't that hard to try to be an advocate for the traditional family.

Why just the traditional family?

Oh, right. Nevermind. Wouldn't be surprised if you advocated forcing a monarch to abdicate their throne if they came out as being lesbian/gay and married as such.

Nontraditional families struggle more than traditional families. Tradition has some merit to it, m8.

[Bakery Hill]

Why just the traditional family?

Oh, right. Nevermind. Wouldn't be surprised if you advocated forcing a monarch to abdicate their throne if they came out as being lesbian/gay and married as such.

Of course they'd have to abdicate. Not only would their marriage be contrary to the teachings of the Church of England, which as Sovereign they'd be oath-bound to uphold, but they would be unable to fulfil their duty by producing a legitimate heir to the throne.

In this day and age it'd be a crisis from which the monarchy mightn't recover. Shame everyone high up in succession seems so hetero.

[The V O I D]

Why just the traditional family?

Oh, right. Nevermind. Wouldn't be surprised if you advocated forcing a monarch to abdicate their throne if they came out as being lesbian/gay and married as such.

Of course they'd have to abdicate. Not only would their marriage be contrary to the teachings of the Church of England, which as Sovereign they'd be oath-bound to uphold, but they would be unable to fulfil their duty by producing a legitimate heir to the throne.

Can't they literally name their heir if they want to? Or better yet, adoption is a thing.

Also, while the monarch is a "religious" figure as well as a political one, England and Scotland have it legal for people to be married - in churches, might I add - even if it is a gay wedding.

Also, isn't it impossible for a monarch to break the law because then it'd be the Crown v the Crown?

[Old Tyrannia]

I agree with Bakery here. A constitutional monarch must be a role model, that is their main job. They aren't administrators anymore, and it isn't that hard to try to be an advocate for the traditional family.

Billy's doing great there. He seems like a nice and genuine bloke, he's got a lovely wife and two kids, you seem them on the telly over here pretty often, and despite my red convictions they just seem so damn nice. If I were a monarchist I'd be hoping that Charles abdicates, else its a white knuckled ride until he carks it. I'd be expecting to lose a few outlying commonwealth members to the scourge of Republicanism at the very least.

If you jettison the core principles of the monarchy to preserve the monarchy, what exactly is it that you're preserving? The monarchy is not a popularity contest. Charles is the rightful heir, therefore he shall be our king. He cannot be expected to abdicate simply because he is unpopular.

[United Marxist Nations]

I agree with Bakery here. A constitutional monarch must be a role model, that is their main job. They aren't administrators anymore, and it isn't that hard to try to be an advocate for the traditional family.

Why just the traditional family?

Oh, right. Nevermind. Wouldn't be surprised if you advocated forcing a monarch to abdicate their throne if they came out as being lesbian/gay and married as such.

Of course they'd have to abdicate. It used to be that they weren't even allowed to marry divorced people either. Monarchs are supposed to uphold standards of their church.

[The V O I D]

Why just the traditional family?

Oh, right. Nevermind. Wouldn't be surprised if you advocated forcing a monarch to abdicate their throne if they came out as being lesbian/gay and married as such.

Nontraditional families struggle more than traditional families. Tradition has some merit to it, m8.

Sauce?

Also, regardless, homosexuals don't magically become heterosexual and go have straight relationships/marriages just because statistics say traditional families are "better off." And, oh gee, I wonder why nontraditional families struggle when they are in the minority since LGBT people are also in the minority, and when many countries ban them from even being able to start families. WHAT A SURPRISE.

[United Marxist Nations]

Of course they'd have to abdicate. Not only would their marriage be contrary to the teachings of the Church of England, which as Sovereign they'd be oath-bound to uphold, but they would be unable to fulfil their duty by producing a legitimate heir to the throne.

Can't they literally name their heir if they want to? Or better yet, adoption is a thing.

Also, while the monarch is a "religious" figure as well as a political one, England and Scotland have it legal for people to be married - in churches, might I add - even if it is a gay wedding.

Also, isn't it impossible for a monarch to break the law because then it'd be the Crown v the Crown?

No; King Charles I and Edward VIII are testament to that.

[Bakery Hill]

Billy's doing great there. He seems like a nice and genuine bloke, he's got a lovely wife and two kids, you seem them on the telly over here pretty often, and despite my red convictions they just seem so damn nice. If I were a monarchist I'd be hoping that Charles abdicates, else its a white knuckled ride until he carks it. I'd be expecting to lose a few outlying commonwealth members to the scourge of Republicanism at the very least.

If you jettison the core principles of the monarchy to preserve the monarchy, what exactly is it that you're preserving?

The monarchy, rather than no monarchy. I'd prefer the last one, so by all means I hope they stick by their "principles".

[The V O I D]

Why just the traditional family?

Oh, right. Nevermind. Wouldn't be surprised if you advocated forcing a monarch to abdicate their throne if they came out as being lesbian/gay and married as such.

Of course they'd have to abdicate. It used to be that they weren't even allowed to marry divorced people either. Monarchs are supposed to uphold standards of their church.

Then Parliament and the monarch should see about separating church and state for good. Put someone else in charge of the church if they insist on having it somehow intertwined with government.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

If it were not such a cash cow, getting rid of the British monarchy would probably be in the UK's best interest.

[The V O I D]

Can't they literally name their heir if they want to? Or better yet, adoption is a thing.

Also, while the monarch is a "religious" figure as well as a political one, England and Scotland have it legal for people to be married - in churches, might I add - even if it is a gay wedding.

Also, isn't it impossible for a monarch to break the law because then it'd be the Crown v the Crown?

No; King Charles I and Edward VIII are testament to that.

Ah. My mistake, then. Eh, whatever; still, not like local levels of government listen to the church anymore, so why should the national?

[United Marxist Nations]

Of course they'd have to abdicate. It used to be that they weren't even allowed to marry divorced people either. Monarchs are supposed to uphold standards of their church.

Then Parliament and the monarch should see about separating church and state for good. Put someone else in charge of the church if they insist on having it somehow intertwined with government.

Hopefully that never happens. Monarchs should be religious, or there is little point in having them.

[The V O I D]

If it were not such a cash cow, getting rid of the British monarchy would probably be in the UK's best interest.

The United States of Great Britain when.

[The V O I D]

Then Parliament and the monarch should see about separating church and state for good. Put someone else in charge of the church if they insist on having it somehow intertwined with government.

Hopefully that never happens. Monarchs should be religious, or there is little point in having them.

Eh, not really.

A monarch can still be a monarch without being of a religion.

[Italios]

Of course they'd have to abdicate. It used to be that they weren't even allowed to marry divorced people either. Monarchs are supposed to uphold standards of their church.

Then Parliament and the monarch should see about separating church and state for good. Put someone else in charge of the church if they insist on having it somehow intertwined with government.

At this point, the monarchy has absolutely no power in the government so its religious influences are basically irrelevant.

[Southerly Gentleman]

Nontraditional families struggle more than traditional families. Tradition has some merit to it, m8.

Sauce?

http://www.allianzusa.com/lovefamilymoney/insights/shifting-structure-of-the-modern-american-family/

Nontraditional families struggle more than traditional families. Tradition has some merit to it, m8.

Also, regardless, homosexuals don't magically become heterosexual and go have straight relationships/marriages just because statistics say traditional families are "better off."

Don't worry, we have First Citizen Pence to take care of those types.

Nontraditional families struggle more than traditional families. Tradition has some merit to it, m8.

And, oh gee, I wonder why nontraditional families struggle when they are in the minority since LGBT people are also in the minority, and when many countries ban them from even being able to start families. WHAT A SURPRISE.

It goes without saying that I'm referring to pro-LGBT Western countries, America in particular.

[United Marxist Nations]

Then Parliament and the monarch should see about separating church and state for good. Put someone else in charge of the church if they insist on having it somehow intertwined with government.

At this point, the monarchy has absolutely no power in the government so its religious influences are basically irrelevant.

The monarch can veto certain legislation, IIRC.

[Bakery Hill]

If it were not such a cash cow, getting rid of the British monarchy would probably be in the UK's best interest.

No one's convinced me that's the case yet.

[Salus Maior]

William seems like a nice fella. I like Harry more coz he'd probs be mad to get on the piss with. If I were Charles I'd abdicate for the good of the institution. But that's probably not going to happen. Instead we'll have a horribly unpopular king at at time when both Australia's PM and the head of the Opposition are staunch republicans. See ya later Mr Windsor.

If Harry were ever to take the throne, I wouldn't be able to shake the feeling that Syndrome from the fucking Incredibles is king.

Eh?

[Old Tyrannia]

Of course they'd have to abdicate. Not only would their marriage be contrary to the teachings of the Church of England, which as Sovereign they'd be oath-bound to uphold, but they would be unable to fulfil their duty by producing a legitimate heir to the throne.

Can't they literally name their heir if they want to?

No.

Or better yet, adoption is a thing.

The heir to the throne must be of royal blood. A commoner adopted by a royal does not become royal. Our ruling dynasty goes back some 1,500 years to the founding of the Royal House of Wessex.

Also, while the monarch is a "religious" figure as well as a political one, England and Scotland have it legal for people to be married - in churches, might I add - even if it is a gay wedding.

Not in CoE churches. It's actually specifically prohibited under the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act for the Church of England to conduct same-sex marriages, in line with canon law.

Also, isn't it impossible for a monarch to break the law because then it'd be the Crown v the Crown?

British monarchs are bound by the law in their actions. This is the fundamental principle of the British constitution.

[Italios]

At this point, the monarchy has absolutely no power in the government so its religious influences are basically irrelevant.

The monarch can veto certain legislation, IIRC.

It seems highly unlikely that something like that would ever happen, though. I think all members of the monarchy understand their unwritten boundaries.

[United Marxist Nations]

Hopefully that never happens. Monarchs should be religious, or there is little point in having them.

Eh, not really.

A monarch can still be a monarch without being of a religion.

In the Church of England, the Monarch is the head of the Church, and in most constitutional monarchy, I think it's the same.

[Southerly Gentleman]

If Harry were ever to take the throne, I wouldn't be able to shake the feeling that Syndrome from the fucking Incredibles is king.

Eh?

Ever watched The Incredibles? To me, Harry looks a bit like the red-headed supervillain Syndrome.

[United Marxist Nations]

The monarch can veto certain legislation, IIRC.

It seems highly unlikely that something like that would ever happen, though. I think all members of the monarchy understand their unwritten boundaries.

The Queen vetoed the Iraq War, I think.