Politics in General

[Rhys Benjamin]

I’d rather eat my own shit than listen to Owen Jones.

[Gavin Chipper]

Anyway, Jeremy Corbyn is back in the Labour Party but there are people who still don't want him to get the party whip back. As I understand it, Corbyn was suspended for the comments he made in the video embedded on this page where he talked about exaggeration. But if you listen to what he said about the 30% and 0.3%, is what he said so bad? I think lots of people do exaggerate the problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour party. That's not to say it doesn't exist (although I shouldn't have to make this clarification). Sometimes I think it's like 1984.

Rachel Riley has been talking about it.

[Gavin Chipper]

Keir Starmer has just said that Corbyn won't be returning as a Labour MP. But anyway, to summarise the issue, from that article:

Sir Keir Starmer said those who think the issue had been "exaggerated" should "be nowhere near the Labour Party".

But later, Mr Corbyn released a statement, saying the scale of anti-Semitism had been "dramatically overstated" by his opponents, and he was suspended by the party.

So it's impossible for anyone to exaggerate the issue? If a serial killer kills five people, and someone says they've killed ten people, it's an exaggeration. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that because something is a serious issue, it can't be exaggerated.

Some people have such simplistic thinking when it comes to emotive issues, and from there it can easily become a witch hunt. I don't know if Starmer's thinking really is that simplistic but he's just doing the things he feels he needs to for an easy life because of other people's simplistic thinking.

[Marc Meakin]

Keir Starmer has just said that Corbyn won't be returning as a Labour MP. But anyway, to summarise the issue, from that article:

Sir Keir Starmer said those who think the issue had been "exaggerated" should "be nowhere near the Labour Party".

But later, Mr Corbyn released a statement, saying the scale of anti-Semitism had been "dramatically overstated" by his opponents, and he was suspended by the party.

So it's impossible for anyone to exaggerate the issue? If a serial killer kills five people, and someone says they've killed ten people, it's an exaggeration. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that because something is a serious issue, it can't be exaggerated.

Some people have such simplistic thinking when it comes to emotive issues, and from there it can easily become a witch hunt. I don't know if Starmer's thinking really is that simplistic but he's just doing the things he feels he needs to for an easy life because of other people's simplistic thinking.

I still believe that people are confusing anti semitism with anti zionism

[Peter Mabey]

Keir Starmer has just said that Corbyn won't be returning as a Labour MP. But anyway, to summarise the issue, from that article:

Sir Keir Starmer said those who think the issue had been "exaggerated" should "be nowhere near the Labour Party".

But later, Mr Corbyn released a statement, saying the scale of anti-Semitism had been "dramatically overstated" by his opponents, and he was suspended by the party.

So it's impossible for anyone to exaggerate the issue? If a serial killer kills five people, and someone says they've killed ten people, it's an exaggeration. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that because something is a serious issue, it can't be exaggerated.

Some people have such simplistic thinking when it comes to emotive issues, and from there it can easily become a witch hunt. I don't know if Starmer's thinking really is that simplistic but he's just doing the things he feels he needs to for an easy life because of other people's simplistic thinking.

I still believe that people are confusing anti semitism with anti zionism

Yes - some zionists are doing this deliberately. (and technically Palestinians are Semites, too!)

[Rhys Benjamin]

The point is that saying it's exaggerated, it's overdramatised, it's mood music, etc., amounts to a denial of the issue given how widespread things had become so as to drive out various Jewish Labour MPs and the nonsense hurled at Rachel et al.

Edit: I do wonder if it's a case of defending Corbyn purely because he's a hard left socialist, when you can have a hard left socialist leader who isn't sympathetic to antisemites.

[Marc Meakin]

The point is that saying it's exaggerated, it's overdramatised, it's mood music, etc., amounts to a denial of the issue given how widespread things had become so as to drive out various Jewish Labour MPs and the nonsense hurled at Rachel et al.

Edit: I do wonder if it's a case of defending Corbyn purely because he's a hard left socialist, when you can have a hard left socialist leader who isn't sympathetic to antisemites.

A true socialist government has not been in power for more than 40 years and its a sad fact that socialism as a political force in the ahem, caring, sharing 21st century England is as dead as a dodo.

[Gavin Chipper]

(and technically Palestinians are Semites, too!)

And that's why "anti-Semitism" isn't really a useful term. Well, it is useful for some people because they use the word instead of "racism" and can therefore sneak in extra meaning to it (including criticism of Israel etc.).

The point is that saying it's exaggerated, it's overdramatised, it's mood music, etc., amounts to a denial of the issue given how widespread things had become so as to drive out various Jewish Labour MPs and the nonsense hurled at Rachel et al.

I don't think so. Some aspects can be exaggerated and it's fair to say so without being accused of belittling the whole thing. As it happens I don't think Corbyn played the PR game very well over this whole issue, but he doesn't deserve to be demonised for that.

Edit: I do wonder if it's a case of defending Corbyn purely because he's a hard left socialist, when you can have a hard left socialist leader who isn't sympathetic to antisemites.

I'm not even a Corbyn fan but I think he has been treated unfairly, and not just in this case. When he first became Labour leader, many of the other Labour MPs tried to oust him, really before he'd had a chance to even do anything, but they failed spectacularly and this did severe damage to the reputation of the party. In the 2017 election, Labour weren't actually that far off being able to cobble together some sort of coalition, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they would have been able to do so if not for the wilful destruction of the party by the likes of Angela Eagle. Of course, they might have considered him a bad leader, but Boris Johnson is also a bad leader, and if the party sticks together and backs their voted-for leader they're much more likely to get results. I can't see that Corbyn was so terrible that they couldn't have just shut up until at least after the 2017 election.

Edit - And it's not just Corbyn. Remember Ed Miliband wasn't fit to be Prime Minister because his dad was said to be a Communist and he was once photographed eating a bacon sandwich.

[Gavin Chipper]

Pretty awful human being Priti Patel has been found to be bullying, but Boris Johnson just tries to make it go away.

[Rhys Benjamin]

https://jarick.works/spekr/test/

According to this test I’m a centre-right neoliberal, so it’s pretty accurate.

[Ben Wilson]

https://jarick.works/spekr/test/

According to this test I’m a centre-right neoliberal, so it’s pretty accurate.

My results:

Economic -20, cultural -48

You were spekd as liberal

You support a balance of both economic freedom and restriction alongside light restrictions on cultural freedom. You oppose economic deregulation and any reduction in taxes.

[Jon O'Neill]

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/12/free-sch ... -13887331/

They really are shameless. If there was a GE tomorrow they'd probably still get a majority. What the fuck is wrong with people?

[Rhys Benjamin]

It’s the outsourced company which ought to have its contract revoked. What a waste of public money. Further proof, if any be needed, that taxpayer-funded programs offer little value for money.

[Elliott Mellor]

I'm sure the fact that the chairman of the organisation happens to be a Tory party donor had nothing to do with it at all, then.

[Callum Todd]

It’s the outsourced company which ought to have its contract revoked. What a waste of public money. Further proof, if any be needed, that taxpayer-funded programs offer little value for money.

I think the reason people are blaming the Conservative party for this rather than the company/companies is that the Government (or Department of Education) is presumably responsible for appointing the company/companies to outsource the work to. If the pictures in the article Jono linked are representative of what's in these food boxes in most cases then at best they've chosen very poorly here. There's also some vaguely made allegation that a (or the, or some?) company that is allegedly profiting from this has "Tory links". That's the phrase used in the headline of that Metro article anyway, although the only clarification of that in the article I can find is:

Some parcels were supplied by private catering company Chartwells, which is part of the food service giant Compass Group. The group’s former chairman, Paul Walsh, was once a member of David Cameron’s business advisory group.

which is very tenuous indeed. (edit: while I was writing this Ell posted that the chairman of the company is a Tory donor. If true that is a LOT less tenuous that the "link" detailed in the Metro article)

Would be interesting to find out if these few pictures, assuming they are honest, are massive outliers or quite close to the norm.

[Elliott Mellor]

It’s the outsourced company which ought to have its contract revoked. What a waste of public money. Further proof, if any be needed, that taxpayer-funded programs offer little value for money.

Some parcels were supplied by private catering company Chartwells, which is part of the food service giant Compass Group. The group’s former chairman, Paul Walsh, was once a member of David Cameron’s business advisory group.

which is very tenuous indeed. (edit: while I was writing this Ell posted that the chairman of the company is a Tory donor. If true that is a LOT less tenuous that the "link" detailed in the Metro article)

Would be interesting to find out if these few pictures, assuming they are honest, are massive outliers or quite close to the norm.

I believed him to be, and should have done my research a little more thoroughly instead of just jumping in (though having done it, I'm still not really sure who holds the title - or whether he's the chairman of Compass, which owns Chartwells.). So I'll apologise for that comment as potentially being misguided. However, I still maintain that this is absolutely deplorable, and if these packages are representative of the majority, and not the exceptions then people need holding accountable for this.

Edit: In this report https://www.compass-group.com/content/d ... _FINAL.pdf "Paul Walsh" is mentioned as the chairman in December 2020. So, depending on when this contract was agreed, and if he is still chairman, the link may be valid.

[Matt Rutherford]

It’s the outsourced company which ought to have its contract revoked. What a waste of public money. Further proof, if any be needed, that taxpayer-funded programs offer little value for money.

Taxpayer-funded programs have the ability to do well. When in the hands of this government, who have proven time and again they have all the competence of a sloth on horse tranquilizers and are quite fond of cronyism (or 'corruption' to be blunt), then little wonder that things are going wrong. Having been on the receiving end of Gavin Williamson's idiocy, both by working in a school and having my A-Levels cancelled, it's more to do with the wrong hands rather than it being taxpayer-sourced.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Little bit of an own goal for Marcus Rashford (ba-doom tish) who was praising the company a few weeks ago for coming on board. https://twitter.com/marcusrashford/stat ... 76224?s=21

[Elliott Mellor]

Little bit of an own goal for Marcus Rashford (ba-doom tish) who was praising the company a few weeks ago for coming on board. https://twitter.com/marcusrashford/stat ... 76224?s=21

Are you seriously suggesting that his failure to anticipate this absolutely abysmal deliverance (assuming that the photos are representative) is an "own goal"? Of course he's going to be happy for any company coming on board, he spearheaded this campaign.

Before you try and reverse that into "how could the government anticipate this?" - he isn't the one handing over the enormous contract. I'd expect the government to thoroughly investigate any company being given a contract, so that they can be confident it is the best one to award it to. Maybe they did, but, having shown that there is potentially a big "chum" in the company, you can't deny that there's significant room for doubt as to whether this was awarded solely on merit.

[Callum Todd]

I'd say it's more like if Man Utd signed a new player, he welcomed them on twitter, and then he passed the ball to them on their debut and then they scored an own goal. Or something.

[Elliott Mellor]

I'd say it's more like if Man Utd signed a new player, he welcomed them on twitter, and then he passed the ball to them on their debut and then they scored an own goal. Or something.

Spot on analogy. It certainly isn't an "own goal" from Rashford.

[Fiona T]

Arguing about the politics rather misses that the most needy families are getting these packages and feeling absolute despair.

Just treat people with dignity and respect and give £30 supermarket vouchers - very little admin, no extra costs - and allows for individual dietary requirements or preferences.

[Elliott Mellor]

Arguing about the politics rather misses that the most needy families are getting these packages and feeling absolute despair.

Just treat people with dignity and respect and give £30 supermarket vouchers - very little admin, no extra costs - and allows for individual dietary requirements or preferences.

As ever, on the mark. This would have been a far better solution.

[Marc Meakin]

Arguing about the politics rather misses that the most needy families are getting these packages and feeling absolute despair.

Just treat people with dignity and respect and give £30 supermarket vouchers - very little admin, no extra costs - and allows for individual dietary requirements or preferences.

As ever, on the mark. This would have been a far better solution.

Maybe there were trying to bypass the small minority of parents that would use the vouchers to gain contraband

[Thomas Cappleman]

Arguing about the politics rather misses that the most needy families are getting these packages and feeling absolute despair.

Just treat people with dignity and respect and give £30 supermarket vouchers - very little admin, no extra costs - and allows for individual dietary requirements or preferences.

As ever, on the mark. This would have been a far better solution.

Maybe there were trying to bypass the small minority of parents that would use the vouchers to gain contraband

Assuming "contraband" means alcohol, cigarettes etc. I'm pretty sure the vouchers just don't work on them (though I guess you could always sell them to someone else and spend that money on alcohol). But even then the "waste" from that feels like it must be less than or at worst comparable with the waste of having to get people to make all the food parcels, beyond the added benefit of what Fiona said about giving people respect and the ability to make their own choices.

[Jon O'Neill]

Shameless

[Fiona T]

Maybe there were trying to bypass the small minority of parents that would use the vouchers to gain contraband

From the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55641740

- cost of food (if purchased from supermarket) - £5
- cost to company - £10.50 (so packing and distribution = £5.50)
- cost to taxpayer - £30 (so one assumes profit to company = £19.50)

I could buy a twelve pack of stella and 20 fags, and still spend a lot more on food for my kids, but the risk of a tiny number of the poorest people making those bad choices makes it better to leave children hungry and make the richest people even richer.

[Elliott Mellor]

Shameless

That was excruciating to watch.

Thing is, if he actually had the grace to say "you know what, yes, I do regret voting against it", then I might find a very small iota of respect for him at least having the decency to admit it. Truly reprehensible man.

[Elliott Mellor]

Maybe there were trying to bypass the small minority of parents that would use the vouchers to gain contraband

From the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55641740

- cost of food (if purchased from supermarket) - £5
- cost to company - £10.50 (so packing and distribution = £5.50)
- cost to taxpayer - £30 (so one assumes profit to company = £19.50)

I could buy a twelve pack of stella and 20 fags, and still spend a lot more on food for my kids, but the risk of a tiny number of the poorest people making those bad choices makes it better to leave children hungry and make the richest people even richer.

You're forgetting the parents who would buy five twelve packs of Stella and 100 fags, don't you realise?

[Paul Anderson]

Yeah, it's a scandal. So many folk in precarious employment forced to go to work and send their kids to schools that are supposed to be closed just so they can be sure they get a hot meal. Just write the bloody cheques

[Rhys Benjamin]

"I totally agree with you, Marcus Rashford, these food parcels do not meet the standards we set out and have made it clear to the company involved that this is disgraceful. The company concerned has rightly apologised and agreed to reimburse those affected." - Boris

[Gavin Chipper]

Shameless

He is so bad. In every way.

[Mark James]

Shameless

He is so bad. In every way.

Probably the worst thing the Conservatives have done. Make Piers Morgan look good.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Shameless

He is so bad. In every way.

Probably the worst thing the Conservatives have done. Make Piers Morgan look good.

I wouldn't go that far. He hasn't broken the Tier 4 lockdown rules by jetting off to Antigua on holiday whilst simultaneously and hypocritically calling for more lockdown misery.

[Gavin Chipper]

Milan are taking the smoking ban outside. Good news. I'm surprised anyway that being smoked on doesn't count as some form of assault. If I started pumping out some other random noxious gas into people's faces I doubt I'd be allowed to continue.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

I voted "No" on gay marriage

Just to slightly deviate from the topic at hand, might one enquire why you voted "no"?

No problem.

I was ashamed that same sex marriage was being pushed for, that it made its way onto the political agenda, and very disappointed that many gay people were campaigning for it as though it were an advancement of gay rights. Personally I think it is a backward step... and a rather petulant one at that. (I did consider organising a "Gay Shame Parade" to commiserate the referendum win...)

Marriage, for the most part in most cultures, is understood to be something that formalises the sexual union from which offspring can arise. It is very clear. If you are a married man, you have a wife. Simple. The introduction of SSM just confuses that language... a man says he's married, you are still unsure as to whether he has a wife. And many people will quietly hold this against the gay community for needlessly ruining the language. It was a false step forward. In truth, by insisting on redefining the word "marriage", gay people made themselves new enemies who previously would not have had an issue.

That is the meat of my objection...

[Ian Volante]

I voted "No" on gay marriage

Just to slightly deviate from the topic at hand, might one enquire why you voted "no"?

1) The introduction of SSM just confuses that language.

2) Gay people made themselves new enemies.

These appear to be the substantive objections. They seem pretty flimsy to me. The first one would be solved by maybe five seconds of additional conversation. On the second one, what quality of a person who turns into a homophobe over a slight increase in the potential meanings of a particular word is worth anything of anyone's time anyway?

[Fiona T]

I voted "No" on gay marriage

Just to slightly deviate from the topic at hand, might one enquire why you voted "no"?

No problem.

I was ashamed that same sex marriage was being pushed for, that it made its way onto the political agenda, and very disappointed that many gay people were campaigning for it as though it were an advancement of gay rights. Personally I think it is a backward step... and a rather petulant one at that. (I did consider organising a "Gay Shame Parade" to commiserate the referendum win...)

Marriage, for the most part in most cultures, is understood to be something that formalises the sexual union from which offspring can arise. It is very clear. If you are a married man, you have a wife. Simple. The introduction of SSM just confuses that language... a man says he's married, you are still unsure as to whether he has a wife. And many people will quietly hold this against the gay community for needlessly ruining the language. It was a false step forward. In truth, by insisting on redefining the word "marriage", gay people made themselves new enemies who previously would not have had an issue.

That is the meat of my objection...

So your objection appears to be one of changing word definition.

Pretty sure the definition has changed many times over the centuries, and is different in different countries/cultures.

So why is the "male/female" definition the correct one?

Personally, I'm more likely to be upset by people who say mischievious than I am about a changing definition of marriage.

[Graeme Cole]

I was ashamed that same sex marriage was being pushed for, that it made its way onto the political agenda, and very disappointed that many gay people were campaigning for it as though it were an advancement of gay rights. Personally I think it is a backward step... and a rather petulant one at that. (I did consider organising a "Gay Shame Parade" to commiserate the referendum win...)

Marriage, for the most part in most cultures, is understood to be something that formalises the sexual union from which offspring can arise.

So if a straight couple can't or don't want to have children, should they be prevented from marrying?

It is very clear. If you are a married man, you have a wife. Simple. The introduction of SSM just confuses that language... a man says he's married, you are still unsure as to whether he has a wife. And many people will quietly hold this against the gay community for needlessly ruining the language.

Is this even a serious argument? Assuming it is, if someone mentions that they're married but doesn't mention the gender of their spouse, then it probably wasn't relevant. And if it is relevant, it's not hard to find out by one extra question. This is like complaining about the invention of mobile phones because when someone says "I have a phone" it's no longer clear whether they mean a mobile or a landline.

Prior to same sex marriage becoming legal, someone could equally well say "I am in a relationship", giving no information about gender. I don't see how marriage is any different.

It was a false step forward. In truth, by insisting on redefining the word "marriage", gay people made themselves new enemies who previously would not have had an issue.

I wouldn't even call it a redefinition. It's still marriage, it still means the same thing, it's just opened up to a wider range of people. If you'd lived 100 years ago, would you have complained that giving women the vote was redefining the word "vote"?

Anyway, words getting redefined is natural in language. If you're upset about what is essentially a minor redefinition (if you want to call it that) of the word "marriage", wait until you find out about the word gay.

[Marc Meakin]

My ten cents.
Gay couples getting married i dont have a problem with but why would you want a church wedding when the bible is full of homophobic rhetoric

[Phil H]

wait until you find out about the word gay.

"Gay means happy, a pussy is a cat; a shag is a seabird and that is that."

[James Haughton]

I voted "No" on gay marriage

Just to slightly deviate from the topic at hand, might one enquire why you voted "no"?

No problem.

I was ashamed that same sex marriage was being pushed for, that it made its way onto the political agenda, and very disappointed that many gay people were campaigning for it as though it were an advancement of gay rights. Personally I think it is a backward step... and a rather petulant one at that. (I did consider organising a "Gay Shame Parade" to commiserate the referendum win...)

Marriage, for the most part in most cultures, is understood to be something that formalises the sexual union from which offspring can arise. It is very clear. If you are a married man, you have a wife. Simple. The introduction of SSM just confuses that language... a man says he's married, you are still unsure as to whether he has a wife. And many people will quietly hold this against the gay community for needlessly ruining the language. It was a false step forward. In truth, by insisting on redefining the word "marriage", gay people made themselves new enemies who previously would not have had an issue.

That is the meat of my objection...

So what you're saying is that you think semantics is more important than voting to expand human rights and abolishing discriminatory laws, and that's even discounting the fact that language is a fluid, evolving thing. So, by your logic, someone or something should only be described as laconic if it comes, or they come, from the region of Laconia in Southern Greece, right? We wouldn't want to confuse these hypothetical people you conjure up: they might then believe that someone they know who is concise or abrupt is not from Liverpool, Dublin, Cornwall etc., but from ancient Sparta itself.

[Gavin Chipper]

Pretty awful human being Priti Patel has been found to be bullying, but Boris Johnson just tries to make it go away.

Pretty awful human being Priti Patel could face a contempt of court charge.

[Rhys Benjamin]

As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

[Thomas Carey]

As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady Gaga

[Graeme Cole]

As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady Gaga

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Paddy Ashdown, the Labour Party, or the burning of the Reichstag.

[Gavin Chipper]

As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady Gaga

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Paddy Ashdown, the Labour Party, or the burning of the Reichstag.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Michael Schumacher, Tetris, glass, or the Andromeda Galaxy.

[Mark James]

I'm going for a mixture of Baby Spice Emma Bunton, Benny Hill and Grigori Rasputin.

[Ben Wilson]

My options include Pat Robertson, Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Roger Whittaker, William Shatner, the Stamp Act or the Arab League. That is an eclectic mix, though admittedly not on the same level as Gevin's.

[Fiona T]

As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga is deciding whether to adopt the politics of Neil Kinnock or Thomas Carey.

[Matt Rutherford]

As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

My choice is between (t)he valiant Thomas Hobbes, Pharrell Williams, or the death sentence of Ethel and Julius Rosenburg.

[Rhys Benjamin]

As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga is deciding whether to adopt the politics of Neil Kinnock or Thomas Carey.

Given she performed at the inauguration I think we have our answer.

[Ian Volante]

As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

My choice is between (t)he valiant Thomas Hobbes, Pharrell Williams, or the death sentence of Ethel and Julius Rosenburg.

Geoff Hoon or Mark Reckless for me. Or Henry VI.

[Marc Meakin]

For me its Nicholas II of Russia, Pope John Paul II or Tina Fey

[David Williams]

For me its Nicholas II of Russia, Pope John Paul II or Tina Fey

That would be my perfect dinner party.

[Gavin Chipper]

Leaked security footage from inside Buckingham Palace. The bit relevant to the current news is from about 1:26.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Replying to the "gay marriage" topic has been on my to-do list for a while now (almost 2 months) but better late than never.

My objection to the introduction of SSM here, was to do with the language... but moreso to do with muddying the clarity of the concept itself.

---------------------------------------

Fiona asks:
"Why is male/female the correct definition for marriage?"

That is similar to asking "Why does feline describe a cat.. can it not be canine if it likes?" Simple truth here, is while there is nothing wrong with dogs, they're not cats. Marriage is about the celebration of a certain sexual act... that one whereby the correct biological parts can be used to potentially produce offspring. Extending that to include gay unions, fundamentally changes what 'marriage' means.

---------------------------------------

Ian asks:
"What quality of a person would turn into a homophobe over a slight increase in the potential meanings of a particular word?"

Good people. Normal people. People who you know and respect. That's who.
It is not just the *one* change of a word's meaning... It is many many small things, that can build up over time. Life is made up of small things. Small things matter. If gay people as a group are seen to be always "fighting" for perceived rights / looking for special treatment / moaning / playing the victim... people (who otherwise have not had an issue with gay people) will become exasperated, and possibly even start viewing the gay community as an 'enemy' group. I have seen this happen, and it is rather disturbing.

---------------------------------------

James suggests:
"You think semantics is more important than voting to expand human rights and abolishing discriminatory laws."

Gays demanding to usurp a word that has nothing to do with them, would not qualify as "expanding human rights" or "abolishing discriminatory laws". It was indeed a regressive step, and a sad day to be gay.

---------------------------------------

Graeme intelligently posted the following:
"This is like complaining about the invention of mobile phones because when someone says "I have a phone" it's no longer clear whether they mean a mobile or a landline."

That is a great point. I had to think about this one. Yes, it is a great comparison for how the meaning of a word can expand and how that is not a big deal. I get you. But my counter argument here is that a phrase like e.g. "I am a happily married man" (pre-gay marriage) would instantly impart a lot of important social information about the person, that has no real equivalent in the phone example.


He also posed the conundrum:
"So if a straight couple can't or don't want to have children, should they be prevented from marrying?"

My take here: those couples get a free pass on account of possessing the correct set of complimentary sex organs that can allow conception, whether or not that is desirable or possible for the couple in question.


He pointed out that:
"Prior to same sex marriage becoming legal, someone could equally well say "I am in a relationship", giving no information about gender. I don't see how marriage is any different."

And that is a fine way to be mysterious about your relationship, should you wish to be. Marriage has always (no exceptions) had a gendered aspect to it, until recently when an overreach by a minority group managed to get it changed under the guise of 'equality'.


Another good point he brought up was:
"I wouldn't even call it a redefinition. It's still marriage, it still means the same thing, it's just opened up to a wider range of people."

How wide should the range be?
Man and boy?
Woman and chocolate?
Man and pack of jumbo hot dogs?
Throuples, Quadruples, Quintuples?
Brother and sister?

If we are talking 'discrimination', there is plenty of discrimination still going on.

The sexual union of a 'man and man' or of a 'woman and woman' is fundamentally different from the union between a 'man and woman'. Different things deserve different names.

[Marc Meakin]

Grabs popcorn..........

[Mark James]

A bunch of stuff.

https://youtu.be/_n5E7feJHw0

[Mark James]

That is similar to asking "Why does feline describe a cat.. can it not be canine if it likes?"

No it's not. And feline doesn't just describe cats. It can describe things that are cat-like. Words have can have multiple meanings and their meanings and uses can change.

Extending that to include gay unions, fundamentally changes what 'marriage' means.

So fucking what? What's the big deal if it changes?

Good people. Normal people. People who you know and respect.

Since you love dictionary definitions, what's a "normal" person? And if someone gets upset over the definition of marriage being changed I would not respect them.

It is not just the *one* change of a word's meaning... It is many many small things, that can build up over time. Life is made up of small things. Small things matter. If gay people as a group are seen to be always "fighting" for perceived rights / looking for special treatment / moaning / playing the victim... people (who otherwise have not had an issue with gay people) will become exasperated, and possibly even start viewing the gay community as an 'enemy' group. I have seen this happen, and it is rather disturbing.

Speaking of dictionary definitions, this is practically a dictionary definition of a reactionary. This has been the excuse against every social improvement that has ever happened. It's the slippery slope fallacy and yes, it's disturbing how easily some people will get upset at progress. We do not need to bow down to these people.

But my counter argument here is that a phrase like e.g. "I am a happily married man" (pre-gay marriage) would instantly impart a lot of important social information about the person, that has no real equivalent in the phone example

How is knowing the gender of anyone's partner important? Also, maybe they're lying. You haven't learned anything important from the phrase "I am a happily married man".

How wide should the range be?
Man and boy?
Woman and chocolate?
Man and pack of jumbo hot dogs?
Throuples, Quadruples, Quintuples?
Brother and sister?

You are gay man correct? Do you like to have sex? Do you like to have the ability to have sex legally? Because this and some of your other points would have been the same arguments used against decriminalising homosexuality. It's more slippery slope nonsense.

With regards man and boy the boy cannot consent. And do you really want to be going down the route of comparing homosexuality to paedophilia?

The day a chocolate bar or a pack of jumbo hotdogs can say "I do", sure I'll be all for extending the definition.

Throuples, Quadruples, Quintuples? Again, sure why not. If all are consenting don't see the harm.

Brothers and sisters? Again, don't really care. Incest laws rather than marriage laws will prevent them consumating but if they wanted to get married for tax break purposes and they're consenting who cares.

These aren't gotchas. They were nonsense arguments in 2015 when the marriage equality act passed in Ireland (in fact they've been garbage long before that). They couldn't convince people then and they won't now.

Gays demanding to usurp a word that has nothing to do with them, would not qualify as "expanding human rights" or "abolishing discriminatory laws". It was indeed a regressive step, and a sad day to be gay.

The fact that you think that is what's really sad.