Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 16,950]

People here or in the world would talk about it? I mean...it's how it is, people just care more about what happens here than what we care happens anywhere else.

Thats true. I have been to the US a few times and the average Americans'knowledge of affairs outside the US is negligible. To the point, and I kid you not, where I was talking to a woman in a nightclub in LA when she said 'youre English ? Great do you know Dave in Manchester?'.

Think a lot of it is because of the Amerocentric US media, which skims over anything 'foreign'.

[DavidEU 2,023]

Shocked that there are people here who are actually cheering the result of the legalisation of gay marriage by the court. Regardless of whether you support it or not, the real concern here is how they've yet again undermined the value of democracy!

They are basically robbing people of the freedom to govern themselves! The court shouldn't be deciding whether to legalise it or not but instead it should be the state governments that look after it themselves and vote on it! If anything you could also argue that by doing this you are undermining the 1st amendment which protects religious freedom....

As a gay man, I'm not really bothered about how it's come about because the legislation should never of been there in the first place. By putting it to the vote, you're only restricting people who live in largely homophobic states - which, to me isn't fair.

The homophobic people that are bothered about it don't need to let this affect their lives. It should mean nothing to them. By changing the law however, you're changing a hell of a lot of lives for the better.

[CurlyHairLikeLuiz 1,625]

Hopefully what's going down in Tunisia will convince the Govt to stop slashing the Armed Forces. Apparently in two years' time the Royal Marines will be smaller than the NY police force. Pathetic. It's costing too. the Navy is now re-employing the engineers it fired to cut costs because they don't have enough to staff their ships.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have a Con government but now is not the time to be cutting the MoD budget, get rid of foreign aid instead, most of it goes straight into corrupt leaders' pockets anyway.

[Fulham Broadway 16,950]

Hahaha comedy gold !

CNN spot an ISIS flag at London Gay Pride, failing to realise its made up of dildos and butt plugs

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/27/cnn-spots-isis-flag-at-london-pride_n_7679244.html

[CHOULO19 24,332]

@NishC300, You're a very bright young man, but FOX is not very good for your IQ So let me take you up on a few things here:

I'm no expert in the American political system but there are few things you've mentioned that are simply wrong: The supreme court judges are NOT technically legalizing gay marriages because they are not passing a new piece of legislation. THAT would be role of representatives in the senate and congress. The judges are ruling that the current laws and constitution make gay marriage legal. That is their job which is to rule how laws should be interpreted and whether or not they are constitutional. They set a precedent and then later cases have to refer to it. That is (my understanding of) how the system works. Whether or not you think it should be that way is another issue that has nothing to do with this particular case.

Secondly, supreme court justices ARE elected by the senate (which is in turn elected by the public) and all judges in general are actually elected by the public in the US. It's a pretty controversial and frankly stupid system but that again is irrelevant to this case.

No one saying that this is an 'attack on democracy' actually means it and it's just an excuse to attack gay rights because this the same system that is used for all laws and cases in the US. You can't just now think it is an attack on democracy. If it is then the entire way the system has been working for ages is an attack on democracy and has always been.

The rights of people and minorities in particular do NOT fall under the self governance of people and should not be put to a vote. Human rights transcend votes. If the majority of people in a country vote that all people whose names start with an 'N' should only be paid half of what everyone else makes it doesn't mean that that should be passed in law! Or in a more serious example, just because the majority of people in Burma think that Muslims in the country should not have rights and considered citizens it doesn't mean that that should be allowed to continue. That's not self-governance, that's prejudice and racism and prosecution of minorities.

And you (and FOX) can call it an 'attack on traditional marriage) all you want but the fact is whether gay marriage is legal or not that does NOT in any way affect a man and woman who want to have a 'traditional marriage'. No man in history has ever said to a girl "Let's get married" and got a reply of "No, we can't because gay marriage is legal!" In contrast, criminalizing gay marriage is an attack on homosexuals and their rights because that does prevent two people who want to get married from doing so. No amount of propaganda or brain washing can change that.

And I'm just shocked that you would even suggest that homosexuals are 'playing victim' as if their struggle isn't real. "When was a homosexual's business shut down? When was a homosexual's career ruined?" All the fucking time! That is why people have an incredibly hard time 'coming out'. That is why most celebrities and especially athletes never make it public if they are homosexual because they know that their careers and their entire lives are going to be made a whole lot more difficult. Look up the statistics of homosexual teens suicide attempts because of bullying, learn about the violence and hate crimes against all LGBT people because of their sexual orientation, the struggles they face in the army, sports, politics...etc.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Hopefully what's going down in Tunisia will convince the Govt to stop slashing the Armed Forces.

Sorry, but there's literally ZERO correlation between the two unless you are suggest that the armed forces should be funded enough to have in every area in every country in the world!

Hahaha comedy gold !

CNN spot an ISIS flag at London Gay Pride, failing to realise its made up of dildos and butt plugs

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/27/cnn-spots-isis-flag-at-london-pride_n_7679244.html

Too slow, old man

http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/7709-the-pub-discuss-anything/?p=1110932

[Fernando 6,491]

A pretty overwhelming majority of Americans support gay marriage though, and they're not really encroaching on anyone's freedoms. Straight people are still free to not get gay married.

This is what is said right now.

But we have been seeing the repercussion already before this supreme court decision.

Mainly with small business owners that refused to cater to gay weeding, they been hit by a fine.

So what will happen to churches that don't believe in gay weeding?

What you will do then? Fine them? take their tax exempt status? close them down?

[Fulham Broadway 16,950]

Gay weeding ? Picking on homosexual gardeners now.

[Fulham Broadway 16,950]

Too slow, old man

http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/7709-the-pub-discuss-anything/?p=1110932

Alright smartarse. So you can sniff out buttplugs and dildos quicker than me.

[CurlyHairLikeLuiz 1,625]

Sorry, but there's literally ZERO correlation between the two unless you are suggest that the armed forces should be funded enough to have in every area in every country in the world!

Too slow, old man

http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/7709-the-pub-discuss-anything/?p=1110932

Pretty sure they call it defensive measures, seeing that Isis have said that UK targets are next.

[NishC300 1,865]

As a gay man, I'm not really bothered about how it's come about because the legislation should never of been there in the first place. By putting it to the vote, you're only restricting people who live in largely homophobic states - which, to me isn't fair.

The homophobic people that are bothered about it don't need to let this affect their lives. It should mean nothing to them. By changing the law however, you're changing a hell of a lot of lives for the better.

Not everyone who wants to protect traditional marriage is a homophobe, there are several families who are just concerned and want to protect the true definition of marriage.

If anything some of the the biggest anti-gay bigots are from left. The Westboro Baptist Church's "God Hates Fags" are firm Democrats! The founder and leader of the Church (died last year), Fred Phelps was a big supporter of Clinton and Gore.

@NishC300, You're a very bright young man, but FOX is not very good for your IQ So let me take you up on a few things here:

I'm no expert in the American political system but there are few things you've mentioned that are simply wrong: The supreme court judges are NOT technically legalizing gay marriages because they are not passing a new piece of legislation. THAT would be role of representatives in the senate and congress. The judges are ruling that the current laws and constitution make gay marriage legal. That is their job which is to rule how laws should be interpreted and whether or not they are constitutional. They set a precedent and then later cases have to refer to it. That is (my understanding of) how the system works. Whether or not you think it should be that way is another issue that has nothing to do with this particular case.

Secondly, supreme court justices ARE elected by the senate (which is in turn elected by the public) and all judges in general are actually elected by the public in the US. It's a pretty controversial and frankly stupid system but that again is irrelevant to this case.

No one saying that this is an 'attack on democracy' actually means it and it's just an excuse to attack gay rights because this the same system that is used for all laws and cases in the US. You can't just now think it is an attack on democracy. If it is then the entire way the system has been working for ages is an attack on democracy and has always been.

The rights of people and minorities in particular do NOT fall under the self governance of people and should not be put to a vote. Human rights transcend votes. If the majority of people in a country vote that all people whose names start with an 'N' should only be paid half of what everyone else makes it doesn't mean that that should be passed in law! Or in a more serious example, just because the majority of people in Burma think that Muslims in the country should not have rights and considered citizens it doesn't mean that that should be allowed to continue. That's not self-governance, that's prejudice and racism and prosecution of minorities.

And you (and FOX) can call it an 'attack on traditional marriage) all you want but the fact is whether gay marriage is legal or not that does NOT in any way affect a man and woman who want to have a 'traditional marriage'. No man in history has ever said to a girl "Let's get married" and got a reply of "No, we can't because gay marriage is legal!" In contrast, criminalizing gay marriage is an attack on homosexuals and their rights because that does prevent two people who want to get married from doing so. No amount of propaganda or brain washing can change that.

And I'm just shocked that you would even suggest that homosexuals are 'playing victim' as if their struggle isn't real. "When was a homosexual's business shut down? When was a homosexual's career ruined?" All the fucking time! That is why people have an incredibly hard time 'coming out'. That is why most celebrities and especially athletes never make it public if they are homosexual because they know that their careers and their entire lives are going to be made a whole lot more difficult. Look up the statistics of homosexual teens suicide attempts because of bullying, learn about the violence and hate crimes against all LGBT people because of their sexual orientation, the struggles they face in the army, sports, politics...etc.

Yes I am aware that the judicial branch of government merely 'interprets' the constitution, as for what you say in paragraphs 1-3, I recommend you read Justice Scalia's statement which I pasted earlier in spoilers as that sums up a lot of what I wanted to say and if you still have something to attack then you can respond.

Also finally the main point here isn't whether you agree with this or not, it's how all of a sudden the SCOTUS is a becoming a threat to Federalism which protects the autonomy of states. This matter should never be decided by a court but within the respective states.

Human rights? Were homosexuals being discriminated like the African American community in the US? This is why I fail to understand why it is compared to the Civil Rights Movement (which is even more ironic as MLK was firm believer in traditional marriage).

The point isn't that straight couples can still marry in peace, it's the fact that now you have redefined an age old definition of marriage which was the union between a man and a woman. By claiming that it's the union between two people who love each other you cause some severe confusion, should we now call two sisters who live together marriage as well? I love my parents, is that marriage as well? Do you not see how others could easily exploit this for their benefit? Those sisters might as well ask for the benefits the state bestows on married couples too.

I remember coming across a list of scenarios of things that could happen if gay marriage was legalised, shame I didn't read it nor can I find it now .....

Furthermore you could have scenarios as what Fernando claimed below

This is what is said right now.

But we have been seeing the repercussion already before this supreme court decision.

Mainly with small business owners that refused to cater to gay weeding, they been hit by a fine.

So what will happen to churches that don't believe in gay weeding?

What you will do then? Fine them? take their tax exempt status? close them down?

Have you also read about the new sex ed programmes that are being forced on families where children are taught all kinds of things regarding sexuality from a young age? Do you really want more sexual confusion in this era? Do you want to force children of traditional families to accept what these families consider 'immoral behaviour'? These reasons and what Fernando stated are why people are furious that their religious freedom is under attack. Essentially this is an attack on Christian morality (I'm personally Hindu and Hinduism states nothing regarding homosexuality, if anything gay rights activists claim Hinduism tolerates homosexuality).

What about Christian skepticism regarding the following? How long until the supreme court legalises those as well (and no I'm not saying that homosexuals are any of the things stated below!)

"If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior?"

A perfect example of how undemocratically legalising something causes strife.... Clearly it would have been better if states were allowed to deal with this matter themselves....

If you're gonna legalise gay marriage, make sure the states decide that! If anything, conservative states are right to think that this is discrimination against them.

As for brainwashing, there is no brainwashing against gay marriage. Schools now have major programmes to promote homosexuality and as well as all kinds of Gay-Straight Alliances. The only people discriminated against now are the ones who want to protect traditional marriage, anyone who even dares stand up for their beliefs is punished by the 'GAYstapo'. Have you been reading about all the religious families who've had their ENTIRE CAREERS RUINED because they refused to serve a gay couple as it opposed their religious beliefs? There are countless stories of this, people's careers ruined by the politically correct because they stood up for what they believed was the morally correct......

Look at some of the horrific and disgusting things said about religious people. Imagine if someone religious said this about homosexuals? We'd never hear the end of it! The media would be on it for days! The media loves creating this picture of a victim and a victimiser for publicity, when in reality there are just as many anti-Christian bigots on the pro-gay side of things.

CNN (something which they themselves accepted) did more to promote the legalisation of gay marriage than to protect the definition of marriage. So NO! There is no brainwashing occurring to protect marriage, if anything you could claim the complete opposite.

And no I don't receive FOX News ;p (as a matter of fact I don't even watch TV) and all my views are entirely my own and I don't mindlessly follow everyone else or jump onto bandwagons (something which you could ask my friends about in depth lol regarding new trends like selfies, snapchat etc which I refuse to take part in) Furthermore, there are quite a few atheists who believe in traditional marriage too, so this isn't just a 'baseless religious belief' as many like to label it. One of my close friends is an atheists who supports traditional marriage.

I hope I didn't miss anything out, if I did just notify me on the next post.

Thank you very much for the compliment, I really appreciate it and have to say you too are a fine individual evident from your fine performance as a moderator.

A February–March 2015 Wall Street Journal poll found that 59% of Americans favor same-sex marriage.

A January–February 2015 Human Rights Campaign poll found that 60% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, while 37% oppose. The same poll also found that 46% of respondents say they know a same-sex couple who have gotten married.

A February 12–15, 2015 CNN/ORC poll found that 63% of Americans believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, while 36% oppose.

Admittedly polls are not always accurate, but it is a fact that public opinion is going that way, why put off the inevitable? (I've also lifted that from wikipedia so shoot me)

And I still disagree that it is an attack on democracy. Giving people rights is not the same as taking them away. And religion is more malleable than people give it credit for. People wear clothes made of different fabrics, stonings aren't commonplace, and you're not expected to kill people if they believe something different anymore (Deuteronomy and Leviticus really go a bit OTT).

As for 'severe repercussions' ... I'm not sure if you mean repercussions of gay marriage, or repercussions of the supreme court making law. The supreme court has passed lots of rulings, but is it just this time you have a problem with it or just their role altogether? It'll be interesting to see if the divorce rate starts going down, they've fought for the right to be married, and probably respect the sanctity far more than a lot of their straight counterparts.

Yes I agree polls aren't always accurate. I answered some of your post above as for the final statement, I don't think it will cause divorce rates to fall.

Most of the believers of traditional marriage are very religious families and they are usually very tightly knit and divorces are quite rare among them as they firmly believe in the sanctity of marriage.

Hopefully what's going down in Tunisia will convince the Govt to stop slashing the Armed Forces. Apparently in two years' time the Royal Marines will be smaller than the NY police force. Pathetic. It's costing too. the Navy is now re-employing the engineers it fired to cut costs because they don't have enough to staff their ships.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have a Con government but now is not the time to be cutting the MoD budget, get rid of foreign aid instead, most of it goes straight into corrupt leaders' pockets anyway.

It's a conservative principle though to respect the military. Generally I've always had this feeling that the British Conservative Party doesn't really stand up for conservative principles. All the consequences of the Tories' cutting defence spending are indeed quite shocking.

[CeleryFC 373]

Yes I agree polls aren't always accurate. I answered some of your post above as for the final statement, I don't think it will cause divorce rates to fall.

Most of the believers of traditional marriage are very religious families and they are usually very tightly knit and divorces are quite rare among them as they firmly believe in the sanctity of marriage.

But the overall divorce rate could still fall. 40-50% of marriages in the US end in divorce, not only very religious people get married. I'm only speculating though.

[NishC300 1,865]

But the overall divorce rate could still fall. 40-50% of marriages in the US end in divorce, not only very religious people get married. I'm only speculating though.

Indeed that's such an unfortunate stat..... and I was just pointing out that generally religious families have lower divorce rates

Edward Gibbons wrote in "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" that a rise in divorce rates in Rome was one of the reasons regarding the fall of the Empire.

[CeleryFC 373]

What about Christian skepticism regarding the following? How long until the supreme court legalises those as well (and no I'm not saying that homosexuals are any of the things stated below!)

"If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior?"

A perfect example of how undemocratically legalising something causes strife.... Clearly it would have been better if states were allowed to deal with this matter themselves....

ALSO: Linking homosexuality with incest, pedophilia and bestiality is bad form. There are HUGE differences. Consent being the big one. Homosexuality is exhibited throughout the animal kingdom (read: nature) as well, so there's an argument there for whether it be 'unnatural' or not.

EDIT: I know you aren't saying they are, but I mean that, that is the argument that would stop the next steps, if you get my drift.

[iseah100 5,612]

In the 1850's, states believed democracy required the people to decide on slavery locally, state by state and territory by territory. Would that have been cool too? This is not gonna open a big can of worms where we legalize beastiality and pedophilia or anything ridiculous like that. If two people want to be married, they should be allowed to, end of. They are people. If you believe in love, you have to believe that everyone deserves love. if you dont believe that everyone deserves love, you do not believe in love. It doesn't affect straight marraiges and a straight guy can go marry 7 girls in 7 years if he wants. Like Celery said, half the marriages in the USA end in divorce, so it's not the holy sacrament religious people are using as a defense. Just let it be.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

Have you also read about the new sex ed programmes that are being forced on families where children are taught all kinds of things regarding sexuality from a young age? Do you really want more sexual confusion in this era? Do you want to force children of traditional families to accept what these families consider 'immoral behaviour'? These reasons and what Fernando stated are why people are furious that their religious freedom is under attack. Essentially this is an attack on Christian morality (I'm personally Hindu and Hinduism states nothing regarding homosexuality, if anything gay rights activists claim Hinduism tolerates homosexuality).

What about Christian skepticism regarding the following? How long until the supreme court legalises those as well (and no I'm not saying that homosexuals are any of the things stated below!)

"If homosexual marriage is universally accepted as the present step in sexual freedom, what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior?"

A perfect example of how undemocratically legalising something causes strife.... Clearly it would have been better if states were allowed to deal with this matter themselves....

If you're gonna legalise gay marriage, make sure the states decide that! If anything, conservative states are right to think that this is discrimination against them.

As for brainwashing, there is no brainwashing against gay marriage. Schools now have major programmes to promote homosexuality and as well as all kinds of Gay-Straight Alliances. The only people discriminated against now are the ones who want to protect traditional marriage, anyone who even dares stand up for their beliefs is punished by the 'GAYstapo'. Have you been reading about all the religious families who've had their ENTIRE CAREERS RUINED because they refused to serve a gay couple as it opposed their religious beliefs? There are countless stories of this, people's careers ruined by the politically correct because they stood up for what they believed was the morally correct......

Look at some of the horrific and disgusting things said about religious people. Imagine if someone religious said this about homosexuals? We'd never hear the end of it! The media would be on it for days! The media loves creating this picture of a victim and a victimiser for publicity, when in reality there are just as many anti-Christian bigots on the pro-gay side of things.

CNN (something which they themselves accepted) did more to promote the legalisation of gay marriage than to protect the definition of marriage. So NO! There is no brainwashing occurring to protect marriage, if anything you could claim the complete opposite.

And no I don't receive FOX News ;p (as a matter of fact I don't even watch TV) and all my views are entirely my own and I don't mindlessly follow everyone else or jump onto bandwagons (something which you could ask my friends about in depth lol regarding new trends like selfies, snapchat etc which I refuse to take part in) Furthermore, there are quite a few atheists who believe in traditional marriage too, so this isn't just a 'baseless religious belief' as many like to label it. One of my close friends is an atheists who supports traditional marriage.

I'm with you on how anyone who defends their religious beliefs is now scrutinized, lose jobs and careers are ended by making any statement that remotely criticizes gays even by 1%.

It's getting to crazy levels now, racism is a far bigger issue and has never been given this kind of support. What happens to dedicated Christian institutions who say they don't want gays to wed in their church?? Will they now be forced to betray the religion which was followed from founding forefathers of America till current descendants???? Let's just hope they will marry in court and not force churches to wed them, otherwise it'll be a disaster.

I was on a political forum where they said a restaurant in Alabama or Indiana (can't remember) was sued and shut down because they refused to sell cake and to a gay couple, because they feel a moral right to their religion. Luckily Christians donated to them to prevent them from losing their whole life's worth.

[Stingray 9,441]

Ah well, belgium had gay marriage since 2003, holland since 2001. No divine vengeance here. Be normal, people should be treated equal. Period.

[NishC300 1,865]

ALSO: Linking homosexuality with incest, pedophilia and bestiality is bad form. There are HUGE differences. Consent being the big one. Homosexuality is exhibited throughout the animal kingdom (read: nature) as well, so there's an argument there for whether it be 'unnatural' or not.

EDIT: I know you aren't saying they are, but I mean that, that is the argument that would stop the next steps, if you get my drift.

Well in many cases of pedphilia there is consent by the kid (wasn't that what allegedly happened in the Adam Johnson case [even though I think it turned out to be a hoax by an attention seeking kid]), also I don't really know how you can understand whether the animal accepts it or not in zoophilia ;p

But the issue is that other sterile relationships like let's say two sisters just happily living together could claim they are married so they can get state marriage benefits.

I'm with you on how anyone who defends their religious beliefs is now scrutinized, lose jobs and careers are ended by making any statement that remotely criticizes gays even by 1%.

It's getting to crazy levels now, racism is a far bigger issue and has never been given this kind of support. What happens to dedicated Christian institutions who say they don't want gays to wed in their church?? Will they now be forced to betray the religion which was followed from founding forefathers of America till current descendants???? Let's just hope they will marry in court and not force churches to wed them, otherwise it'll be a disaster.

I was on a political forum where they said a restaurant in Alabama or Indiana (can't remember) was sued and shut down because they refused to sell cake and to a gay couple, because they feel a moral right to their religion. Luckily Christians donated to them to prevent them from losing their whole life's worth.

And then they say Christian Conservatives are ridiculous when they say there is an attack on Christianity. I'm not Christian but some of this discrimination is worrying. The problem is people show little sympathy for those they don't agree with, as if they're not human.....

It's all part of this new era of political correctness. Where we have to pretend to be offended by everything. This is ofc according to progressives is 'progress'. Recently I read an article on how feminists ruined a scientist's career because he cracked some joke about his wife or something. Will try and find that article.

Ah well, belgium had gay marriage since 2003, holland since 2001. No divine vengeance here. Be normal, people should be treated equal. Period.

How about the religious institutions that are now being bullied by the left?

Pretty sure they call it defensive measures, seeing that Isis have said that UK targets are next.

Indeed, people need to realise that the only reason we have 'peace' is because there are people out there making sure we do...... We sit around in peace because other risk their lives and are out there guarding our borders and protecting our freedom.

That's one of the reasons I find cutting defence spending quite shocking.