Saturday, 14 April 2012

EQUAL MARRIAGE IN THANET

This a Thanet Watch report of the meeting held in Margate on April 12th about equal marriage.


Film from the meeting last Thursday

71 comments:

  1. Presumably the lack of shots of the audience and the almost total silence in which the speakers points were received would indicate that hardly anyone was there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe he is a shirt lifter?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Statistics produced by Oxford University indicate that in England and Wales nearly twice as many men as women attempt suicide. If we use this and apply the logic of the lady speaker, the one who read from her notes, it would suggest that men feel less equal than women and are more discriminated against. Perhaps positive discrimination has gone too far.

    I merely make this point to demonstrate that you can find a statistic somewhere to support any case you wish to present. Be that as it may, however, the government have called for consultation and opinion on their proposal to introduce same sex civil marriages. They have not asked for potentially divisive debate on the rights or wrongs of same sex marriage which is what these three speakers were going on about.

    Frankly this is just another bandwagon for Cllrs. Driver and Worrow and one where they seek to create division, force people to state where they stand on the issue, as John Worrow tried with Nigel Farage though he was out of his league, and then leap in with their accusations of homophobia and bigotry.

    The joke is though, as Peter Checksfield has pointed out elsewhere, most of the Margate LGBT community could not care less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that last point is proven by this video Tom.

      I'm not sure how many people were there, but I strongly suspect that the speakers outnumbered the audience (unless they'd fallen asleep).

      Delete
    2. I refute that last point. the vast majority of LGBT people, their friends and family and others in Margate and the rest of the country are fully supportive of the change proposed by the Tory government.

      Incidentally, I would point out that LGBT people do not live in a separate community, somewhere on the other side of town. They live in our community. They are our family, colleagues and mates.

      Delete
    3. So where were these "outraged constituents who wanted to register their disgust" & the "lots of people planning to attend the meeting in Margate" that Ian Driver told the BBC then? The fact is that this meeting got LOTS of publicity, yet (it seems) hardly anyone felt strongly enough to actually turn up.

      Can anyone confirm exactly how many people were there?

      Delete
  4. The Tooting Popular Front has more followers than these two!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That comment about the Tooting Popluar Front shows your age!

      Even UKIP don't know which way to flop on this issue next

      Delete
  5. So there were three of them there, plus the cameraperson. Glad I opted to spend the evening in the garden watching the grass grow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Surely everyone understands by now that homosexuality is a natural and normal feature of humanity. Once we accept gay people then marriage naturally follows.

    Can't Roger Gale understand how hurtful the current highly publicised comments from him and the church leaders are? How would he feel if his own relationship with his third wife were the subject of a public national debate, lead by supposedly caring people, focussing one whether it is abnormal, an abomination, immoral, unnatural. obscene, grotesque and a shame on the UK etc etc? And whether it is a threat to the family, children and the whole of society?

    And where in the Bible does it say that it is the role of Christians to judge other people and exclude them from "normal" society?

    The fact that it has been traditional to persecute gay and lesbian people is not a valid reason for continung it, anymore than racsim etc. And the fact that some people don't feel quite ready to refrain from doing so is not a goor reason for continuing to demean, decry and abuse a minority of people who do no harm to anyone.

    A successful marriage between two people of the opposite sex can be a wonderful thing. If it is made in a Christian context that is great. Likewise a marriage of two people of the same sex can be a wonderful thing.

    It is nonsense to suggest, as is being done, that same sex marriage can in any way threaten or damage opposite sex marriages.

    The Churches and Roger Gale should be welcoming everybody and not perpetuating poison and hatred.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1:49, whether you are an activist or not, I'm not quite sure, but either way, you are being hoodwinked by something very sinister indeed.

      There is a very good reason for the strong christian belief in marriage and family values and that is, to ensure the survival and upward mobility of the species.

      Anything else will lead to disaster, and the illuminati know this, that is why they are nudging us down this road.

      This business of equal marriage is a small piece of the puzzle, but destruction of the family, en route to a totalitarian communist nightmare, is the larger agenda, you can find it in the communist manifesto and countless writings and novels of elitist insiders.

      Delete
    2. Since we all know Ian Driver's political stance, this actually makes sense. For once our old conspiracy theorist has a very valid point. On the other hand, with world population problems and China buying up the world's natural resources, maybe sex education in schools should be Clause 28 in reverse where the only choice is homosexuality. Might make the grub last a bit longer, end teenage pregnancies as well as potentiallly sorting out the pensions timebomb!

      Delete
    3. 12:40 - I shouldn't be too worried mate, I think we're still some way from the human race dying out. But no doubt if we get to that point God will have no problem giving my boyfriend an immaculate conception. He's quite willing and even prepared to replace the whole 7 billion if necessary. We've got absolute faith in Him.

      Delete
    4. Might make his eyes water a bit in the delivery room.

      Delete
    5. @12:59, so you think the world is overpopulated? Well you know the old saying, "change the world but begin with yourself."

      @1:31, yeah but, survival of the fittest? The elites are nothing more than a bunch of inbred degenerate psychopaths. If that sack of pus is the new gene pool, I'm afraid humanity is doomed.

      Delete
    6. Well, 7:14, if it is the survival of the fittest, then that will be Ian Driver and most politicians for that matter, along with a fair few fat union leaders, amongst the first to go. Good chance though that there will be a high percentage of Royal Marines, Paras, Rockapes and Special Forces in the new gene pool. Where exactly would that leave you?

      Delete
    7. @7:49 There is a good chance that a high percentage of Royal Marines, Paras, Rockapes and Special Forces will be infertile, (at best), unless they have been issued with a tall stack of memo's instructing them of which 'hazards' to avoid.

      Delete
    8. Well, in that case, we will die out anyway so that rather negates your claims of an inbred, upper crust gene pool. Back to the drawing board, sunshine, for another bit of quick repartee. On second thoughts, please don't bother on my account.

      Delete
    9. @4:06, none of that makes any sense.

      Delete
    10. What a shame. Try reading it standing on your head and you might get a rush of inspiration.

      Delete
    11. Or at least a hard-on!

      Delete
  7. It is quite the norm for no one to show up at their meetings. At least Worrow kept his cool this time and didn't start shouting at elderly people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This would be the elderly people that weren't because no one turned up there would it?

      Delete
  8. what comes first adult gay rights or children’s rights ?

    what about the child's right to be brought up by a mother and a father and not adopted to two mums or dads ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's wrong with being brought up by two members of the same sex?

      Delete
    2. Why don't you ask the thousands of same sex couples who already have children? There are no restrictions on same sex couples adopting children so why bring up that topic at all when discussing marriage.

      Delete
  9. Low end of 30s I'd say inc. 7 Labour Councillors along with the TIG.

    Driver was corrected by the audience when he said there were no differences between civil partnerships and marriages.

    Before anyone puts up their version of events, I interrupted at the end after hearing Driver come out with his crud about bloggers again. On reflection I regret it but I'm proved right, reading the thread on BNM. Tony did apologise and delete the comment. Ian denied that was the case.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shock horror, my view is that Ian driver like several of his colleagues across the spectrum does not wish to loose face,

    It does seem we are in a period of rampant HETROPHOBIA. god knows there are more serious issues in this world at the end of the days a handful of people are creating a storm over nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it's such a trivial issue and costs nothing to implement then for heavens sake just change the law and make it equal. The only people wasting time and money on the issue are the churches. Haven't they got better things to do with their time and money?

      The govt aren't fannying around they said they're going to do it. It's the church and Roger Gale that are wasting everyboy's time!

      Delete
  11. David Icke Interviews Brian Gerrish about Common Purpose
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzyCU5B3j3s

    diversity courses – are they trying to change peoples view points ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Given that Roger Gale's church was founded by a hereditary dictator who famously had six wives & got rid of two of them by cutting their heads off, I suppose it might be regarded as moral progress that Roger himself has (so far) had only half that number and has not himself resorted to the axe.

    I am very happy for our MP to have whatever religious beliefs he likes (whether or not he practices them) but I would hope that he could himself appreciate that others are entitled to the freedom to live their lives on an equal basis, according to their own ethics, without discrimination in the civil law

    Dorothy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dorothy, do you consider it reasonable debate to make sneering remarks about a man's marriages when you cannot possible know anything about the circumstances that caused his break ups. Perhaps you should look closer at your own champion, Ian Driver. Claiming on line to be Mr Nice Guy and father to three daughters, he later confesses to bisexuality, presumably another of our natural states. That must be really comforting and reassuring to know for the mother of his children.

      Charles

      Delete
    2. Who are we talking about here, Henry VIII or Roger Gale?

      Delete
    3. Read Dorothy's comment a little more carefully, 12:23, and you will find your answer.

      Delete
    4. Dear Charles

      I agree I know nothing about the particular circumstances of Roger Gale's two marrital breakdowns. It's none of my business and frankly I have no interest in it. I made the point only to illustrate that he himself, by his own admission, did not follow the teaching of his church. Fortunately for him the civil law does not follow anglican church law & bar divorced people from re-marriage.

      Roger, however, wishes the law of his church, insofar as it appertains to LGBTI marriages, to be translated into the civil law. In short, he wants one law for himself and another for other people.

      As for sneering, how do you think gay and lesbian couples whose presently unrecognised marriages mean as much to them as anyone else, who may be deeply religious and regard their relationships as sacred and made before god, must feel about the highly publicised remarks they have had to endure from Roger Gale and his associates during the recent publicity? Not to mention some of the awful comments made above.

      If Roger feels upset by what I said, then let it be a lesson to him about using his position of power to voice his prejudices about people "he cannot possibly know"

      Dorothy

      Delete
    5. Dorothy, I note you make no mention about how compatible bisexuality is to marriage and parenthood. You simply want to castigate Roger Gale for daring to be opposed to same sex marriage.

      Pray tell me, what is wrong with different names for different types of relationships and, if you are religious, surely all are made before God regardless of what we call them.

      I am with others who have commented here, that this whole business is causing division where there was none and is setting back universal acceptance of same sex unions by years. However, if you feel so strongly that you are right, go proclaim your opinion in a mosque instead of picking on us Christians all the time.

      Charles

      Delete
    6. Charles - 1.32 - the only division it's caused is in the Thanet Tory party!

      Delete
    7. Then why was John Worrow in it. After all, he only left over Birchington parking so he says, not homophobia. That all came later when the bandwagon got rolling. Grow up whoever you are. Most serious homophobia, particularly the physical assault type, is carried out by low life yobs, not Tories. It is, after all, a Tory led government that is proposing to introduce same sex marriage which Labour failed to do in thirteen years in power.

      Charles

      Delete
    8. Charles, are we coming closer together on this? Personally I can see no reason for denying civil law recognition of marriages of couples of the same sex and I am pleased and proud that it is a the Tories that are bringing it in. As you say, there was no sign of Labour doing it during their tenure in government. I think the things that David Cameron and Theresa May in particular have said have been especially thoughtful and show the party in a very good light.

      I fully agree that no faith group that is not ready to do so should be forced to host such marriages and the government are not seeking to do so. I do however accept the right of those religious groups who welcome same sex couples to host marriages and this should be allowed.

      I remember many years ago being told by a friend who had visited California that he had seen a sign at the door of the Los Angeles Country Club that read "No Blacks, No Jews". I fully agree with the leader I read a while back in (the Independent?) that said that no civilised society should exclude LGBTI people from marrying in the year 2012.

      With the greatest respect
      Dorothy

      Delete
    9. Not sure we are really closer on this issue, Dorothy, for I still fail to see why same sex unions should not continue to be called civil partnerships which bestow the same legal rights as marriage. The civil marriage proposal is fraught with potential legal and human rights issues for, as the Strassbourg Court has already indicated, if same sex marriage is legalised in a country it could be a denial of human rights for a church to then refuse to marry a same sex couple. You can be sure that some chancer like Worrow will try it on the minute it becomes law and some unfortunate vicar will be dragged off to court.

      The parrallel you draw with the California sign is irrelevant. The LGBT folk are not banned from entry anywhere though I would suggest there are now clubs in this country where no hetrosexual male would feel comfortable.

      Charles

      Delete
    10. Charles, Roger Gale's fellow conservative, David Davies, has already asked the "Stassbourg Court" question to Stonewall, the Equalities Office and the Government. All have refuted it.

      Instead of spreading scare stories I suggest that Roger Gale should follow the same example as his fellow conservative and ask the relevant questions first to get the correct answer.

      Here are is David Davies blog with the replies from Stonewwall, Equalites office and the Home office.

      I have no idea what you mean by clubs where no hetrosexual male would feel comfortable.

      Delete
    11. Then presumably you are not a hetrosexual male.

      Delete
    12. Anon 05:34 (just for indentification purposes as you were surely not blogging at that hour), lawyers are renown for giving conflicting views. Those of the Church of England consider a challenge inevitable, if same sex marriage is legalised, and the Strassbourg Court have indicated that, in those circumstances, a case brought under the denial of human rights could succeed. That is not scaremongering, but the other side of the professional opinion on the issue that abounds at this time.

      Mind you if it comes about, I think the Conservative party might as well go the whole hog, stick their heads between their legs and kiss their arses goodbye for it is their core voters thay are most antagonising. Now that should please you.

      Charles

      Delete
  13. Thanks for the video, I wanted to attend to show my support for gay marriage but couldn't make it. It's useful for all of us who couldn't attend.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you're all so proud to be gay then why do you contribute anonymously?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it's easier to log on as anonymous and anyway we don't want to make our names public and get beaten up or have abuse directed our way. Haven't you read hate crime towards gay people is still widespread in the UK.

      Delete
    2. By the way, are you THE Peter Checksfield?

      Delete
    3. No, I don't think he's That one. I'm told he's one of the Thanet Checksfields

      Delete
    4. Oh. good; at least he's not just some nobody

      Delete
    5. It's because these are all the same person Peter.

      Delete
  15. So any couple should have the freedom to marry without interference from the church or state? Does that include brother and sister, father and daughter, first cousins, two brothers, a man and a chimpanzee or where exactly does the church/state draw the line. Can't you people see that a union between a man and a woman is different to that of two same sex people and there really is no inequality in calling such by different names.

    Tony is absolutely right when he refers to hetrophobia. It is rampant with Driver and Worrow who seem determined to cause division and friction where none existed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So any couple should have the freedom to marry without interference from the church or state? Does that include brother and sister, father and daughter, first cousins, two brothers, a man and a chimpanzee or where exactly does the church/state draw the line"

      Give up Mick, what's the answer?

      We're only talking about SS marriage, haven't got a clue what you taking about.

      Delete
    2. Would that be a male or female chimp?

      Delete
    3. How about bigamy? That's perfectly legal and acceptable in many cultures, why can't we have it here?

      Delete
    4. SS marriage? Is that something to do with the master race like mating blond, Prussian women with blonde, blue eyed heroes from the Eastern front? Think the point is that different unions can have different names without causing inequality.

      On the male or female chimp I suppose it depends on your NATURAL inclination.

      Bigamy, where it is legal, it is not called bigamy.

      Delete
    5. OK, "multi-partner marriage" then?

      And why shouldn't 12 year olds marry in this country?

      My point is that just because some things work in some countries doesn't mean they'ye ok for the UK, & same sex marriage is one of those things.

      Delete
    6. 12:25, Mick Thorne's question isn't as crazy as it sounds. The problem with moral relativism in cases like this is that lines over permissible and non-permissible are drawn somewhere in the middle, and, being human, we tend to have subjective feelings about where those lines should be drawn - often differing from one person in the street to the next. We can scoff and claim that this does not open doors to brother-sister or human-animal marriages, but if we allow SS-marriage, we are basically eroding objective values of right and wrong, thus undermining the credibility of future arguments against other relationships not being allowed to lead to marriage.

      Delete
    7. Yes, Mick Thorne's question is absolutely crazy as everyone knows.

      He suggests that same sex marriage will lead , for example, a person marrying a chimp. Does that mean that if I go to Spain where same sex marriage is legal then I will be able to marry a chimp as well.

      Delete
    8. No chimps come from Africa not Spain!

      Delete
    9. Gibralter would be a better destination if a hairy lover is your forté.

      Delete
  16. There's 2 boys living next to us and I think they're lovely. As far as I'm concerned all those religious nutters should mind their own business. Miserable sods.

    Iris - aged 74

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, of course you are a 74 year old lady living next to two 'lovely boys' who thinks religious nutters are miserable sods, Iris. We all believe you, dear, but should you be up at this hour in the morning and computing as well.

      Delete
    2. I must agree 1:41, as psy-ops go, this one is rather poor, it is just so fake and cartoonish.

      Delete
    3. It is actually getting more like psy-warfare at the moment with the dire threats of reporting blogsites. Wonder who the 74 year old Iris was and what the bookies odds would be. Maybe 5/4 Worrow, 7/3 Driver and 3/1 Christine and Tara Plumbing?

      Delete
    4. None of the above...hope you didn't put too much money on the bet! What about a bet on whether Roger Gale's attempt to scupper same sex marriage will succeed or whether he will retire in the next election with a handshake from David Cameron's and a good riddance from the rest of us.

      Delete
    5. "It is actually getting more like psy-warfare at the moment"

      I hear you, 12.51, but how are they trying to kill us, with laughter? Driver looks like Homer Simpson.

      Delete
  17. I always sign my own name! Christine (the film maker)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why I did not make you the favourite, dear.

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive and anonymous derogatory comments about real people will be deleted. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.