Grandfather deserves award for taking in his gay grandson !

LC wrote:

I read UK Mail, Telegraph, and whatever else floats across my screen. It's probably less biased than CNN or MSNBC. I see stuff covered in it that I didn't know about due to the poor coverage here.

Whenever a British paper runs a story about Ed Miliband apologizing about the out of control immigration the Labor party brought in, there are literally thousands of comments before the commenting is disabled. UKIP is referenced heavily throughout. Like, "Shut yer gob, Ed, it's too late, UKIP all the way." LOL Don't see anything like that on gay articles (can't remember even reading any gay articles).

Try reading the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22585093

<< However, a different group of more than 100 Tory activists, including former Conservative Party National Convention chairman Paul Swaddle, later sent a separate letter to the prime minister urging the party to back the same sex marriage bill.

It said: "The majority of people in this country support same sex marriage, and many of them really do not understand the fuss.

"Faith groups are protected from the legislation should they so wish, therefore those of faith should not be worried by the Bill. This is an issue of particular importance to younger voters and MPs risk appearing out of touch if they pander to a vocal minority." >>

Pander to a vocal minority? It was this minority group of activists  (empty vessels) within the Tory party that was making the most noise.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease in any country.

Ann, you can interpret my post(s) in the manner that suits you.  Saying I sound radically conservative makes it clear that you don't comprehend my posts. Strange that no one else has expressed that view.

Shelagh, it would seem that their is a conflict between the Tory and Independent parties there that resembles that of the Republican and Tea Parties here.  Do you think that if will give more strength to the Labour Party in your next elections?

Maybe the push to get the law changed now is premature?

Ten years ago, when the US Episcopal Church voted to allow gay priests to become bishops, and opened the door to sanctifying gay marriage, I made the statement to some friends at my church that it was "too soon," and caused a bit of an uproar for even considering it a future possibility.

This is an area that has strong feelings involved - on both sides, and in the face of so many greater problems in the world right now. I think I can see Cameron's dilemma.

10/7/2013

                    I agree the US Govt. has "NO BUSINESS !" telling the American people
                    what to do , it's not their dam business , we as Americans are born
                    with our " FREE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ,"  NO party either Democrat nor
                    Republican Nor Tea Party ! Matter of fact we as American people have to
                    take better control of the Govt. both parties are way out of hand...

                                                          Cheers....Joe..

delete

10/7/2013

                     Actually I never understood why people want to know what people
                     prefer sexually ? It should be how that person treats you as a friend
                     and co-worker, I've noticed this more and more over the last 20 yrs
                     people will be bold enough to ask someone are you gay or straight ?
                    
                                                        Cheers..Joe..

delete

alj wrote:

Do you think that if will give more strength to the Labour Party in your next elections?

Yes, I'll explain why in my next statement.

alj wrote:

I think I can see Cameron's dilemma.

The prime minister brought this upon himself. He was told repeatedly that the grassroots of the Tory party not only didn't support him on this issue, they would leave the party if he persisted with it. It didn't matter that the bill was about gay marriage. It could have been any other bill that the PM decided to force through; the reaction would have been the same. Gay marriage was not in the Tory manifesto. When asked for their opinion, the grassroots Tory supporters gave an almost unanimous "no!". When David Cameron ploughed on regardless, the Labour Party MPs could hardly believe their luck; they couldn't get through the yes lobby fast enough, in the certain knowledge that if the bill went through, Tory support would fall away. David Cameron's lack of judgement was the biggest mistake made by a Tory PM for a very long time.

dkchristi wrote:

Isn't the bottom line a financial issue?  A man and woman marry and have no children.  Their assets are legally shared depending on the state.  They share benefits in income taxes, wills, probates, health considerations etc.  They have legal benefits by marriage and perhaps a spiritual and romantic commitment, but not necessarily.

It's as much to do with grandparenting as it has to do with the couples' finances. When a son takes a wife and vice versa, the grandparents are happy in the knowledge that if their child dies, the spouse will inherit and pass on that shared wealth to the grandchildren.  I know that gay couples can adopt/undergo in vitro treatment, but for the moment they are in a minority, in contrast to married couple, the majority of whom have children. Consequently, it's the parents' grandparenting rights that are in question, and it would seem that, for now, the majority do not want their children sharing everything in a childless marriage. When I say everything, I include inheritance money that would pass from one gay partner to the other.  

joefrank wrote:

10/7/2013

                     Actually I never understood why people want to know what people
                     prefer sexually ? It should be how that person treats you as a friend
                     and co-worker, I've noticed this more and more over the last 20 yrs
                     people will be bold enough to ask someone are you gay or straight ?
                    
                                                        Cheers..Joe..

If asked, don't tell, Joe. Create an air of mystery; it will drive them barmy.

Thanks, Shelagh. That makes sense.

Quote :

I traveled with a work colleague for a year and one day she came into my office in tears; her grant had been cancelled and it was because someone found out she had a lesbian relationship and lived with her partner. I didn't know.

And you still don't. Her story, or perception of why it was cancelled, could be as phony as the 20 year old Matthew Shepherd narrative.

alj wrote:

Thanks, Shelagh.  That makes sense.

It's a pity it didn't make sense to David Cameron! Tory party voters are the wealthiest group of people in the country. They like to keep their money in the family. We are not talking small amounts; in the event of a death, millions of pounds would be passed out of the family. If their gay child had a relationship but didn't marry, the money could come back into the family. Once a partner in a legal marriage gets their hands on a deceased partner's money, there's no way the family of the deceased can claim that money.

Ok, but that would be the case in a man/woman relationship, too. If such relationship didn't have kids, how would the family get it back? And why would they have a right to?

Seems like if they want to control their money so badly, just put it in trusts.

delete

I was certain money played into the issue of who may legally marry.

You know, I've never minded homosexuals.  Mainly because they've never done anything I object to to me personally.  Sure, I think a man and man or a woman and woman sexual relationship is unnatural and unhealthy, but I can't blame them if that is simply the way they are wired up.  Just because they are different from the way that I think and feel does not mean that they aren't human and don't have feelings.

I certainly wouldn't want a gay man hitting on me, but I've never met an unpleasant homosexual before.  This is basically a re-tred of the civil rights movement of the 60's.  Give it time and it won't become much of an issue anymore and we can all move on with our lives.

I don't want anyone "hitting on me."   I agree, at some point it will be a non-issue just as it's a non-issue in Key West and some other nations.

LC wrote:

Ok, but that would be the case in a man/woman relationship, too. If such relationship didn't have kids, how would the family get it back? And why would they have a right to?

Seems like if they want to control their money so badly, just put it in trusts.

It's an interesting point. Soon after we were married, our lawyer in Scotland explained that, without a will, if we both died in an accident, because I'm younger than my husband, I would be declared to have died last and my family would inherit our estate (which was extremely small at the time and probably amounted to nothing by the time the mortgage was paid off!).

In the UK, the number of women who remain childless all their lives is around 20%, but that includes single and cohabiting women. Rightly or wrongly, most parents who fork out enormous sums of money for traditional marriage ceremonies do have expectations that the union will produce grandchildren -- even if the expectations are not met. They can't fool themselves into having the same expectations from a same-sex marriage ceremony.

It would seem that today's young adults can't wait for their parents' demise, but according to this article in the Telegraph, they are in for a rude awakening:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10030873/Too-many-children-relying-on-inheritance-that-they-will-never-get.html

I wonder if that won't change, too, over time, and, thinking about it, could be part of the reason for increasing tolerance toward same-sex couples.

I think it probably goes back to The Pill.  Women could marry, plan to have a few children, or one or none, and still have a life outside the limitations of family.  For that matter, marriage is no longer a necessity for women, who can opt for a career and independence and maintain an active sex life at the same time.  And this circumstance has altered society in a major way in an extremely short period of time.  We are still reeling from that change

The Biblical injunction, "Be fruitful and multiply," still carries a strong, if subconscious, pull on our psyches, even though we are threatened with over-population.  We simply can not afford, as a people, to continue conceiving at such a high rate as we did in the past.

Traditions are important. though. and changing for the sake of change isn't always the best thing to do.

But the younger generations are not going to live in the same world we do.  And there will need to be, if I can use a New Testament metaphor, "new wineskins for the new wine"

A century and a half ago, in the US, the Democratic Party, which was at that time the older, more conservative party, was fighting to hold on to an agricultural way of life, where wealth and power centered around land ownership and, for the wealthy, the use of human slaves to tend the massive fields and farmlands.  A new party was formed for the changing times: the Republican Party - a party for the new Industrial Age and the burgeoning power of its industry, and of the growing cities' businesses and even newer corporations. In time, the Democratic Party split, and it has only been within the last half century that the last of its conservatives made the swing to the Republican side, which had, over time, become entrenched in the needs of the now rising snd powerful Age of Industry, and so, by definition, conservative.

And here we go again, because now, the power if the Industrial Age is waning as the new Information Age is rising.  And those in power still need to hold on to their wealth, and that means having a lower class to do the work, and it becomes "necessary" to keep these people "in their place" by whatever means possible.  Withhlding education and healthcare are the means for keeping the poor, well, poor.

"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the wine would burst the wineskins, and the wine and the skins would both be lost. New wine calls for new wineskins.”Mark 2:22
The passage occurs in conjunction with another about sewing a patch of new cloth onto an old garment.  Since the new cloth has not had a chance to shrink - and it eventually will, and when it does, it will not fit, and will pull away.  These sayings by Jesus came during a discussion of the old Judaic Law, which many believed would have to go - to be replaced with a newer worldview, which would one day become Christianity.

We have, it seems, reached another time of Earth-shattering change.

The new wine is still new.  It will take more time for it to age and mellow.

In the meantime, we struggle with what we ought to keep and what to let go of.

I agree, Ann, but laws should not be passed to gain votes. Government isn't a popularity contest.

Dear Annie,
I beleive you have put it in a concise nutshell.  It is very hard for everyone to understand, however, because the populace (myself included) is still looking out of our old eye.  New visions are hard to see.

Love,
Betty

I agree back. When I said I saw Cameron's dilemma, I mean't that his realization of what a mess had he gotten himself into.

Betty Fasig wrote:

Dear Annie,
I beleive you have put it in a concise nutshell.  It is very hard for everyone to understand, however, because the populace (myself included) is still looking out of our old eye.  New visions are hard to see.

Love,
Betty

One of the New Testament versions of that passage admits (and I'm paraphrasing) An old wine still tastes better.

Think I'll head for the kitchen and a glass of pinot noir.

It will make this new world a little more palatable.  

Annie

Cheers, Ann!   Night all.