Ravenscar said:-

That is exactly what I was saying in the 70's when I used to have big arguments with a couple of long haired pro-labour party tossers in my department at work. It was during the time when Labour were choosing their new Prime Minister to replace Wilson with Callaghan and these blokes were rooting for Michael Foot instead. I kept arguing that Foot was too much an enthusiast for the Soviet Union and would deliver us to them if he ever got in to power. These blokes just laughed at me that the Soviets would not be interested in useless Britain. We were down and out, a complete joke.
I kept saying that they would do so, because if the Soviet enthusiasts in the Labour Party could drag Britain down then the Left elsewhere could drag any other country down.
Cue much laughter.

So, Ravenscar, we were right!

If we can discover that we might be able to compel them to re-introduce the death penalty for treason, and corruption while holding a public office.

Sorry John, spotted this on the news yesterday. Looks as though TB's trying to re-invent himself again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21576509

ELF, other than the 21st Century Wire article I previously referenced to, this is the only coroboration that I have found - in Wikepedia, about half way down. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi

Watchet

On the original subject.
We should bear in mind that opinion polls in Australia and New Zealand show a 2-1 majority in favour of gay marriage. Is that EU/Council of Europe driven?

We should bear in mind that 4 US states voted to approve gay marriage in referendums last November. Is that the work of "European" elitist social engineering?

Or is it simply that Western society is waking up to the fact that it's a simple piece of fairness.

Nick,

I fully agree on the fairness thing, but there are two separate issues here.

1. Should homosexuals be allowed to form unions recognised for tax and inheritance purposes as equivalent to those of married couples?

I think most people would answer yes to that. I do.

2. Should private individuals and organisations be forced by law into accepting these unions as a 'marriage', equivalent in all social, psychological and moral terms (to be clear — those individuals' and organisations' OWN social, psychological and moral terms) to the marriage between a man and a woman?

Well, should they?

If so, what is the desired effect: fairness, or mind control dressed up in the clothes of fairness (and exceedingly skimpily at that)?

There is also many states in the US that rejected pink marriage.

It isn't a case of fairness, that came in the form of civil partnerships, exactly the same rights afforded to hetrosexual married couples.

In my opinion it's a concerted campaign by militant homosexuals who have the politically correct shi*tbags on board, they are not really bothered as having equal married status as hetros, purely & simply they want to turn normality on its head.

We all know what will happen, if a priest refuses to marry them, we'll see him/her the in the dock for discrimination. But it's odds on none will have the courage to demand an Imam marries them.

Stonewall, are a dangerous, rotten organisation, like almost every organisation in this country, filled with people that hate this country & its traditional way of life.

Next on the list will be the eradication of mother & father, all official forms will be changed to parent 1, parent 2, they will be genda neutral, man or woman will be airbrushed out.

I see letmethink & Vincent have no problem with pink marriage being made legal, I hope they also have no problem with their role as dad being consigned to the bin.

They have their 'rights' civil partnerships.

As said on another post, this is all academic, if predictions are right and white English become a minority and muslims end up ruling roost, all bets are off, so is pink marriage and all that goes with it.

Edited by user 27 February 2013 16:14:27(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

State to state relations, I think are rather good (by the standards of the region) - there is no particular bone of contention between them.

There are secondary matters which are problems. Greece is wary of Bulgaria's nuclear plant(s) (safety issues) and Greece gets upset when Bulgarian rivers flood upstream and they never inform the Greeks (the flooding spills over into Greek territory). Furthermore, both countries don't like the FYR of Macedonia (for different reasons) and both countries have an active ethnic Turkish minority of which they are wary.

Greek citizens are finding it easy to relocate their businesses in Bulgaria and taking advantage of cheaper labour and much less red tape. Greeks living near the border often shop in Bulgaria taking advantage of the price differences. There has not been any great influx of Bulgarians into Greece.

Edited by user 27 February 2013 17:19:07(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I cannot recall ever having 'been at your throat' (unless I was drunk I wouldn't have wasted my time), though I'm flattered that I seem to mean something significant to you. I've never shied away from conflict, verbal or physical, however, I noticed some time ago that while those who assail me here seem to have carte blanche to make all sorts of baseless assumptions and offensive remarks about me, singly and in concert, my often lengthy and considered replies are invariably deleted almost immediately, with a warning from the administrator.

You're welcome to engage in whatever verbal jousts and sparing keep you amused and prevent you from annoying others but you'll be wasting your time as past experience here suggests that I'd be wasting my time taking you seriously.

I used to think maybe you could appeal to their better nature.

Then I realised that they don't have a better nature...