Congratulations Iain

May 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pm by David Farrar

Congratulations to top UK blogger Iain Dale, will be “tying the knot” with his partner John Simmons next month. I just hope they are not away of their honey moon when I am visiting in late June!

Iain’s blog is an invaluable source of information on UK politics, and a lot of fun.

He has some good quotes on tax and spending today from a Labour MP.  Yes a MP:

My friends on the Left will insist that the correct Labour response is to raise taxes and break away from what they call neo-liberal economic policies. But when the state Hoovers up nearly two thirds of a trillion pounds from national income, describing such economics as neo-liberal is to mock language.

I love it how people use that term as some sort of nasty insult they almost spit out. You neo-liberal you.

When trade unions and the Fabians invented what became the 20th-century Labour Party, no working man or woman paid any tax. It was easy to call for higher taxes because only the Tory-voting bourgeoisie paid them. Now working people are faced with massive deductions from their pay. There is some compensation for those on low incomes with young children, but a third of the voters in the London mayoral elections were single or childless people. The tired references to “hard-working families” upset all the voters who live by themselves, do not have children at home and are denied tax credits.

A massive amount of tax is paid by people and churned back to them, and this is very wasteful – it is money just flushed down the drain due to the cost of that churn.

And as in NZ, the Government there seems to regard tax credits as the same thing as . There is a big difference between what is effectively a welfare payment and letting people keep more of their own money.

I do not know of a single minister who privately does not despair at the waste of money on pointless projects, publications, or legions of press officers that add no value. The taxpayer has given more than £1 billion of aid to India, even though that great country has more billionaires and millionaires than Britain and runs its own well-financed development aid programme.

I wonder how much we give to India?

The notion that cost-cutting is something the Right does is nonsense. The great firms of Britain, such as Marks and Spencer, BP, Corus and BA, have had their fortunes turned round by ruthless pruning of costs, thus forcing managers to think differently as they are told to cut budgets if they want to save their jobs. And in doing so they not only keep their jobs but find the companies they run are walking tall again.

I don’t think Labour has ever met a cost it didn’t increase! Cost cutting is not something nasty or slash and burn. It is what one should be doing every year. The problem is when someone else is funding those costs, your incentive to keep them low is minimal.

Tags: , , , ,

51 Responses to “Congratulations Iain”

  1. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    We don’t give ANY money to India.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. sean14 (62 comments) says:

    Another blog I must add to my reading list!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    We don’t give ANY money to India.

    This. At least based on http://www.nzaid.govt.nz/programmes/.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Steve Withers (98 comments) says:

    “I don’t think Labour has ever met a cost it didn’t increase! ”

    It’s a funny line, but it isn’t true or fair. I know people who work in various ministries and there is constant pressure to contain costs. One statutory body I know of has reduced its head count significantly over time as policy changes intended to reduce costs have kicked in and the need for those services declined accordingly. My wife (still) works there. It is not an isolated example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Scott (1,710 comments) says:

    2 men marrying each other?? What’s to celebrate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    love?

    Er what’s your point lyndon? I would say it’s possible that we give to NGOs that work *in* India though. Possibly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. LabourMustBeLiquidated (288 comments) says:

    A couple of fags playing house together. Like Scott said “Whats to celebrate?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Kimble (4,383 comments) says:

    You know what they say about bigots, though. They secretly luuuurve the cock.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    To men honeymooning together? Sounds very neo-liberal to me. Amongst other things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. David Farrar (1,856 comments) says:

    God it never fails to amaze me how petty and small minded some people are. Any couple who decide to make a life long commitment to each other is worth celebrating. How effing insecure do you have to be, to have a problem with that.

    Iain is a wildly successful publisher, blogger, and buinessman. He is arguably the leading online voice for the Conservatives in the UK. But in your eyes he is just a “fag”. How very very sad for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    We hear regularly of the economic ‘miracle’ that is India and the large number of Indian millionaires.

    I’ve asked this question before but not yet seen any half plausible answer:

    Does anybody know how many taxpayers there are in India (population approx 1,000m)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Interestingly George Monbiot called the UK Labour government “The most rightwing government Britain has had since the Second World War”. He’s pissed with them too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    What’s to celebrate? How about at least two married men who will not have to put up with a nagging wife????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Mr Farrar

    Speaking only for myself (of course), I never used the term ‘fag’ and never would. It’s not very helpful and tends to upset people.

    The point is that you refer to two men ‘tying the knot’ and ‘honeymooning’.

    It sounds odd, queer even, to me. I always thought that these things are done by a man and a woman when they marry.

    Marriage is a solemn as well as joyous insititution which unites a man and woman and is ideally a pre-condition for starting a family. Clearly your two friends can’t do this.

    To speak in defence of marriage and the family does not make me small minded, petty, or – to borrow the term often used mischeviously by the queer lobby – homophobic.

    One other thing: the fact that your friend Iain is ‘wildly successful’ is irrelevant.

    [DPF: So if a 50 year old man and woman were to announce they were getting married, would you disapprove of that because they cannot produce children?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Rex Widerstrom (5,276 comments) says:

    Heh, ROWIWOR has just provided the strongest argument yet for pseudonymous blog contributions… keeping yout testicles intact :-D

    However, on the primary topic (or one of them, anyway)… I’m all for cost cutting where the costs being cut are wastage, or switching to a supplier who can provide equal quality at less cost. But all too often lazy leaders – in business and in politics – who lack the vision to improve the productive side of the equation resort to cutting costs to improve profits even when those “costs” are human beings. And also, all too frequently, the savings are not reinvested in the business but distributed to the executives responsible for the slashing and burning as “productivity bonuses”.

    Certainly there are examples of intelligent cost reduction that have turned firms around and ensured their survival. But there’s also examples of businesses which have been effectively crippled by erosion of their productive capacity, leaving them good for only one thing – a takeover target. Again the executives walk away with bonuses while employees and small investors are left with (next to) nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. bubbsie (11 comments) says:

    So we have an IAN ” marrying” a JOHN and FARRAR going on honeymoon with them !!! FFS david get a reality check.. thats the sort of Sxxxx Labour MPs get up to.!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    To speak in defence of marriage and the family does not make me small minded, petty, or – to borrow the term often used mischeviously by the queer lobby – homophobic.

    No, Kiwitoffee, it just seems to bring out the ignoramus in folks like “LabourMustBeLiquidated” and “Bubbsie”. While we’re talking about misuse of language, in my house a faggot is a bundle of sticks use to light a fire, dykes are long walls or banks built to keep out the sea, and “queer” is used to describe someone or something dishonest or disreputable.

    How about an exchange of linguistic prisoners?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    kiwitoffee:
    “To speak in defence of marriage and the family does not make me small minded, petty, or – to borrow the term often used mischeviously by the queer lobby – homophobic.”

    Hear, hear! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Craig Ranapia

    Faggots and dykes are off-limits for me too. (I’m talking vocabulary here).

    I use the term queer because I think it’s been taken on by the queer community as an acceptable term for us all to use. I could be wrong.

    You’re right to highlight language as an important part of this debate. The queers – I’m not using this as a term of abuse at all – have manipulated it to suit their purposes. For example, listen to almost anything Mr Tim Barnett has to say.

    I don’t welcome the perversion of our language. I’m trying to remind myself and others of what marriage, tying the knot and honeymooning actually mean.

    No matter how much they wish they could (that’s odd in itself), two men can’t do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    No matter how much they wish they could (that’s odd in itself), two men can’t do it.

    You mean have children? Well, my foster brother and his wife can’t either. Please tell them that their marriage is worthless or second rate, and where I can send your remains when they’ve done with you. You want to talk about the value of marriage, then let’s make that conversation a reality-based one. Starting with the simple statement of fact that the United Kingdom doesn’t allow same-sex marriage but civil partnership, and doesn’t require anyone to pass a fertility test before entering into a civil marriage.

    And if I’ve got to explain to you why sneers like “two fags playing house” piss me off, you’re never going to get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. LabourMustBeLiquidated (288 comments) says:

    Homosexuality is just an addiction. Those suffering from this disgusting dysfunction are deserving only of our pity at best, at worst our contempt.

    [DPF: Bigotry is just an addiction. Those suffering from this disgusting dysfunction are deserving only of our pity at best, at worst our contempt]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,065 comments) says:

    Marriage isn’t an unchanging timeless institution – in most of the world (and for most of western history) it was and is a financial arrangement in which an older man essentially buys a young girl (in others the family of a young girl pay an older man to take their child off their hands). Marriage is whatever we say it is, not some changeless platonic concept that exists outside of time.
    In the west it currently describes the union of a man and woman who are romantically in love – but that’s a very new and radical concept. If we decide it includes gay couples then we’re not changing it anymore than we already have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Craig Ranapia

    Oh dear. You’ve missed the point. (Not for the first time either, if I my memory serves me well).

    How you get from two men not being able to marry and have children to…

    ‘Well, my foster brother and his wife can’t either. Please tell them that their marriage is worthless or second rate, and where I can send your remains when they’ve done with you. ‘

    …is beyond me.

    Is that supposed to be funny…clever…intimidating? Or just silly? It makes me wonder whether there is any point in discussing the issue further with you.

    I never used the term ‘two fags playing house’. Again, it’s not very helpful. Please, at least direct your criticism at the right person.

    And have a nice afternoon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rex Widerstrom (5,276 comments) says:

    Okay so the idea advanced by British Labour MP Denis MacShane and supported by DPF that cost cutting is nothing but positive engages no one, but what people do – or don’t do, or can’t do – in their bedroom vexes everyone.

    I’ve never understood it, so instead I’ll simply quote from “Bottom”:

    Richie: What did we do? What did we do?
    Eddie: Well it’s your fault for touching up the burly Ferris wheel attendant.
    Richie: I thought she was a girl.
    Eddie: They were pectorals you fool!
    Richie: Well she had an earring.
    Eddie: Yeah, through HER foreskin.
    Richie: Yes, which I found out later much to my distress!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kimble (4,383 comments) says:

    “Homosexuality is just an addiction. Those suffering from this disgusting dysfunction are deserving only of our pity at best, at worst our contempt.”

    Ironic that you speak of pity and contempt.

    “I don’t welcome the perversion of our language. I’m trying to remind myself and others of what marriage, tying the knot and honeymooning actually mean.”

    Honeymoon: probably a reference to the joy felt soon after permanently committing oneself to another person. Also could mean that it only lasts a month! Could relate to an old regional custom of drinking mead for the month after marriage. How much mead did you consume after getting married?

    Tying the knot: Binding oneself to another person. Why is this not applicable to the couple mentioned? Or did you mean that when hetero couples get married they actually tie a knot in some sort of pagan ceremony?

    Wedding: well, “wed” meant to promise or pledge. Again this isnt exclusive to hetero relationships.

    Betroth: means to bindingly pledge to be faithful

    Why do you care about the perversion of a language you dont really know?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kimble (4,383 comments) says:

    I’ve never understood it, so instead I’ll simply quote from “Bottom”:

    “I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually, the fact we’ve got 350,000 more jobs than we had when we were elected (1999) to lead the Government should be very good news for New Zealand.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    How you get from two men not being able to marry and have children to…is beyond me.

    Just as it is beyond me that you folks trot out the ‘marriage is for procreation’ line, but it doesn’t really apply to infertile heterosexuals or post-menopausal women does it? Still, I agree with you that further discussion is futile — the intellectual dishonesty of the self-proclaimed defenders of marriage against the ‘queer’ agenda is like trying to play football with motorized goal posts.

    Is that supposed to be funny…clever…intimidating? Or just silly?

    My foster bro and his wife are both former police officers, now schoolteachers. They’re good, decent people whose inability to have a child has been a source of great sadness. They also don have a zero tolerance towards fools, and I wouldn’t fancy your chances of getting out of the room without a short, sharp reality check if you used their infertility as an occasion for a cheap shot.

    Those suffering from this disgusting dysfunction are deserving only of our pity at best, at worst our contempt.

    The pity of the pitiful, or the contempt of the contemptible? Hard choice…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Attitude transpant isle labourmustbeliquidated STAT!

    Jesus Mr Happy and no freudian issues get over yourself. If you can’t just say congratulations as people do at weedings try stfu. That works just as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. big bruv (13,318 comments) says:

    I don’t go much for the “fagot” and “poofter”comments as I find them unnecessary however I also find it offensive that I am told that I must celebrate “Any couple who decide to make a life long commitment to each other”

    I have no problem with two blokes or two Shelia’s wanting to shack up as that is their right but I refuse to be bullied into “celebrating” their union.

    Those of a more liberal disposition do not do themselves any favours by labeling all those who are uncomfortable with this as bigots.

    [DPF: No one has to celebrate a couple you do not know. But why on earth would people feel the need to put down a successful committed relationship? If you don't want to celebrate it, don't - but why attack those (not you but others) who do want to celebrate.

    Finally I would hope that if you had a gay friend who lived with their partner for 13 years, and they announced they were formalising their relationship, you would be happy for them]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    I don’t recall anyone telling you to celebrate anything.

    I stand by your right to be offended.

    Go nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kimble (4,383 comments) says:

    “I have no problem with two blokes or two Shelia’s wanting to shack up as that is their right but I refuse to be bullied into “celebrating” their union.”

    Nobody is bullying or insisting, all that has been said is that it is something to be celebrated.

    Buggered if I am going to celebrate Roger Nomes 18th birthday, but I wont say it is something he shouldnt celebrate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Craig Ranapia

    ‘My foster bro and his wife are both former police officers, now schoolteachers. They’re good, decent people whose inability to have a child has been a source of great sadness. They also don have a zero tolerance towards fools, and I wouldn’t fancy your chances of getting out of the room without a short, sharp reality check if you used their infertility as an occasion for a cheap shot.’

    As I wondered earlier on, you have indeed missed the point. Again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ghostwhowalks3 (387 comments) says:

    Not another UK celeb taking his boyfriend up the aisle !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Kimble

    Sorry. Can’t agree.

    These words do mean something and, yes, the meaning can evolve or mutate over time.

    Take the word ‘gentleman’ for example. It used to mean something quite specific, clear, objective and measurable. Now it’s just an expression of how one feels about a person.

    The queer direction – if I can use the term – that the meaning of ‘marriage’, ‘tying the knot’ etc. is taking in modern NZ (and elsewhere like the US and UK) is neither right nor desirable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Rex Widerstrom (5,276 comments) says:

    Kimble says:

    Buggered if I am going to celebrate Roger Nomes 18th birthday, but I wont say it is something he shouldnt celebrate.

    Come on now, don’t be so damn paranoid! There is absolutely no evidence that you’d be buggered if you went to roger’s birthday, Kimble. You do run the risk of being bored, of course… I’d suggest taking along a copy of “The Wealth of Nations” wrapped in a dustjacket for “Das Kapital” and enjoying the consternation when he unwraps it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    You have to feel for ghost strugling to find some negative to attack and that was the lame ass best he could do.

    Its a sad case.

    Kiwitoffee, neither right nor desireable – in your opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. XavierG (76 comments) says:

    Its interesting how this devolved so quickly…and good call DPF. The only reason straight marriages will fail is if they fuck them up themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Murray

    Exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    Danyl Mclauchlan:
    “Marriage isn’t an unchanging timeless institution – in most of the world (and for most of western history) it was and is a financial arrangement in which an older man essentially buys a young girl (in others the family of a young girl pay an older man to take their child off their hands). Marriage is whatever we say it is, not some changeless platonic concept that exists outside of time.”

    Yes, there are variations in the details of marriage through history and even between cultures today. Sometimes it is an older man with a younger girl or vice versa, sometimes the man could have multiple wives at the same time or he could not, sometimes there is money involved and sometimes not.

    But marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman, for the purpose of creating a family (notwithstanding that children don’t always actually arrive). It is NOT whatever we say it is. It is a big jump to go from men sometimes paying for their wives to men marrying each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. labrator (1,750 comments) says:

    What a load of semantic garbage. The post doesn’t mention marriage and yet some how this has come to be a discussion on the merits of the word? Ridiculous. Two people are commiting themselves to each other, DPF has congratulated them, everything else has been a threadjack to push some peoples own moral opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    There we go, consenus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kimble (4,383 comments) says:

    “The queer direction – if I can use the term – that the meaning of ‘marriage’, ‘tying the knot’ etc. is taking in modern NZ (and elsewhere like the US and UK) is neither right nor desirable.”

    That is simply your opinion. I think that the terms ‘marriage’ and ‘tying the knot’ and ‘honeymoon’ is heading in a more correct direction as there is nothing inherently heterosexual about them.

    You are anti-gay marriage. You aren’t anti the word ‘marriage’ being used to describe what is in its truest sense a marriage.

    “But marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman, for the purpose of creating a family…”

    Are you really sure about that? History is full of interesting little side-notes, and saying that something NEVER happened is impossible to prove. You can only prove something DID happen, not that it didnt.

    “It is NOT whatever we say it is.”

    No? Your whole argument is based upon marriage being what you say it is.

    “It is a big jump to go from men sometimes paying for their wives to men marrying each other.”

    Not really. ‘Marriage as a contract of sale’ vs ‘marriage as a pledge of commitment’. Seems a fairly big difference between that and ‘marriage as a pledge of commitment between a man and a woman’ vs ‘marriage as a pledge of commitment between a man and a man’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. capills_enema (194 comments) says:

    “Homosexuality is just an addiction.”

    The only meaning I can glean from this remark of your’s, LabourMustBeLiquidated, is that you think homosexual activity is addictive. i.e. if someone found you attractive and decided to sodomise you, you would find it so compelling that you would immediately seek to tender your hind-quarters to the next strapping young man, to use it in similar fashion.

    Personally I’ve never sought out this experience, and am certain that, were it forced upon me (for it would have to be forced upon me), I’d take every action to ensure that it never happened again (avoiding being sent to prison springs to mind, first up).

    But each to their own, my little flower.

    I join you in congratulating Iain, David, and have no need to qualify these congratulations with any mealy-mouthed exceptions or sour little provisos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Kimble

    ‘I think that the terms ‘marriage’ and ‘tying the knot’ and ‘honeymoon’ is heading in a more correct direction as there is nothing inherently heterosexual about them.’

    Blimey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Mr Farrar

    Don’t be silly.

    I’m actually in just that situation, give or take a couple of years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,065 comments) says:

    But marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman, for the purpose of creating a family

    This is false on a number of levels:

    1. Plenty of marriages take place today in which there is no intention of having children.

    2. Same-sex marriages have been fairly common throughout history; in Greece and Rome an older man needed to obtain the permission of the Father before entering into a pederastic relationship with a younger one, samurai culture had elaborate rituals to celebrate same sex marriages, African tribes also have a tradition of men paying a bride-price for boys.

    Men have been marrying each other for a very long time – the argument that it goes against tradition is utterly worthless.

    It’s also the same argument that was used to prohibit miscegenation; up until the middle of last century ‘blacks’ were generally forbidden to marry whites for a number of spurious reasons, tradition being one of the ones most commonly cited.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. LabourMustBeLiquidated (288 comments) says:

    I reject any assertion that opposition to sodomy is bigotry. If it is then opposition to murderers is also bigotry. But each to their own. I call it common sense. But after what, 20, 30 years of liberal propaganda it obviously infuriates closet totalitarians that there are still some people who choose to disagree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Jesus boy get help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kimble (4,383 comments) says:

    Insta-pwnage of bigots on this tread. So funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    Danyl McLachlan:
    Thankyou for finding a few exceptions to my statement. It is unwise to use the word “always”, as then just one example can prove you wrong, you have just caught me out on that! There are always exceptions that prove the rule. I disagree with you that same-sex marriages have been “fairly common throughout history”, but you have shown that sexual perversion is not just a problem of the modern West. It is safer to say that through the vast majority of history and cultures marriage has been only between a man and a woman, save for a few examples of cultures that have allowed those behaviours that are generally considered perversions. The Greeks were notorious for this, just as the West is doing today.

    I still stand behind the meaning of my post, but I could have chosen better wording.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Mr Dennis

    I agree.

    If you’ll pardon the image, we are on a slippery slope (and a fair way down it).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.