Is David Cameron the worst PM ever?

lismore · Feb 24, 2013

Genersis said:
You wouldn't normally expect a social democracy party to support laissez-faire economics though...

The liberal party are I think half social democrat and half more libertarian laissez faire. They merged because neither half was viable on it's own.

mindlight · Feb 24, 2013

Marius27 said:
Actually, all scientific evidence has proven that gay parents do just as well raising children, if not better than heterosexual parents. The children are just as well adjusted. As for stability, in countries where same-sex marriage has been legal for awhile, the gay divorce right is much lower than the straight divorce rate. In the Netherlands, the straight divorce rate is 38%. The gay divorce rate is 5%, and that's mostly lesbians.

As usual, your claims are completely false.

The take up of gay marriage in those countries that have it comes from a very small proportion of the gay community as most gays prefer to be uncommitted and the majority of gay relationships are actually shorter and rarely monogamous. It has hardly been long enough to compare divorce statistics of the small number of gays that actually make the commitment with hetrosexual couples.

A survey in Norway and Denmark found that these relationships were characterised by more divorce and especially in the case of Lesbians.

https://same-sex.web.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf

See also for the below quotes and references to other surveys:
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.

Thus, as of October 2002, only 2.8 percent, or 6,766 individuals (3,383 licenses) out of an estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 242,000, have registered their unions as "married."

mindlight · Feb 24, 2013

Marius27 said:
Heterosexuals haven't already wrecked marriage? What about heterosexuals' huge divorce and adultery rates, sham marriages, drunken drive thru weddings?

The state of hetrosexual marriage is also appalling and easy divorce laws and the liberalisation of attitudes about adultery and the loss of religious commitment have a lot to do with this decline.

Marius27 · Feb 24, 2013

mindlight said:
The take up of gay marriage in those countries that have it comes from a very small proportion of the gay community as most gays prefer to be uncommitted and the majority of gay relationships are actually shorter and rarely monogamous. It has hardly been long enough to compare divorce statistics of the small number of gays that actually make the commitment with hetrosexual couples.

A survey in Norway and Denmark found that these relationships were characterised by more divorce and especially in the case of Lesbians.

https://same-sex.web.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf

See also for the below quotes and references to other surveys:
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

Family Research Council is a hate group like the Neo-Nazis and KKK. Do not quote them, as anything they say is factually incorrect. They support genocide and are not a Christian organization.

Psudopod · Feb 25, 2013

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.

What are the equivalents for hetrosexuals? Also bear in mind that the stigma of homosexuality has only recently started fading. It's hard to maintain a long term relationship when people abuse you in the street for merely holding hands.

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years

A study in the journal AIDS, eh? Where has this population come from. Are these men who are being treated for STDs? How do they compare to the average population.

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

See the comments above, and again no comparison with hetrosexuals has been included, or gay women.

A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.

Again, no information on the popuation, no comparison with gay women and hetrosexuals. And no recognition that this alternative culture exists because of the treatment of gay people. I expect that you'll find that as we drop the biggotted notions and support and encorage marriage attitudes will change.

Thus, as of October 2002, only 2.8 percent, or 6,766 individuals (3,383 licenses) out of an estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 242,000, have registered their unions as "married."

I assume that's for the Netherlands? Same sex marriage was legalised there in April 2001 so this is less than 2 years. How what percentage of hetrosexuals marry in the same period?

mindlight · Feb 25, 2013

Marius27 said:
Family Research Council is a hate group like the Neo-Nazis and KKK. Do not quote them, as anything they say is factually incorrect. They support genocide and are not a Christian organization.

That has about same validity as me saying you are a pink donkey with blue socks on.

They defend the rights of the unborn against genocide, they are not racist and actually are about the positive protection and enhancement of marriage.

So you are so wildly off with this comment that it challenges your credibility overall.

FRC said:
laws against interracial marriage and contemporary efforts to enshrine the definition of marriage in law are significantly different. On the one hand, laws forbidding interracial marriage sought to add a requirement to marriage that is not intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Redefining marriage, on the other hand, would be to discard this most basic requirement for marriage, that is, one man and one woman. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such "moral objection" to interracial marriage stemmed from historical and cultural factors rather than accurate, orthodox biblical teaching.

http://www.frc.org/marriage

mindlight · Feb 25, 2013

lismore said:
The liberal party are I think half social democrat and half more libertarian laissez faire. They merged because neither half was viable on it's own.

Neither was viable apart and the mix is a joke.

Coton Boy · Feb 25, 2013

Actually the Liberals were viable and had made a little headway in recent times. However, when they suddenly reached such heights in the polls when they allied themselves with the SDP the leadership thought a merger made sense.

A third of Liberal Party members refused to merge and relaunched the party in 1989. They still exist today, albeit with only a handful of local councillors. A relaunched SDP continued for a time but closed down in the early 1990s. It was relaunched again a few years ago and like the Liberal Party just has a few local councillors.

Cjwinnit · Feb 25, 2013

Marius27 said:
Heterosexuals haven't already wrecked marriage? What about heterosexuals' huge divorce and adultery rates, sham marriages, drunken drive thru weddings?

I'd happily tighten up laws against divorce and adultery so I think we're all in agreement with you on this one. It should be pointed out that there aren't any "drive-through" weddings in England.

Marius27 said:
<staff edit>

Marius27 · Feb 25, 2013

Cjwinnit said:
I'd happily tighten up laws against divorce and adultery so I think we're all in agreement with you on this one. It should be pointed out that there aren't any "drive-through" weddings in England.

Drive Thru weddings must be an American fad then. My point remains, any sham or meaningless marriage between heterosexuals is legal here.

<staff edit>

lismore · Feb 26, 2013

mindlight said:
Neither was viable apart and the mix is a joke.

Yes. Tying two broken reeds together just gives you two broken reeds tied together.

mindlight · Mar 3, 2013

Britain loses Triple A rating | The Times

Coton Boy · Mar 4, 2013

Lat news. This was announced a few weeks ago. Not serious and won't make any difference to our trade.

Oafman · Mar 4, 2013

Coton Boy said:
Lat news. This was announced a few weeks ago. Not serious and won't make any difference to our trade.

Then why did Osborne make it his number one "Benchmark for Britain"? Why did he use the importance of maintaining AAA as his reason for flatlining the economy for 3 years? If it 'won't make any difference to our trade' then why did he use it as the reason for forcing our economy into an unprecedented triple-dip recession? Which is something that will make a difference to our trade.

Coton Boy · Mar 4, 2013

It is called rhetoric. Just because a politician says something doesn't mean they believe it.

The US, France and others have been downgraded and it hasn't hurt them. It's something politicians talk about but economists aren't that bothered with.

Oafman · Mar 4, 2013

Coton Boy said:
It is called rhetoric. Just because a politician says something doesn't mean they believe it.

The US, France and others have been downgraded and it hasn't hurt them. It's something politicians talk about but economists aren't that bothered with.

Then what was his real reason for making sweeping cuts during a recession, and having to borrow more and more money to do so, due to ever-dwindling tax revenues? When asked why he was refusing to stimulate the economy out of recession, to get it into a position where necessary cuts could be made, he always replied that it would spook the lending agencies into downgrading us, which he could not allow.

But it happened anyway. We took the medicine, but still got sick. He is a failed chancellor with a failed economic strategy, and all the while, he is being supported by our Prime Minister. The tories have shown themselves to be at least as bad as Labour at managing the economy, and the only people they represent are a few of their old school chums in the city.

2015 cannot come soon enough.

Is David Cameron the worst PM ever?

Maranatha

See in the dark

See in the dark

Newbie

Godspeed, Spacebat

See in the dark

See in the dark

Newbie

Advocatus Diaboli (Retired)

Newbie

Maranatha

See in the dark

Newbie

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Newbie

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Similar threads