As much as clearly the blokes a wally, is it all that different to divorcees getting married in church? I might be wrong but I thought some churches, including the Church of England won't necessarily hold a wedding for a divorcee. Or come to that can a heterosexual couple have a civil partnership? If not why not (on both counts).
I'd loved to see one completed where it was declined by the vicar and their reasons.
It couldn't be more different.
I do agree that a hetero sexual couple should be able to have a civil partnership though - it is equlaity. I think the people blocking equlaity are an issue and Rees Mogg is one of them.
I used the example as it's religious beliefs around marriage that can stop a divorcee getting married in church and it's the religious beliefs that can do the same for a gay couple. Is that not stopping equality also?
Within the church there are differing views as the vote earlier this year shows (clergy were split almost 50/50). I'm not religious, a believer or however you wish to describe it but those who are all have their own interpretation on all manner of subjects relating to their religion, on gay marriage it's very split.
Well not in the same way. If you replace gay people with black people, the principle may become clearer. The idea that you can have only have one go at marriage is not something I would personally agree with, but as long as it applies to all, it is equal, even if it is unfair.
Well not in the same way. If you replace gay people with black people, the principle may become clearer. The idea that you can have only have one go at marriage is not something I would personally agree with, but as long as it applies to all, it is equal, even if it is unfair.
But it doesn't apply to all, you have to fill out a form and they might marry you second time around, they might not, most likely down to the individual vicar, much like gay marriage.....
So if the church said black people couldn't marry, would you be sympathetic to the politician that followed that line? Can't you see the point? Why is it acceptable to discriminate against gay people - surely it is equally bad.
My point about second time round wasn't a point of starting a debate, but that it is ridiculous to bring that into it when you are discussing discrimination around sexuality or race!
So if the church said black people couldn't marry, would you be sympathetic to the politician that followed that line? Can't you see the point? Why is it acceptable to discriminate against gay people - surely it is equally bad.
My point about second time round wasn't a point of starting a debate, but that it is ridiculous to bring that into it when you are discussing discrimination around sexuality or race!
I've never said I agree with wally the politicians religious beliefs on marriage (I don't) and i've never said it's ok to be discriminative on race, sexual orientation or anything else.
His religious views/interpretations are clearly discriminatory to gay people (assume it applies to women as well as men) who wish to enter into a marriage in that he doesn't believe they should be allowed to enter into marriage as his view is marriage is a sacrament and applies to a man and a woman. I think that point is key here as it's not necessarily about sexual orientation.
My point was there are many areas of religion interpretation that many people would see as discriminatory, as we were talking about marriage I thought a further example of where the church (or at least some within the church) are discriminatory on marriage on a wider basis than simply gay marriage, therefore it is not simply a gay issue.
Someone like Wally believe marriage is a sacrament, is between a man and a woman and that marriage is for life hence the inability for many to accept the marriage of a divorcee as well as two men or two women.
Doesn't make him a homophobic or divorcee phobic, he was clear with his quote;
“The teaching of the Catholic church is completely clear. The marriage issue is the important thing. This is not how people arrange their lives. It’s that marriage is a sacrament, and a sacrament is under the authority of the church, not of the state.”
We touched on it earlier, the fact a heterosexual couple cannot enter into a civil partnership, that is equally discriminatory, doesn't make those who set those rules heterosexual phobic does it?
But your example was inappropriate - that is the point I make and what I was trying to do to show why I think his views are a big deal and he shouldn't be cut any slack.
So if the church said black people couldn't marry, would you be sympathetic to the politician that followed that line? Can't you see the point? Why is it acceptable to discriminate against gay people - surely it is equally bad.
My point about second time round wasn't a point of starting a debate, but that it is ridiculous to bring that into it when you are discussing discrimination around sexuality or race!
I've never said I agree with wally the politicians religious beliefs on marriage (I don't) and i've never said it's ok to be discriminative on race, sexual orientation or anything else.
His religious views/interpretations are clearly discriminatory to gay people (assume it applies to women as well as men) who wish to enter into a marriage in that he doesn't believe they should be allowed to enter into marriage as his view is marriage is a sacrament and applies to a man and a woman. I think that point is key here as it's not necessarily about sexual orientation.
My point was there are many areas of religion interpretation that many people would see as discriminatory, as we were talking about marriage I thought a further example of where the church (or at least some within the church) are discriminatory on marriage on a wider basis than simply gay marriage, therefore it is not simply a gay issue.
Someone like Wally believe marriage is a sacrament, is between a man and a woman and that marriage is for life hence the inability for many to accept the marriage of a divorcee as well as two men or two women.
Doesn't make him a homophobic or divorcee phobic, he was clear with his quote;
“The teaching of the Catholic church is completely clear. The marriage issue is the important thing. This is not how people arrange their lives. It’s that marriage is a sacrament, and a sacrament is under the authority of the church, not of the state.”
We touched on it earlier, the fact a heterosexual couple cannot enter into a civil partnership, that is equally discriminatory, doesn't make those who set those rules heterosexual phobic does it?
When Queen Victoria was told about Lesbians she refused to believe that they existed and therefore being a women and gay was not (and never was) made illegal in the UK. As Rees Mogg predates the Victorian age in his views one would assume that he does not have a problem either.
I understand what you are saying @Rob7Lee. His beliefs are not at odds with Christian (Catholic) teachings but he bows down to the law of the land, I would not what somebody like that to be elected, but those who vote for him either agree or don't care.
What I think we now need to do is to hold him to account for his views that are at odds with Christian (Catholic) teachings. As somebody put it quite succinctly elsewhere, I don't want to give power to anybody who can only follow a narrow doctrine from which they get their ideas/beliefs from. That could be religion, fascism, communism etc etc.
So if the church said black people couldn't marry, would you be sympathetic to the politician that followed that line? Can't you see the point? Why is it acceptable to discriminate against gay people - surely it is equally bad.
My point about second time round wasn't a point of starting a debate, but that it is ridiculous to bring that into it when you are discussing discrimination around sexuality or race!
I've never said I agree with wally the politicians religious beliefs on marriage (I don't) and i've never said it's ok to be discriminative on race, sexual orientation or anything else.
His religious views/interpretations are clearly discriminatory to gay people (assume it applies to women as well as men) who wish to enter into a marriage in that he doesn't believe they should be allowed to enter into marriage as his view is marriage is a sacrament and applies to a man and a woman. I think that point is key here as it's not necessarily about sexual orientation.
My point was there are many areas of religion interpretation that many people would see as discriminatory, as we were talking about marriage I thought a further example of where the church (or at least some within the church) are discriminatory on marriage on a wider basis than simply gay marriage, therefore it is not simply a gay issue.
Someone like Wally believe marriage is a sacrament, is between a man and a woman and that marriage is for life hence the inability for many to accept the marriage of a divorcee as well as two men or two women.
Doesn't make him a homophobic or divorcee phobic, he was clear with his quote;
“The teaching of the Catholic church is completely clear. The marriage issue is the important thing. This is not how people arrange their lives. It’s that marriage is a sacrament, and a sacrament is under the authority of the church, not of the state.”
We touched on it earlier, the fact a heterosexual couple cannot enter into a civil partnership, that is equally discriminatory, doesn't make those who set those rules heterosexual phobic does it?
When Queen Victoria was told about Lesbians she refused to believe that they existed and therefore being a women and gay was not (and never was) made illegal in the UK. As Rees Mogg predates the Victorian age in his views one would assume that he does not have a problem either.
I understand what you are saying @Rob7Lee. His beliefs are not at odds with Christian (Catholic) teachings but he bows down to the law of the land, I would not what somebody like that to be elected, but those who vote for him either agree or don't care.
What I think we now need to do is to hold him to account for his views that are at odds with Christian (Catholic) teachings. As somebody put it quite succinctly elsewhere, I don't want to give power to anybody who can only follow a narrow doctrine from which they get their ideas/beliefs from. That could be religion, fascism, communism etc etc.
Whilst I agree entirely and share that view I don't think his beliefs are shared with a tiny minority. I've no idea how many in this country follow religion or how many of those follow to the extent of his viewpoint, but I doubt its only 1 in 10,000 or even 1 in 1,000.
Voting for an MP or a party for me is always a balance, I'll never agree with every viewpoint of either, i balance the overall. Someone being a staunch catholic wouldn't stop me voting for them necessarily even if I don't share their religious views but do on everything else, anymore than only agreeing with 75% of a parties policies, it's who you agree with most.
But your example was inappropriate - that is the point I make and what I was trying to do to show why I think his views are a big deal and he shouldn't be cut any slack.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I was trying to show his and many in the churches views on marriage, which includes gay as well as divorcee, seems highly appropriate to me.
Boris starts up again and his friend/enemy Gove slithers up salivating for more power. Priti Patel smirks in the background. Yes of course they secretly have the welfare of the country first and foremost in their minds, it's just that their naked thirst for personal advancement gets in the way...and if the country is fecked in the meantime it's called having your cake and eating it too.
Indeed. The UK is about to embrace free trade by leaving the largest free trade bloc in the world! One which has 50 FTAs with the rest of the world.
And now Johnson wants Hammond to find an additional £10Bn per annum for the NHS in 2019 not because it's needed but because it will then make the £350M per week lie on the bus come true!
The only antidote to this assault by hard Brexit views is the will of the people (2/3 wish to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market) and releasing the estimated impact of leaving these and the EEA.
At the moment it's a fight within the Tory party but if Johnson and Gove start winning then will sensible Tories jump ship? Or will they really put party above the economy and the country while tens of thousands of jobs and EU citizens leave the country.
We are rapidly approaching the end of Q3 and the first release of GDP estimates will surely impact the view of 2017 as a whole. If it's another 0.2% then the forecast of 1.7% for the year goes out the window.
Of course Johnson will say that's nothing to do with him! But the Cabinet should know the economic impact of this mess and those who prefer a soft Brexit should not be afraid to use the forecasts. Perhaps Labour should be entitled to the same information - they have stated their position.
All it now needs is for people to stand up for the truth. Which rules out Johnson of course
It appears that the Q3 GDP stats are out towards the end of October. Johnson now denying the attack from the head of stats re. inappropriate use of "£350M a week" and we are no further along than we were under John Major! In other words Tories split over whether to leave the single market and customs union with no plan and no calculation of the opportunity cost. May off to Florence to make keynote speech to nobody in particular, certainly not the European parliament with whom she should be negotiating/ building a relationship.
Lib Dems going on about their pro EU credentials which secures 8% in the polls. Labour and Tories running neck and neck... Monsieur Barnier says clock ticking as he waits for the first set of deliverables...Davis refuses to answer the exam questions and wants to talk about something else.
This is what a train wreck looks like in the making. Ideally the Tory party takes all of the collateral damage and not the UK?
Best move for Labour? Keep it simple and let agent Johnson do the work for them
Watched Theresa May on Andrew Marr trying to apply her traditional politician answering techniques. Andrew Marr who is not the most aggressive of interviewers made her look desperate and essentially useless and her panic laden 'answers' were (to be kind) unconvincing and frankly unbelievable. Whatever the ins and outs of this particular cat's arse she is toast one way or another. This opens the way for Boris who almost defines the Prince of Darkness in a politician. God help us all.
If you watched the last two episodes of W1A Theresa May's performance today reminded me of the new match of the day pundit. How far is Maidenhead from Rickmansworth?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, despite how much people may hate labour and Corbyn, the current Tory party leadership is a total and utter shambles. What's worse, they seem to believe that they're doing a good job.
Brexit is playing out like our performance against Wigan the other week, I don't think the country is doing well relatively speaking, and they're all trying to out c*** one another in the asshole stakes
And all she can come out with is
"I'm getting on with the job, and I think that's what the British people want to see"
Watched Theresa May on Andrew Marr trying to apply her traditional politician answering techniques. Andrew Marr who is not the most aggressive of interviewers made her look desperate and essentially useless and her panic laden 'answers' were (to be kind) unconvincing and frankly unbelievable. Whatever the ins and outs of this particular cat's arse she is toast one way or another. This opens the way for Boris who almost defines the Prince of Darkness in a politician. God help us all.
For a brief moment I almost felt sorry for her. She clearly no longer wants to be PM but is hanging in there for the good of the Conservative party rather than for the good of the country.
It's really fascinating these days to watch and listen to that old Tory grandee Michael Hesseltine.
He's genuinely incredulous at the mess that his party leadership are making of running the country and in particular Brexit. So much so that he believes Jeremy Corbyn could be in Downing Street within the next couple of years. He said today that the Tory message is mixed and without focus. Of a change in leadership he says that it's no point in changing the singer if you don't change the song. He see no positives whatsoever in Brexit.
The Tories really are in a right old mucking fuddle.
Comments
I do agree that a hetero sexual couple should be able to have a civil partnership though - it is equlaity. I think the people blocking equlaity are an issue and Rees Mogg is one of them.
Within the church there are differing views as the vote earlier this year shows (clergy were split almost 50/50). I'm not religious, a believer or however you wish to describe it but those who are all have their own interpretation on all manner of subjects relating to their religion, on gay marriage it's very split.
My point about second time round wasn't a point of starting a debate, but that it is ridiculous to bring that into it when you are discussing discrimination around sexuality or race!
His religious views/interpretations are clearly discriminatory to gay people (assume it applies to women as well as men) who wish to enter into a marriage in that he doesn't believe they should be allowed to enter into marriage as his view is marriage is a sacrament and applies to a man and a woman. I think that point is key here as it's not necessarily about sexual orientation.
My point was there are many areas of religion interpretation that many people would see as discriminatory, as we were talking about marriage I thought a further example of where the church (or at least some within the church) are discriminatory on marriage on a wider basis than simply gay marriage, therefore it is not simply a gay issue.
Someone like Wally believe marriage is a sacrament, is between a man and a woman and that marriage is for life hence the inability for many to accept the marriage of a divorcee as well as two men or two women.
Doesn't make him a homophobic or divorcee phobic, he was clear with his quote;
“The teaching of the Catholic church is completely clear. The marriage issue is the important thing. This is not how people arrange their lives. It’s that marriage is a sacrament, and a sacrament is under the authority of the church, not of the state.”
We touched on it earlier, the fact a heterosexual couple cannot enter into a civil partnership, that is equally discriminatory, doesn't make those who set those rules heterosexual phobic does it?
I understand what you are saying @Rob7Lee. His beliefs are not at odds with Christian (Catholic) teachings but he bows down to the law of the land, I would not what somebody like that to be elected, but those who vote for him either agree or don't care.
What I think we now need to do is to hold him to account for his views that are at odds with Christian (Catholic) teachings. As somebody put it quite succinctly elsewhere, I don't want to give power to anybody who can only follow a narrow doctrine from which they get their ideas/beliefs from. That could be religion, fascism, communism etc etc.
Voting for an MP or a party for me is always a balance, I'll never agree with every viewpoint of either, i balance the overall. Someone being a staunch catholic wouldn't stop me voting for them necessarily even if I don't share their religious views but do on everything else, anymore than only agreeing with 75% of a parties policies, it's who you agree with most.
Strength and stability, strength and stability. How anyone thinks they aren't as bad as Labour is beyond me
Yes of course they secretly have the welfare of the country first and foremost in their minds, it's just that their naked thirst for personal advancement gets in the way...and if the country is fecked in the meantime it's called having your cake and eating it too.
And now Johnson wants Hammond to find an additional £10Bn per annum for the NHS in 2019 not because it's needed but because it will then make the £350M per week lie on the bus come true!
The only antidote to this assault by hard Brexit views is the will of the people (2/3 wish to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market) and releasing the estimated impact of leaving these and the EEA.
At the moment it's a fight within the Tory party but if Johnson and Gove start winning then will sensible Tories jump ship? Or will they really put party above the economy and the country while tens of thousands of jobs and EU citizens leave the country.
We are rapidly approaching the end of Q3 and the first release of GDP estimates will surely impact the view of 2017 as a whole. If it's another 0.2% then the forecast of 1.7% for the year goes out the window.
Of course Johnson will say that's nothing to do with him! But the Cabinet should know the economic impact of this mess and those who prefer a soft Brexit should not be afraid to use the forecasts. Perhaps Labour should be entitled to the same information - they have stated their position.
All it now needs is for people to stand up for the truth. Which rules out Johnson of course
In other words Tories split over whether to leave the single market and customs union with no plan and no calculation of the opportunity cost.
May off to Florence to make keynote speech to nobody in particular, certainly not the European parliament with whom she should be negotiating/ building a relationship.
Lib Dems going on about their pro EU credentials which secures 8% in the polls. Labour and Tories running neck and neck... Monsieur Barnier says clock ticking as he waits for the first set of deliverables...Davis refuses to answer the exam questions and wants to talk about something else.
This is what a train wreck looks like in the making. Ideally the Tory party takes all of the collateral damage and not the UK?
Best move for Labour? Keep it simple and let agent Johnson do the work for them
Whatever the ins and outs of this particular cat's arse she is toast one way or another.
This opens the way for Boris who almost defines the Prince of Darkness in a politician.
God help us all.
Was it the uni fee's and help to buy or what ever its called that I saw in the paper today?
How far is Maidenhead from Rickmansworth?
Brexit is playing out like our performance against Wigan the other week, I don't think the country is doing well relatively speaking, and they're all trying to out c*** one another in the asshole stakes
And all she can come out with is
"I'm getting on with the job, and I think that's what the British people want to see"
She's making Cameron look like Obama
He's genuinely incredulous at the mess that his party leadership are making of running the country and in particular Brexit. So much so that he believes Jeremy Corbyn could be in Downing Street within the next couple of years. He said today that the Tory message is mixed and without focus. Of a change in leadership he says that it's no point in changing the singer if you don't change the song. He see no positives whatsoever in Brexit.
The Tories really are in a right old mucking fuddle.