Utter TOSH in the JEP

[ole razzy]

The CoM, and therefore I assume what you consider to be 'the establishment', are promoting Civil Partnerships for same sex couples; something Sen. Syvret told me he would not support.

Why do you think it's disgusting, wasteful and stupid to allow homosexuals equal human rights?

How long ago was it that SS said to you that he would not support civil partnerships? I ask because when reading his blog last night he made specific reference to it. He said;

Why is there so much on the web claiming that I'm homophobic?"

Well - in general terms, it's the web - so one's political enemies can write whatever cobblers they choose.

More specifically - I can think of two "reasons" that spring immediately to mind.

And neither of them like me very much.

Both of them represent a failed era - failed political thinking - and failed ideas - and thus both hate me.

Both of them are crazed with jealousy and hatred - even to the extent of trying to use the illegal police raid on my home to try and split me and my partner. Indeed - one of these two "reasons" had prior, inside information about the police raid.

But apart from those two - still I have a number of gay friends - who are great people.

And yes - as I said, I could do with a good party right now - so if any of them are getting hitched, I'd be very happy to attend.

Stuart

[mpwpj]

How long ago was it that SS said to you that he would not support civil partnerships? I ask because when reading his blog last night he made specific reference to it...

It was during his last election campaign for Sen. in '05.  I asked the question of all the candidates, most didn't bother to reply.

Other, successful, candidates who did respond were:

Sen. Le Main; He won't support Civil Partnerships due to his Roman Catholic religious bigotry.
Sen. Perchard; He's fully supportive of Civil Partnerships.
Con. Crowcroft; He's fully supportive of Civil Partnerships also. (he wasn't campaigning, but I asked him and the sitting Sens. and my Deps. at the time)
Sen Cohen; He didn't say what his view was on the subject, but said that if the international human rights legislation said we should he'd agree with them (quite the visionary leader, don't you think )
Sen. Le Sueur; He acknowledged my email, but declined to answer my questions, as he couldn't give a clear answer on this issue or others I'd asked such as:
Would he support legislation to encourage greater recycling and reduction in waste.
Would he support an effort to introduce alternative energy production eg. tidal/wind/etc.

Neither struck me as that controversial an issue that he couldn't make his position clear on??

[Durendal]

Sen. Le Main; He won't support Civil Partnerships due to his Roman Catholic religious bigotry.

To call a man a bigot because his views are different because of his deeeply held religious conviction is a bit toppish.

To be frank as civil partnerships between gay couples seem to implode quite frequently (even more so that marraiges) so perhaps gays will realise it is all a plot by straights to foister misery on them when they have to divorce

[mpwpj]

To call a man a bigot because his views are different because of his deeeply held religious conviction is a bit toppish...

Maybe, but it is also quite correct to call him a bigot, as that is what he is.

If Le Main wants to believe in gods, Santa, the Easter Bunny or fairies I have no problem with that; but he's chosen to be a statesman and part of the legislator, promising to work for the good of ALL people, and religion has no place in the States, none.

If can offer any argument against equal rights on the basis of sexuality, other than because it's the Pope's opinion.  I'll listen, but he doesn't; I'm not even sure if he could, he didn't form his current argument himself.

[ole razzy]

The CoM, and therefore I assume what you consider to be 'the establishment', are promoting Civil Partnerships for same sex couples; something Sen. Syvret told me he would not support.

It was during his last election campaign for Sen. in '05. 

Again from the Senators blog, to quote;

Civil Partnerships?

I’m not a religious person, but I respect the views of those who are. I don’t think it’s for the state to tell churches what they must or mustn’t do. So same-sex “marriages” – in the religious, church sense, is a matter for the church.

But civil partnerships – absolutely no problem at all.

Would you care to speculate or offer some further insight into what appears, if what you have told us is correct, to be a political U-turn by SS?

Would you be in a position to share the contents of his email (if indeed his response to you was written down and not spoken) with us?

It would certainly help to clarify the position.

[mpwpj]

...I’m not a religious person, but I respect the views of those who are. I don’t think it’s for the state to tell churches what they must or mustn’t do. So same-sex “marriages” – in the religious, church sense, is a matter for the church.

But civil partnerships – absolutely no problem at all. [/i]...

My question was put to him at the one on one husting event at the Fort I believe, as I don't recall he replied to my initial email.  It was phrased in the email originally, and read as follows:

"Would you advocate and support changes to legislation to allow and
recognise same sex marriages with all the rights and benefits of traditional
marriages?"

His reply was something along the lines of:- "No, I don't see any need." I won't claim that's verbatim, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

I would suggest that he would not claim this to be a U-turn, but I would also like to know what the difference is, other than name, between:
Marriage
Noun
1. The state of being married.
2. The union of two people, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
3. A wedding.
4. A close union.
5. A joining of two parts.

and

Civil Partnership, which appears to me to be exactly the same thing.

[ole razzy]

So just to clarify; You won't claim that he said that verbatim, it was never put down in writing, and this was four years ago?

[Durendal]

Maybe, but it is also quite correct to call him a bigot, as that is what he is.

If Le Main wants to believe in gods, Santa, the Easter Bunny or fairies I have no problem with that; but he's chosen to be a statesman and part of the legislator, promising to work for the good of ALL people, and religion has no place in the States, none.

If can offer any argument against equal rights on the basis of sexuality, other than because it's the Pope's opinion.  I'll listen, but he doesn't; I'm not even sure if he could, he didn't form his current argument himself.

Actually a member of a parliament works for what he thinks is the good of society therefore if he is opposed to civil partnerships that is his call.

As I have to keep on repeating a memeber is a representative not a mouthpiece who votes as the mob wishes.

BTW a Bigot is a person whose intolerence is borders on hatred This is not the case here I think

[mpwpj]

So just to clarify; You won't claim that he said that verbatim, it was never put down in writing, and this was four years ago?

Yes, I can't be much clearer than I have been.

[mpwpj]

Actually a member of a parliament works for what he thinks is the good of society therefore if he is oppossed to civil partnerships that is his call...

Fair point, but don't you agree that when acting on behalf of societies best interests they should be able to provide a reason for their decisions.

I don't think that Le Main, or any politician, is doing his job as a representative if he goes into debate closed-minded and unwilling to listen to reason because of any personal religious beliefs.

[rogueelement]

Excuse me! Someone may or may not have religious beliefs , who the hell are you to judge?
People have their own ingrained beliefs through social mores , they have educational beliefs and they have to some degree inherited beliefs from their parents. I might be an agnostic , but I am damn sure I will not taint my children with my views, they can have an education as I did and make up their own minds.I might once have had deeply left wing views and through experience and life those views have changed .Formerly most of the guys I knew would have been rabidly homophobic, a few still are, and that is their call ,you have your opinion, social and sexual and political mores other people have theirs , that is an entitlement , a luxury of living in an enlightened age. Enjoy whatever it is you enjoy and be slightly less patronising of those who are not quite as free thinking as you might be.
Bias , bigotry, works both ways.

[mpwpj]

Excuse me! Someone may or may not have religious beliefs , who the hell are you to judge?...  ...Enjoy whatever it is you enjoy and be slightly less patronising of those who are not quite as free thinking as you might be.
Bias , bigotry, works both ways.

I admit that I'm a bigot in that I don't agree with and find Terry Le Main's stance offensive.  Not because he's religious, but because he wants to prevent other people enjoying the freedom to live their lives because of their sexuality; something that does not effect how he lives his life one iota.

The difference is I'm prevented from living freely by Le Main's bigotry, whereas he's not effected at all by mine, so I can't just go and enjoy life as I would want.

[Durendal]

I admit that I'm a bigot in that I don't agree with and find Terry Le Main's stance offensive.  Not because he's religious, but because he wants to prevent other people enjoying the freedom to live their lives because of their sexuality; something that does not effect how he lives his life one iota.

The difference is I'm prevented from living freely by Le Main's bigotry, whereas he's not effected at all by mine, so I can't just go and enjoy life as I would want.

I am quite affected too!

[ole razzy]

The difference is I'm prevented from living freely by Le Main's bigotry, whereas he's not effected at all by mine, so I can't just go and enjoy life as I would want.

Yeah I guess just thinking about Terry Le Main is enough to put anybody off sex.