Mitolyn Reviews- Safe Pure Cbd For...
How it Works2 mins ago
Gay Marriage …. Again
With the gay marriage debate taking place tonight in parliament, despite the numerous threads on the subject, I’ve yet to see one valid reason for opposition. Does anyone have one? Please, if you see no problem in it, don’t answer. I just want a valid reason for opposing it – and simply not liking the idea does not qualify as a valid reason.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Surely the function of parliament is to do what is 'right' for the country.”
No it is not, Khandro. The function of Parliament is to do what the electorate thinks is right for the country. Unfortunately in recent years the voters have been envisaged as far too ignorant to decide on matters of State. Well be that as it may, MPs are elected to Parliament to represent the wishes of their constituents. Alas it was Tony Blair who said, within a short time of taking office, that MPs are there to ensure the executive gets its programme through the House and this view has increasingly taken hold.
“The electorate is not cognisant of what underlies most major issues whereas parliamentarians are, (or should be.) “
Yes they certainly should be but they have shown time and again that they are not. And in any case, once again, it is the will of the people they represent that should sway the day otherwise we need not bother electing MPs. Instead we could simply allow the Prime Minister to appoint an executive and simply ignore the public. This is virtually what happens anyway for four and a half of each five year term and this very issue is testament to that. It was not in either the Conservative or LibDem manifesto; it was not in the Coalition agreement; it was not a matter needing urgent attention; there were not huge swathes of the electorate clamouring for it as most of them would prefer MPs to spend their time on matters of importance to the majority of the country (of which there are plenty) instead of matters which are of limited importance to a small minority.
No it is not, Khandro. The function of Parliament is to do what the electorate thinks is right for the country. Unfortunately in recent years the voters have been envisaged as far too ignorant to decide on matters of State. Well be that as it may, MPs are elected to Parliament to represent the wishes of their constituents. Alas it was Tony Blair who said, within a short time of taking office, that MPs are there to ensure the executive gets its programme through the House and this view has increasingly taken hold.
“The electorate is not cognisant of what underlies most major issues whereas parliamentarians are, (or should be.) “
Yes they certainly should be but they have shown time and again that they are not. And in any case, once again, it is the will of the people they represent that should sway the day otherwise we need not bother electing MPs. Instead we could simply allow the Prime Minister to appoint an executive and simply ignore the public. This is virtually what happens anyway for four and a half of each five year term and this very issue is testament to that. It was not in either the Conservative or LibDem manifesto; it was not in the Coalition agreement; it was not a matter needing urgent attention; there were not huge swathes of the electorate clamouring for it as most of them would prefer MPs to spend their time on matters of importance to the majority of the country (of which there are plenty) instead of matters which are of limited importance to a small minority.
I suspect I was being tongue in cheek, craft. :o)
I'm sure that gay people want to get married for exactly the range of reasons that heterosexuals do.
It's not a matter of 'aping' straight marriage, it is a commitment before friends and family that you desire to be joined to your partner for life.
And there is *no* compunction for any religious establishments to perform the ceremonies, but at the conclusion of the ceremony the participants will be married and not Civil-partnered.
I'm sure that gay people want to get married for exactly the range of reasons that heterosexuals do.
It's not a matter of 'aping' straight marriage, it is a commitment before friends and family that you desire to be joined to your partner for life.
And there is *no* compunction for any religious establishments to perform the ceremonies, but at the conclusion of the ceremony the participants will be married and not Civil-partnered.
new judge; I really do beg to differ from your simplistic view of politics. If your approach was undertaken by an endless series of referendum, we would certainly see a return to the death penalty in the UK (are you in favour?) also take a look at what the populous would have in Greece and Cyprus vis-a-vis their finances- it would be a blueprint for a disaster. The majority I'm afraid, is most often wrong.
