If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered.
Lithuanian gay bashing tramps?
What makes them a united community?
Not being straight I assume. It's a sign of comradeship or something.
Nothing.
For many to extend the definition of marriage to include two people of the same sex is effectively demeaning and undermining the institution of marriage. By definition, many believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
Through American gay groups campaigning for gay 'marriage' reactionaries have succeeded in spreading the misconception among the naive that these elitist East Coast liberals wish to force the prospect of two grooms and gay 'marriage' on Churches across America. If all along civil partnerships had been campaigned for - underlying the fact that the arrangement is unconnected to any notion of marriage and poses no danger to deeply held religious perceptions of marriage the Republicans would not have gained so much support from this one issue.
Of course many people oppose civil partnerships and any move towards giving a gay couple the same rights as a married couple. However, a lot of people – especially in America would be a whole let hostile to gay 'marriage' if it was not described as such. I support civil partnerships assuming religious institutions are not forced to recognise something they do not agree with. Although, I do not think it is helpful to label opponents to gay marriage/civil partnerships as gay bashers. I'm not a Christian although I do believe the cliche some Christians espouse to 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is true for many Christians.
The only reason he's doing this now is to boost his popularity and regain the confident to the people who actually put him in power at the last election: the hard Christian Right.
Given that this has just about zero chance of progressing any further, it is a disgusting hypocritical move by the spineless chimp.
This government do the same thing. The fox hunting ban had nothing to do with animal welfare but was entirely about satisfying the Labour grassroots.
The fox hunting ban had been a key part of Labour's manifesto since before they even got into power in 1997. The only reason why it dragged on for so many years was because of the constant sabotaging campaign from the upper house.
And Bush's opposition to gay 'marriage' played a part in him securing a mandate from the American people for a second term.
You're obviously unfamiliar with British democracy. The Lords is not there to rubber-stamp legislation from the Commons. :rolleyes:
It is odd that the left which so vehemently hates the Lords forgets that it was the Lords that proved far more of a thorn in the side of Thatcher than the Labour opposition – which was little more than a bad joke.
The Lords are not there to rubber stamp anything... nor to continuously torpedo a legislation that had the support of the majority of the public and overwhelming support in the lower house.
They had ran out of excuses to reject the bill many years ago. They simply kept doing it because they themselves enjoyed the bloodsport. Some service to the country...
And? Politicians everywhere waste time over pointless issues and initiatives to divert attention away from looking at actual solutions. That's politics. All this crap about 'choice' for patients on which hospital they're treated at or 'choice' for parents on local schools is a good example. People want good local hospitals and good local schools. Anyway, of course you're right but you're recognising the obvious - it's not as if Bush is unique, every politican does the same thing. (I'm not saying it's right but it's just how politics works).
That's exactly what the fox hunting ban was. Hundreds of hours have been spent in Parliament on fox hunting. The end result is some kind of ban nobody can be bothered to properly enforce, a few loopholes and er I don't think any foxes have been saved either. Like most people I have no interest in fox hunting. There are far more important things for Parliament to discuss and the police to enforce. Anyway if somebody wishes to hunt vermin it's not the state's business.
Funny but polls show most of the public support ID cards and the 90 days amendment but I somehow think you'd be grateful of any Lords opposition there...
Er anyway constitutionally could you please explain to me where the Lords is constrained from opposing something that has public support and overwhelming support in the lower house? Bad legislation does not suddenly cease to be bad legislation because it has support from MPs and the public nor does something become right because it has the support of MPs and the public...
There is a pretty strong argument against the fox hunting ban, I won't get into it now. But Labour MP Kate Hoey and other opponents make good points...
Anyway in the Lords plenty of Conservative, Labour and Liberal peers as well as crossbenchers opposed the fox hunting ban. I don't enjoy the 'bloodsport', neither do most of the Lords or MPs that opposed the ban. I simply see it as authoritarian and hypocritical as well as a petty jibe at rural Britain to satisfy Labour grassroots activists.
We're supposed to be moving forwards not backwards.
And whose fault was that???
Nowhere of course, but let's not pretend they were doing it out of duty or because they thought it was in the best interests of the country.
Tell that to the foxes torn apart alive in the most indescribable manner.
This has nothing to do with Labour grassroots or class war (despite some people's protestations to the contrary). This is to do with animal welfare. Nothing more, nothing less.
Animal welfare?
The fox hunting ban had everything to do with the people who practice it. (Although that in itself is somewhat of a misconception since many working class people in the countryside enjoy fox hunting too).
Arguably it's a moral issue anyway. Just as I believe abortion is wrong but it is not for me or the state to tell women what to do with their bodies it's up to individuals whether fox hunting is right or wrong. Personally I do not see anything wrong with hunting vermin but meh some of the chattering classes evidently care deeply about vermin. I have no desire to go fox hunting although there is morally nothing wrong with it imo and if I want to go fox hunting I see no reason why I should not be allowed to.
One of these days all the gays are gonna end up migrating to somewhere where they'll be accepted and be allowed a partnership.
And America will be left full of intolerables.
Are you quite sure about that?
Anyway, since when numbers have meant anything? If I burn a kitten alive, do you think I could get away by saying 'do my favour your honour, it was just the one, it wasn't thousands of them'?
Now you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
The funniest thing of all is that if Labour had put a bill forward to ban battery farming or live exports, you would be here ranting about how it is all a waste of parliamentary time.
No. That's what the Telegraph brigades keep repeating to themselves to work up a sense of persecution and righteousness.
Because they simply don't want to admit that it doesn't really mean jackshit if something is "a tradition" or if has been done for hundreds of years. What's wrong is wrong- and unnecessary cruelty to animals is wrong.
Who has said foxes should not be hunted?
If I wanted to shoot your dog, should I have the right to?
My point was there are more battery farmed chickens than foxes killed in hunts. And I believe the former is an instance of greater cruelty.
A pet dog is not vermin. If you want to shoot vermin whether it is a rat, a fox or a (grey) squirrel fine.
Regardless we will not agree and your beliefs have unfortunately prevailed under this government. Of course when the Conservatives get back in the ban will be repealed.
Until it is completely safe to have same sex relationships then the term LGBT is needed. You can't honestly say that there is no tension anyway.
That's fine by me and by most people including animal welfare organisations- as a vermin control exercise at least.
Unfortunately for those foxes caught in the now outlawed hunts, they weren't shot- they were chased for prolonged periods and then torn to pieces and disembowelled alive.
That is what people objected to.
We'll see...
Safe to conduct your relationship without fear of physical and/or verbal violance is the most obvious one that springs to mind. Other 'safety' examples would include financial/legal/workplace discriminations...