nick2 Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 C'mon off it! Not everyone who voted for the proposition was a church goer I agree, but effectively what happened was that most people, not being gay or church goers didn't vote, why would they ? it doesn't effect them, so what happened is you only got the interested parties voting, and as there are much more church goers than there are gay people they were bound to win. And then this became a law. You can't compare this to the election that has just happened which directly effected everyone in the country. Effectively you have given this minority of people the ability to make law anything they see fit, and can win a vote on. Letting the church dictate the law is a very dangerous thing IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanoGV Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 'Strawman' isn't name calling its a name given to a kind of fallacy you attempted to use in your previous post. The clear message there is that you thought we'd elect a non-white PM but not a Catholic one, at least not for another 20 years.. A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument. The person does this because it then becomes easier to knock down the weaker version of the opposing argument with one's more substantial counter argument. The term straw man derives from the use of scarecrows for military practice, such as charges. In reality, a scarecrow is far easier to defeat than an actual person. Furthermore when Canterbury returns to Rome this will bring about change I do not see this happening for at least 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbo Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I have a gay friend who has worked for me as a sub-contractor. An electrician who does excellent work Do you ever address your gay friend as 'limp wristed' and a 'pervert' who perhaps should consider living in 'Dingleberry Canyon State'? My advice to the limp wrist brigade ... Good idea for the new state of San Francisco license plates could be "Dingleberry Canyon State" Dont equate civil rights struggles of the sixties with the agendas of a bunch of perverts. Or, on reflection, would you wish to reconsider your previous bigotted remarks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Do you ever address your gay friend as 'limp wristed' and a 'pervert' who perhaps should consider living in 'Dingleberry Canyon State'? Or, on reflection, would you wish to reconsider your previous bigotted remarks? And let's not forget this: Quote: Originally Posted by Suffragette1 Don't we know it, we've been subjected to your homophobia on this issue before. What would you do if your grandkids turned out to be gay and didn't have equal rights of their straigth counterparts? Shame on you, you're a disgrace. I would most likely recommend that they move up north to Sodom-on-Sea (San Francisco to you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 The 1701 Act of Settlement still prohibits British monarchs from being, or marrying, a Catholic. While there is, theoretically, no bar on the Prime Minister being a Catholic, a Catholic Prime Minister is considered to be 'constitutionally awkward' since that office is involved in appointing senior members of the Church of England. Well we seemed to get over that 'awkwardness' with our previous non-anglican PMs why should it be any different for a Catholic PM? It would only be a problem if the PM instead of simply rubber stamping appointments tried to interfere with them, but that would a problem regardless of their denomination or lack there of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanoGV Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Well we seemed to get over that 'awkwardness' with our previous non-anglican PMs why should it be any different for a Catholic PM? It would only be a problem if the PM instead of simply rubber stamping appointments tried to interfere with them, but that would a problem regardless of their denomination or lack there of. It is above both you and I Plenkhanov. As long as the candidate is British from birth and swears an oath of Allegiance to the crown, then a democratically elected PM should be appointed regardless of religion or colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Do you ever address your gay friend as 'limp wristed' and a 'pervert' who perhaps should consider living in 'Dingleberry Canyon State'? Or, on reflection, would you wish to reconsider your previous bigotted remarks? Yeah I call him names and he calls me names. We're not uptight frigid little paranoids. Friends here take the **** out of each other all the time but you wouldn't understand how people here are different from those at your end of the swamp I've known him for years and he's like a brother to me. Trouble with many people I find when over in England and after being away so long is that they're too darned uptight over just about everything. Maybe it's the weather Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I agree, but effectively what happened was that most people, not being gay or church goers didn't vote, why would they ? it doesn't effect them, so what happened is you only got the interested parties voting, and as there are much more church goers than there are gay people they were bound to win. And then this became a law. You can't compare this to the election that has just happened which directly effected everyone in the country. Effectively you have given this minority of people the ability to make law anything they see fit, and can win a vote on. Letting the church dictate the law is a very dangerous thing IMO. So what do you suggest then? Have some state federal judge decide on his lonesome that gay marriage is legal and therefore we all have to say yeah man and jump up and down and wave our knickers in the air? This is what happened earler this year. A California federal judge riuled that the denial of gays to marriage was unconstitutional. That's not right Just because he's a judge doesn't make him king Solomon and "What I say shall be the law" In government affairs issues on constitutional matters as it effects peoples rights should be debated on by a group of judges as in the Supreme Court in Washington then the matter decided on a vote This judge acted like some cowboy and that's what got a lot of people really upset and that's why it was placed as a state ballot measure in the election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Yeah I call him names and he calls me names. We're not uptight frigid little paranoids. Friends here take the **** out of each other all the time but you wouldn't understand how people here are different from those at your end of the swamp I've known him for years and he's like a brother to me. Trouble with many people I find when over in England and after being away so long is that they're too darned uptight over just about everything. Maybe it's the weather In my experience americans get very up tight about being called septic tanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 A very large proportion of those who gave money to help the Prop 8 campaign spread the lies that you fell for were. Wake up why dont you? Aren't there lies spread around in all elections or are you just so young and innocent that you're all shocked out that there may have been lies in this case. Unfortunately we the voters have to decide based on what is told to us by those for and against issues up for vote. I've read through a lot of propositions on many issues in my time and the arguments for and against most often would need a lawyer to be able to come up with what is true and what is false. Thats the way the system works and we all have to live with it Dont tell me that British elections aren't full of lies by politicians running for office on both sides of the political spectrum So we follow our gut instincts and whatever little intelligence God gave us and do our best. It's not a perfect system but as Churchill once said it will do until something better comes along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.