Yes, it’s a popular meme with the BBC these days and a great excuse for Auntie to bash any recalcitrant “swivel eyed conservative loons” and I took part on a debate on the topic yesterday on the BBC Nolan Show. In summary my opposition to gay marriage is that I believe legalising it will restrict the liberty of those who may feel otherwise (such as most UK Churches) and that once enshrined in law they will face the same bullying despotism as we already witness in Canada, or indeed Denmark. Nolan was not seemingly interested in this approach to the issue and instead pursued a few Christian callers on what he considered theological grounds. The main protagonists were me (against) a lesbian (in favour) and a gay man (in favour). Ever get the feeling the debate is being skewed against you? Nolan’s attack line was to mock the Christian callers, ignore me, and side with the ever so reasonable gay people. As a follow up, BBC Northern Ireland had a special programme on “the issue” last night. It was presented by a woman who took a pro gay marriage line. What a shocker, never seen that one coming!
ON GAY MARRIAGE…
Bookmark the permalink.
stephen nolan is becoming one of the most one sided biased bbc presenters on 5 live,his obvious bias in favour of the millitant gay community is obvious,i dont know if stephen nolan is gay,thats not my business,but what is all of are business is a fair and impartial debate on gay marriege,stephen nolans tenure is to debase and mock the callers who dont agree with gay marriege,your bias stephen nolan is sickening.
Whilst I remain pretty much ambivalent on the subject of gay marriage, the bill itself is a disgrace for so many reasons.
Firstly it wasn’t in the manifesto, which is where a government sets down what it intends to do if it is elected. How can people make a decision as to which party to vote for if manifestos are a work of fiction?
Secondly Cameron states that he has wanted to enact a gay marriage bill for a long time. Really? So why not put that into the manifesto? The reason is he knew that he’d never be able to get it approved by the party and it might affect electoral chances so it was left out. This is a lie by omission and just confirms what we all know, that politicians are liars and simply do as they please once in power.
Thirdly We were promised when the civil partnerships were introduced by Labour that it would not lead to gay marriage – obviously that was yet another lie.
Fourthly There is a promise that religious institutions will not have to carry out these weddings. Is there anyone insane / brain damaged / etc to believe that given time this won’t be changed?
Fifthly This is going to lead to the legalisation of Polygamy already it’s being talked about and the propaganda organisation that is the Biased Broadcasting Corporation have already begun the lobbying by employing Jemima Khan to soften up public opinion telling people how wonderful polygamy really is.
That’s the critique of the bill over, but also it brings into question the suitability of Cameron as leader & Prime Minister. Most politicians want power, they want to cling onto that power, but today our career politicians are different and they see periods of opposition as part of the job, each taking their turn to wreck the country as best as they are able. We are certainly not in an age when politicians enter the elite level because of their beliefs or convictions (although Fib Dem MPs do seem to be overly represented with convictions of the criminal kind!).
So it matters as little to Cameron if he wrecks his party as it does to any of the others. Cameron’s political idol Tony Blair changed his party taking them along with him through good communication. Cameron has arrogantly assumed the party would do what ever he told them to do (swivel eyed loons?) and then is bewildered when they haven’t done.
So he’s split the Tory party and allowed in a non career politician who although yet another posh boy actually believes in something albeit apparently just one thing!
Difficult to understand how someone could so openly wreck his parties chances of re election, but then that’s part of the mentality of the career politician. He’ll still be elected in his safe Oxfordshire seat – shame for the rest that won’t.
Cameron will “move on” to better things and a new life. I think real conservatives know this and it is yet another reason for the decline of the party.
It must be UKIP now if one is a conservative and I suspect the liberal elite /Cameron know this and do not care.
They will have destroyed the party which was the intention all along.
But events happen and life is uncertain. The liberal elite now devoid of arguments and increasingly reliant on compulsion will find this out.
On the manifesto, I think Lord Fowler, the former Conservative Health Secretary, best summed up the response to that in his recent speech in the Lords:
“If my noble friend does not mind my saying so, I think that is a trivial argument. We all know—and he knows, because he has been in Parliament for exactly the same length of time as I have—that a whole range of things have been produced and passed that were not in party manifestos. I abolished the dock labour scheme, which I imagine my noble friend enthusiastically voted for and which was not in the party manifesto, and I can think of a whole of range of other things. That argument does not stand up. Let us debate on the issue, not on side points.”
The dock labour scheme? WTF? How many famillies did that affect? Unlike redefining marriage, abolishing fathers, mothers, husbands and wives to replace them with parent A & B and spouse X & Y – abolishing the concepts of consumation, adultory and faithfulness in marriage – leading to further breakdown of the family unit upon which modern civilisation was built. Yeah, just a trivial change. Doesn’t affect anyone does it. Absolutely no need to put it in the manifesto.
None of that is remotely true.
Scott it’s inevitable that governments will have to deal with situations which arise during the 5 years they hold power, the difference here is that there was no pressing need to bring this bill, and when we hear Cameron say that it was his intention to do so long before his election then I think we are entitled to ask the question as to why it was not in the manifesto.
You quote Lord Fowler saying that the manifesto is of no real value, I will refer you to the question I asked in the inevitability of your answer:
“How can people make a decision as to which party to vote for if manifestos are a work of fiction?”
There is no point what so ever in a manifesto produced by any of the main parties. Their elite politicos no longer think in the way they once did, and the electorate are an incovenience that need to be ‘managed’. It is outrageous that they might actually want to know what they are voting for – just put an X in the box it doesn’t matter which one, and even fraudulent votes are good as they push up numbers giving greater validity to their election
The Conservatives did produce a contract for equalities before the last general election:
http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/Our_contract_for_equality.aspx
In contrast the anti-equality Vance barely garnered enough votes to retain his deposit. And yet, he’s been on the BBC an inordinate number of times since, despite being comprehensively rejected by the electorate.
And yet still, he whines when his minority opinion is treated as exactly that. Thats’s not bias, that’s an organisation not pandering to his ego.
That’s an organisation pandering to your bigotry and intolerance.
Scott,
The government unilaterally dictated to its Parliamentary overseers that there would be no debate in the consultation phase of its Bill, and imposed,, entirely against the rubrics of the adversarial settlement of the Commons, that the proposals would be made law regardless of majority sentiment or otherwise.
Even if the measure was thrown out, I don’t doubt emergency legislation would have been invoked to get the matter on the statute books. That’s how tyranny works, you see?
Scott, homosexual marriage is not a side point, it is one of the most ground breaking issues of modern times and it needed to be in a manifesto.
‘…and that once enshrined in law they will face the same bullying despotism as we already witness in Canada, or indeed Denmark’.
We already have it here (think Christian B and B owners and Catholic adoption agencies).
And yet they keep inviting you on Mr Vance.
How much were you paid this time?
Putting bias aside (as its painfully obvious the BBC supports the idea of gay marriage) this is a stupid situation Cameron is in. He chose this course of action,and for what purpose? To try and win over votes from people who wouldn’t vote for him anyway? Incredible naivity on his part. I’m struck by how social liberalism has truly won the day. I used to think it was just the media banging the socially liberal drum but actually it’s the whole political class.
What the liberal class want, really want desperately, is for those of a conservative world view to admit the are wrong and that the now fully support the change to the age old status of marriage.
Now there really is no way of doing this short of compulsion. Which means witch hunts and thought crime charges.
The liberal elite is never satisfied. it needs you to truly love Big Brother.
At least agonising over the problems of passing same sex marriage into law takes everyone’s minds off of the barbarians in our midst who have desires to decapitate us.
It all comes down to the fact that democracy is dead.
The only hope is that UKIP can break through an elite contrived firestorm of bile.
There’s an interesting take on that in: “On a Hiding” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
I remembered reading that the push by David Cameron to promote ‘gay marriage’ had some EU interfering in the background. What I hadn’t realised was the LibDems hand in it but this letter in the Telegraph put it into context.
SIR – In March 2010, the Council of Europe agreed a recommendation on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, to be implemented by June 2013.
Gay marriage was guided through by Lynne Featherstone (then a Lib Dem equalities minister) when Britain took the chairmanship of the council in 2011, and aided by Sir Nicolas Bratza, then head of the European Court of Human Rights.
So presumably Mr Cameron’s motivation to pursue the same-sex marriage Bill is not down to his own conviction that it is good for the institution of marriage and the raising of children in a family unit, but rather his desire to maintain the Coalition, and to prevent further damaging press coverage about Europe’s interference in the lives of people in this country.
Can these be described as good reasons for alienating a substantial percentage of his own party?
Jeremy Tozer
Sonning Common, Oxfordshire
Whilst Cameron cannot spell out the real reasons for his push to gay marriage the political analysts at the BBC could have…but will not …presumably because so many of their colleagues are gay and are wanting marriage and the beeboids pro-Europe sentiments when they know that the country is not behind them on it.
The homosexualisation, and the Islamisation of Britain.
Joe Biden in a strange moment of outright worshipful aggrandizement told it exactly as it is thanking the entertainment industry architects of the global fag movement, yes you guessed it. Jewish power.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/biden-jewish-leaders-drove-gay-marriage-19229557#.UZ5RaD1wbct
ON GAY MARRIAGE… – Biased BBC
ON GAY MARRIAGE… – Biased BBC
ON GAY MARRIAGE… – Biased BBC
—