UKIP is tolerant, so of course

People who call gay sex ‘disgusting’ will be allowed to stay in the UK Independence Party.

The word \”liberal\” has rather changed its meaning in recent years but UKIP\’s attitude to all of this stuff is the properly liberal one. One of toleration.

Consenting adults want to shag each other? Carry on but try not to frighten the horses. Coonsenting adults wish to be carnivores/vegetarians/gay/hetero/polyamorous/shag gingers/eat locusts/run a model train set?

Carry on and try not to frighten the horses.

You have every right to run your life as you wish, up until that point that your lifestyle impinges upon the freedoms of others to do the same. And we all have to tolerate your choices as well. It\’s called being liberal, see?

But this toleration, this liberality, does not mean that we must approve of any of your choices, celebrate them, applaud them. Nor does it mean that we cannot describe any or all of them as disgusting.

Indeed, the more that we think whatever it is that you like to do is disgusting and the less we interfere in your ability to do it the more liberal we are being.

After all, it\’s pretty easy to be tolerant of the things that you already approve of, isn\’t it?

98 thoughts on “UKIP is tolerant, so of course”

  1. This is only half the story. The flip-side of the coin is that people may well not wish to vote for someone who holds views like ‘gays/blacks/Jews are disgusting’. I’ll certainly be more wary of putting my cross next to a UKIP candidate’s name if I have to check first to be sure he doesn’t believe something I find disgusting.

    In any case, whilst I don’t want to quibble about semantics, I’m not quite clear on which part of ‘tolerating’ something involves telling everyone that you find it disgusting.

  2. Yes, this is my understanding of the words “liberal” and “tolerance”. In fact it seems so obvious to me it doesn’t really need saying. Except of course we find we need to say it today don’t we. So not quite so obvious.

    Two examples of our illiberal liberated nation: First, pro-choice abortion campaigners (the current US president for example) who praise a women’s right to “delay starting a family” so that she can start a career, but condemn outright any women who chooses not to start a family with a little girl. Second, a BBC Radio 4 audience who applauded all missives not to be “judgmental” of others’ cultural norms, then applauded damning judgements of polygamy, then were audibly shocked when Steven Norris attacked them by saying you can’t just pick and choose what you do and do not tolerate just because you like something or not.

  3. Dave

    I’m afraid the flip side of the coin is you do tolerate people who find things digusting, even if you don’t.

    By all means don’t vote for them, but you can’t stop them saying it.

  4. Coonsenting adults? You’ll be offering Tiger Woods fried chicken next.

    As for me, it’s beddie byes time here in Aus so I might go and try and shag a ginger, if I can wake her that is. Apparently it’s no longer acceptable for her to wake up wondering why her nightie is on inside out.

  5. “You have every right to run your life as you wish, up until that point that your lifestyle impinges upon the freedoms of others to do the same. And we all have to tolerate your choices as well. It’s called being liberal, see?”

    So, logically, UKIP should support equal marriage. But they don’t. Because the issue here is something more than just “dislike” of a lifestyle. See?

  6. I don’t want to use force to ban people saying things like “gay sex is disgusting” (like they’re not begging for the same thing from their wives…) but I exercise my right to tell them I disagree and think that their view is reprehensible.

  7. Dave,

    this while bonkers notion of gay marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with being equal. Because it’s an apples and oranges thing, or as the great John Cleese put it in Wife of Brian, “where are you going to gestate the foetus? In a shoebox?”.

    What it is about is America. As usual. It’s two things; firstly, acquiring State entitlements under their particular legislative model and (b) causing dismay to their mortal enemy, the redneck conservative right.

    And that’s all it is. Of course, the rest of us are then required to go through this pantomime of copying their cultural struggle. But be clear: we are doing it because they are doing it, and that is the solitary reason we are doing it.

    Equal marriage. Jesus H.

  8. As gay marriage seems tobe the trigger for this discussion, can I put my oft-repeated question once again to the world: what rights exactly derive from this act that did not derive from the 2004 Civil Partnership Act?

  9. The right to have a husband or a wife, just like straight people get. Marriage has nothing to do with children, Ian, so that quote is irrelevant.

  10. It’s as obvious as can be, Tim, but even here, at this haven of common sense, one can see how the issue is being confused by people who demand approval and call it intolerance when they don’t get it.

    I don’t give a stuff where they put their private parts as long as it’s consensual. That’s all anyone is entitled to expect in the sexual domain – to be left alone to do what comes naturally to them to those who want it done. What others think is legally irrelevant.

    They and their God (if any) can discuss the separate issue of morality. That’s nothing to do with anyone else. If there is a God and He disapproves, He has ample powers to act without others, ludicrously, trying to “help” an omnipotent being.

    Mostly it’s entirely pathetic of them to care what others think. It’s only important because it’s dangerous to freedom of speech and thought as they petulantly demand that no-one disapprove of them.

    The moral opinions of politicians are only relevant insofar as they may lead to new laws. Personally, I find the idea of being tattooed revolting but would defend the right of others to do it. Tattooed voters have nothing to fear from me, especially as I also defend their right to think me wrong.

    It’s just a difference of opinion. That’s perfectly normal. Trying to force everyone to think like you? Now THAT is deviant.

  11. Don’t be an idiot, Matthew. It’s a sexual contract. It exist in every society in history, all across the globe, and it’s a social recognition of a reproductive bonding. As societies have developed, that extended to include general male/female bondings, mainly because (a) being married is “the done thing” and (b) females have to be bonded into family units for protective purposes, hence transference from a parent to a husband. A lone female is family-less and vulnerable.

    None of which applies to a pair of pooves.

    It has everything to do with children. It’s a reproductive pairing, you daft ha’porth.

  12. Tom>

    “the issue is being confused by people who demand approval and call it intolerance when they don’t get it.”

    That’s exactly what you’re doing. No-one here has said any more than that they perhaps wouldn’t vote for UKIP as a result.

  13. Ian: So infertile couples, elderly couples can’t get married? And single parents don’t exist? De facto couples can’t have kids? Like it or not, modern marriage has become thoroughly decoupled from procreation.

  14. Matthew, I already addressed that first point. Women in tribal societies need to be married to somebody for protective purposes.

    The point is, this is an ancient, prehistoric institutionalisation of the human reproductive system. If you’re really “decoupled from procreation”, in today’s world, you don’t need to get married at all. It is an intrinsically pre-modern arrangement.

    So, what’s wrong with civil partnerships? Why want the word that describes an ancient reproductive contract, for men who by their nature can never have any issue, nor need the protection of tribal family? What’s the real point here?

  15. @matthew

    so this is about whether of not someone can call their partner ‘husband’ or ‘wife’? In my experience – knowing a few civil partnered couples – they already do. And funnily enough, when they do, their interlocutor does not say “I think you mean ‘partner'”.

    If that is all this is about then I’m going to stop thinking the people opposing it are wankers and start to think that both sides are. I assumed it was more than that.

  16. For me, gay marriage boils down to one thing. Do the people who it affects want it? Apparently they do. Does it cause any harm to others? None that I can see. So why not have it?

    So, what’s wrong with civil partnerships? Why want the word that describes an ancient reproductive contract, for men who by their nature can never have any issue, nor need the protection of tribal family? What’s the real point here?

    Because the rest of society doesn’t see marriage and civil partnerships as equal. But the question we should be asking is not why, but why not.

  17. The Thought Gang

    @ Sam / Ironman

    I don’t see why teh gays are so bothered about being able to ‘marry’ as oppose to ‘civilly partner’. I really don’t get it. I think there’s more reason for teh straights to be bothered about not being able to civilly partner.

    However, teh gays are bothered and many see enough of a distinction to fight for it. More pertinently, all those who oppose gay marriage clearly see that there is a difference which is worth fighting to retain.

    I can’t help wondering if this is largely about two fairly powerful lobby groups, who don’t really like each other, picking a fight just for the craic of it.

  18. “The right to have a husband or a wife, just like straight people get”

    OK, teeth pulling time:

    And what exactly do you get with a husband or a wife, what joint, mutual rights accrue to you both that don’t come with a civil partner?

    You know, I’ve asked this question so many times now that I’m beginning to think there is no answer.

  19. I’m not familiar enough with UK law to answer that, Ironman. But apparently the people who this actually affects see enough of a difference to want it.

    According to this summary:

    http://www.blanchardslaw.co.uk/blog/gay-marriage-versus-civil-partnership-whats-the-difference/

    it’s mostly ceremonial.

    As an aside, I’m astonished to find that straight couples can’t get civil partnerships. In New Zealand that was specifically allowed, and so couples who object to marriage itself for whatever reason can get their relationship recognised that way.

  20. The arguments against same-sex marriage seem to be that, whereas we are proud of our tolerance:

    1) we shouldn’t change anything from the way it was a thousand years ago

    2) i don’t know why *they* want to get married

    3) (UKIP) if we had same-sex marriage, the ECHR might force priests to conduct same-sex marriages.

    Following Ian B’s source, I suspect the true motivation can be found in John Cleese’s exposition of the faculty rules of the University of Woolamaloo.

    In particular, if UKIP were sincere it would support both withdrawal from the ECHR (as it does) and same-sex marriage (as it does not).

  21. I can’t help wondering if this is largely about two fairly powerful lobby groups, who don’t really like each other, picking a fight just for the craic of it.

    Reckon you’re put your finger on it, there, TTG. I would thoroughly and completely support it if Civil Partnerships didn’t exist and I thoroughly and completely think that that is what should have happened in the first place. What I can’t, for the life of me, understand is why the tory party is tearing itself apart over something that amounts to a cosmetic change.

    I summary; I support gay marriage or, as I would prefer to think of it, marriage [regardless of gender]. I don’t support the tories ripping themselves apart over something that seems to grant no additional equal rights in the name of equal rights. Because that’s just farking stowpid.

  22. Matthew L

    Thank you for the link. However, it seems to be as I had feared. The similarities are:

    “there is no practical difference in the applications for capital or maintenance that couples can make on the breakdown of their relationships, and they can inherit in the same way, give consent to the medical treatment of the other, and obtain parental responsibility for children. The court is directed by statute to consider identical factors for both marriage and civil partnerships”

    And the differences are:

    “It seems that there are two main issues; one is a general desire for recognition that same-sex marriage is on a par with the heterosexual unit”

    But herein lies the rub; I don’t recognise you as being on a par, at least not with what I view as marriage. I’m sorry and I fully expect you to regard me as a bigot, but I just don’t. And yes, it is religious, because my view of marriage is the one set down by my church. I’m also sorry to all heterosexuals reading this who are on their second marriages; I just don’t see it as marriage. I am sure your relationship is excellent. I am sure you are my equals. Actually I’m sure you’re better people than I am. However, in my view you are not married. Again, I’m sorry.

    One last thing though: if I can live and have lived all my life with second marriages being regarded by society and the law as marriage and if that hasn’t hurt me in the slightest, then I’m sure I can live with gay couples calling themselves married.

  23. One last thing though: if I can live and have lived all my life with second marriages being regarded by society and the law as marriage and if that hasn’t hurt me in the slightest, then I’m sure I can live with gay couples calling themselves married.

    And that’s all any sensible person asks for. That to me is the definition of tolerance. You don’t have to like it but you ought to accept that it’s a real thing. Congratulations, you’re not a bigot.

  24. One question Ironman, and please refer to my previous comment about you not being bigoted before you draw any unwarranted conclusions from this –

    If your church, as many were, was opposed to interracial marriage, would you consider a black man and a white woman legitimately married? How would this match up with your personal morality on the subject?

    I ask out of curiosity, not to lay a trap or anything so childish.

  25. Ironman>

    “And what exactly do you get with a husband or a wife, what joint, mutual rights accrue to you both that don’t come with a civil partner?”

    Contrary to what Ian thinks, I don’t think ‘marriage’ in the public, official sense is about anything more these days than letting other people know you’re in love with someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them. Bit soppy, I know. As such, what the hell is the point of ‘marriage’ that doesn’t achieve that?

  26. Ian B,

    Actually, I think you’ve misread it.

    The situation in the US is that they don’t have civil partnerships. They are going from nothing to gay marriage.

    The situation here is that because gays got such a raw deal many decades ago, and getting equality took so long, you now have the organisations in place that are ensuring that no-one is going to give them a raw deal again, and that they are pushing for equality, even if it is only in name.

    It’s hilarious to watch a load of bigots giving it some “help, we’re being oppressed” because gay people may be able to force churches to marry them.

  27. sam // May 22, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    @matthew

    so this is about whether of not someone can call their partner

  28. sam // May 22, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    @matthew

    so this is about whether of not someone can call their partner husband or wife?
    ——————

    No Sam it isn’t. Anyone can style themselves and their partnership in any way they want.

    The fight is over what title the state is legally obliged to endow on your current or intended relationship.
    If that title is marriage, it includes the same rights available to all who are legally eligible to marry, and that includes the right to be married in their local parish church. Any refusal by the CofE on the grounds of sexual orientation is bound to bring a challenge from the ECHR.

  29. This is only half the story. The flip-side of the coin is that people may well not wish to vote for someone who holds views like

  30. The Thought Gang

    “The fight is over what title the state is legally obliged to endow on your current or intended relationship.”

    I’m interested in whether those who oppose the new law on the grounds that the state doesn’t get to redefine such a grand old institution would be happy if instead of extending state recognition of marriage to teh gays, we took away state recognition of marriage in any form.

    To me, that’s the most obvious, and liberal, outcome.

    Let religions do what they want. The state (if it is to give legal force to personal relationships) should do so via civil partnerships, or some new version, which can be entered into by any two consenting adults. That’s it. We are all completely equal before the law (as should be the case) and nobody gets to complain about the state intefering with ‘marriage’ because the state is abdicating all involvement.

  31. Monty>

    Yes, I’ve pointed out before that this is partly an argument about whether an established church has a place in modern society. ‘Render unto Caesar’ and so-on would seem to indicate that the CofE can either disestablish or marry teh geyers, but has no other options within their own strictures let alone those of society.

  32. Matthew L

    A good question and one quite pertinent for me as I grew up in Southern Africa. My answer was going to be I just don’t know, but that wouldn’t be correct. There are two churches here: one is the faith. That is clear and doesn’t say that and it is the faith that matches my conscience. I came to it. Then there is the organization, the caste of men that betrayed generations of vulnerable children, that is still in denial about it, that entered the debate (at least in the UK) with a greater desire to abuse the Conservative prime minister than to teach its ownfaith, that condemned homosexuals whilst secretly practicing it itself. Now if that church told me interracial marriage was wrong, I would tell it where to go.

  33. What Matthew L is neglecting to consider is not actually an issue about the couple. It’s the way the couple is perceived by the wider society.
    You can’t get away from the fact, marriage imposes a set of obligations on those connected with the couple. That’s what marriage is. A formal recognition of those obligations. And it can’t be the slightest bit libertarian to impose those obligations on those who don’t accept them. Sorry. Law or no law. If people don’t consider the couple are married, they aren’t in any meaningful sense. The desired obligations will not be fulfilled.

  34. Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. I do wish the gay lobby would get its tanks off my lawn and go and find one of its own. It can call that lawn what it likes and, so far as I’m concerned, that lawn is entitled to thesame legal protections. But it’d be their lawn, and my lawn will remain my lawn.

    I suggest they call their lawn ‘spoffle’, thus gay couples can get spoffled, and I can get married.

  35. Marriage is a matter of understanding between two people capable of empathy and kindness to others. I do wish the Lud lobby would get its tanks off my lawn and go and find one of its own. It can call that lawn what it likes and, so far as I

  36. Marriage is a matter of understanding between two people capable of empathy and kindness to others. I do wish the Lud lobby would get its tanks off my lawn and go and find one of its own. It can call that lawn what it likes and, so far as I’m concerned, that lawn is entitled to the same legal protections. But it’d be their lawn, and my lawn will remain my lawn.

    I suggest they call their lawn ‘spoffle’, thus Lud couples can get spoffled, and people I view as capable of marriage can get married.

  37. There are two issues: we have unequal civil partnerships (available to same-sex, but not mixed sex couples). There is a civil inequality issue here. Then we have a millenia-old meaning of the institution of marriage. Certain constraints are in place about consanguinity and age and so on, but in principle this institution is available to any couple made up of both sexes., and is generally understood to provide the best environment for the successful raising of children. To describe changing this well-understood definition to mean something else altogether is not “equality” Provide arguments as to why marriage *should* be something different by all means, but talk of “equal marriage” without further argument steals so many bases I incline to dismiss it as fraudulent.

  38. Dave, you’re entitled to your opinions, of course. But that’s all your ‘definition’ of marriage is, an opinion.

    As a matter of fact, a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. You may not like that fact. As it happens, there are plenty of facts which displease me. But facts they remain in spite of my displeasure.

  39. Robert>

    What is this ‘well-understood definition’ you’re talking about? I think it’s pretty obvious that marriage has meant a lot of different things to different people at different times. Even the same people at different times, and presumably in the case of a few confused souls, different things at the same time, come to think of it.

    Edward>

    “As a matter of fact, a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.”

    In what way is that fact, rather than your (somewhat widely shared) opinion?

  40. Dave:

    “…would seem to indicate that the CofE can either disestablish or marry teh geyers, but has no other options…”

    Nobody has any democratic mandate to put the CofE in that position though. The public have never been faced with the decision of either disestablishing the church, or forcing it to offer gay weddings. They don’t realise the implications.

    If you want to promote disestablishment, go ahead and campaign on that platform, and see how much public support you get. But you shouldn’t be invading their tabernacle through the back door, if you get my drift.

  41. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “For me, gay marriage boils down to one thing. Do the people who it affects want it? Apparently they do.”

    Actually apparently they do not. There is not and never has been any particular demand for marriage among the homosexual, especially male Gay, community. As we can see in places that legalise it. Someone like Peter Tatchell is more famous for condemning marriage wholesale.

    What this is about is bullying heterosexuals into accepting whatever idiocy the Left and the Gay lobby want this week. No more.

    “Does it cause any harm to others? None that I can see. So why not have it?”

    Just because you cannot see it does not mean it is not there. And obviously given that Gay marriage has been introduced around the time that heterosexual marriage collapses in societies like the Netherlands, it is probably not a good idea to further destroy families here. Of course middle class liberals will not pay the price, but babies like Baby P will.

    “Because the rest of society doesn-t see marriage and civil partnerships as equal.”

    I fail to see why you think that is true. More and more heterosexuals do not see any formal arrangement as necessary or desirable. What makes you think anyone cares?

    “But the question we should be asking is not why, but why not.”

    No it is not. We have something that has existed for thousands of years. We do not know why it is exists. But it does. It works. We do not know the consequences of destroying it. But we do know that the social cost of meddling so far has been terrible. Thus the onus is on your side to prove that this change will have no harmful side effects. Because you cannot put Baby P-s brains back inside his skull. So off you go and try to prove it is harmless.

  42. A big issue as far as UKIP or any political party are concerned is how they should react to the twitterati or the like saying X should be removed from membership or not allowed to stand because of supposedly offensive (ie not left-wing) views. They need to show courage and say, “If you don’t like him/us, vote for someone else”.

  43. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “Marriage is a matter of understanding between two people capable of empathy and kindness to others.”

    This is the problem with the whole debate – once you have dumbed down the concept of marriage so that it cannot be dumbed down any more, the whole debate looks foolish. This is simply not the basis for a serious discussion.

    And why only two? Why the capacity for love and empathy? Sociopaths cannot marry? Dogs, who certainly feel such emotion, can?

    “I do wish the Lud lobby would get its tanks off my lawn and go and find one of its own. It can call that lawn what it likes and, so far as I’m concerned, that lawn is entitled to the same legal protections. But it-d be their lawn, and my lawn will remain my lawn.”

    But that is not what is happening. It is not that the conservatives are on your lawn. You are on theirs. The Gay world did not invent marriage. The only purpose for this debate is so that the Gay lobby and the Left can go around bullying people who do not accept their view of the world. There is no need for Gay marriage. There is no demand for Gay marriage. There was no lobby for Gay marriage until about two minutes ago. But once it is law, they can use it to force Churches and every other institution in the country to bend over and toe the party line. They want an entry point so that they can sit on everyone-s lawn and make them do what they like.

    “I suggest they call their lawn [spoffle], thus Lud couples can get spoffled, and people I view as capable of marriage can get married.”

    But if we did, the Gay lobby would just demand the right to Gay spoffling. As they demand the right to everything else the heterosexual world has created. That is the point.

    Now the only question is whether you are going to roll over and become their prison bitch or not.

  44. The CofE has found an answer to the question of whether divorced people should be able to get married in church – vicars can conduct the marriages or not at their own discretion. Why shouldn’t a similar arrangement apply to same-sex marriages?

  45. So Much For Subtlety

    PaulB – “The CofE has found an answer to the question of whether divorced people should be able to get married in church – vicars can conduct the marriages or not at their own discretion. Why shouldn-t a similar arrangement apply to same-sex marriages?”

    Because the problem is not the CoE. The problem is the Gay lobby. Who have no interest whatsoever in Gay marriage, they simply want to bully people.

    Before Peter Tatchell was involved in this, he was involved in confronting the Catholic Church for denying Gays Communion. Tatchell, I think it is safe to assume, does not believe in God in the same way the Catholic Church does. For him the issue is irrelevant – except in so far as he can bully the Church into conforming. This is just the same campaign but with better PR.

    So suppose they do. The Gay lobby will be suing and demanding the full force of the law be brought down on those that refuse.

    Either you are cowed or you are not. There is no middle ground or sensible compromise.

  46. I’m not sure what paranoid daydream you live in, SMFS, but over here in reality gay marriage is working out just fine in the countries where it’s legal.

  47. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “I-m not sure what paranoid daydream you live in, SMFS, but over here in reality gay marriage is working out just fine in the countries where it-s legal.”

    I am not sure what you mean by fine. I would think the evidence is that every country that has legal Gay marriage has seen a massive collapse in family life. With all the child abuse that tends to bring with it. Stanley Kurtz wrote a series of good articles on this some time ago:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp#

    http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp

    http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp

    Nothing has happened to suggest he is wrong.

  48. You realise that gay couples have been able to adopt for years, right? And that they’ve always been able to have kids the old-fashioned way, with a donor?

  49. Me, I dislike broccoli, but I tolerate it when wifey cooks it.

    It is not logically possible to tolerate something that one does not dislike. I wrote about broccoli to try to de-emotionalize this point, on which Worstall is 100% correct.

    All of us have things we dislike for a whole variety of reasons from nature to nurture and back again. The point is that we can use our reason to “tolerate” some of these things, and that is a good thing, it is emblematic of western civilization.

    As for homo sex I am indifferent to everything but buggery, which disgusts me, as does heterosexual buggery. Even so, I’ll “tolerate” you lot buggering each other senseless if you’ll let me drive my motorbike without a helmet and my car without a seat belt. Deal?

  50. Fred Z, deal.

    Dave, if what I said wasn’t a fact (by contrast with your opinion), then you wouldn’t have to campaign to change the facts, would you? In other words, we wouldn’t be talking about ‘gay marriage’ because it would already exist.

  51. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “You realise that gay couples have been able to adopt for years, right? And that they-ve always been able to have kids the old[]fashioned way, with a donor?”

    I am sorry but what sort of point do you think that proves? Apart from the fact that these policies are driven by an utter indifference to what is best for the child. Gay couples breaking up at something like twelve times the heterosexual rate. Baby P managed to get born. That had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact, readily observable, that his family life had long since broken down.

  52. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t baby P born to straight parents? What you’re saying is complete bollocks. Good parents are good parents, gay or straight.

    Incidentally, if you want to use that line of reasoning then only lesbian couples should be allowed to have children, because they have lower rates of separation than straight couples.

  53. They also have higher rates of domestic violence. (Gays are lower than heterosexuals in that regard).

    It’s worth getting back to the original assertion in Tim’s post here-

    People who call gay sex ‘disgusting’ will be allowed to stay in the UK Independence Party.

    -because it’s interesting. The idea seems to be that it is now considered abnormal to disapprove of some sexual act- in this case, primarily, anal sex. This is especially interesting as there is a growing campaign among the Feminist/Femiservative coalition against straight anal sex; that women only do it because men force it on them, and that is motivated by porn etc, and that it causes medical problems, and is degrading and so on, some of which may be to some degree valid.

    So, is it really so abnormal to disapprove of some particular sexual practise that one must be excluded from any decent political party?

    I must admit, I myself find anal sex (any gender combination) somewhat revolting. I admit that this is partly because as a child I had a lot of bottom-related medical problems, and still have occasional nightmares about one particularly upsetting examination of my rear end by an overenthusiastic specialist. But overally, I simply find nothing the least erotic about poo holes and consider them entirely suitable for only the evacuation of poo.

    Should I be cast out of any decent gathering for having that personal view? I don’t think people should be prevented from this practise if it’s what they like. But I do feel an emotion somewhat akin to “disgusted” nonetheless. Is that really not my right, to feel the emotions I feel?

  54. SMFS,

    Kurtz’s argument has at least one hole with regards to Scandanavia. He cites the decline of marriage in Denmark since 1990, but the numbers in 2009 (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Crude_marriage_rate,_seleted_years,_1960-2011_(per_1_000_inhabitants).png&filetimestamp=20130130111229) are almost as high as they were in 1990 and actually higher than they were in 1980. He also mentions Sweden and Norway, yet Sweden’s marriage rate is higher than it was in 1970 (same figures).

    I suggest you fact check the rest of them, before believing his conclusions.

  55. ” Much of the increase in Norway’s marriage rate is driven by older couples “catching up.” These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced.”

  56. Ian>

    I feel all kinds of things I don’t say. It’s called basic politeness.

    In any case, as I’m sure you recognise, homosexuality and buggery are only synonymous to the pig-ignorant.

  57. Ian: Even if you’re just talking about gay sex, there’s a largeish minority of gay men who feel the same way you do about anal, and won’t do it.

  58. Ah yes, the old “how dare you link homosexuality and buggery” argument. Or rather, the new one that has come up lately after decades of the gay community ranting about very little else than the joy of buggery.

    What other “gay sex” do you think we’re talking about? Blow jobs? Mutual masturbation? The original comment is about “gay sex, disgusting” remember. Not “being gay in a Platonic Essentialist kind of a way”. Gay sex.

    Stop being so fucking dishonest, literally.

    And-

    I feel all kinds of things I don’t say. It’s called basic politeness.

    When you mob with your morally hegemonic political correctness stop yelling what you approve of and disapprove of from the rooftops, you can start expecting other people not to do the same. Your pub, your rules eh? No, fuck off.

  59. Ian>

    I didn’t suggest you were linking homosexuality and buggery before. I said the exact opposite: that I was sure you were aware there is no link. Although you then went on a rant to prove me wrong.

    I was merely pointing out that your beliefs on buggery aren’t relevant to a discussion about gay marriage. Although, now you’re making the link in your thinking explicit, I’m not so sure of that.

    The rest of your post is just ranting, so I won’t bother to respond. Straw men about ‘my lot’? Yeah, that’s always the root of a good argument.

    It’s very simple: unless the topic comes up, you have no reason to mention your dislike of buggery. Indeed, given your much-protested dislike of buggery, I’m surprised you want to bring it up at all. Unless, of course, it’s a case of protesting too much…

  60. For heaven’s sake Dave. Read the damned article. It starts-

    “People who call gay sex ‘disgusting’ will be allowed to stay in the UK Independence Party.”

    Not “gay marriage”. Gay sex.

    And-

    I didn’t suggest you were linking homosexuality and buggery before. I said the exact opposite: that I was sure you were aware there is no link.

    This is getting beyond desperate. “No link”? What do you mean by that? That there is no association between gays and bottom sex? Do you have a straight face while you’re typing this?

  61. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “Correct me if I-m wrong, but wasn-t baby P born to straight parents? What you-re saying is complete bollocks. Good parents are good parents, gay or straight.”

    Then you have not understood what I said. Or as it looks more likely, you are being deliberately and dishonestly stupid. Would you like to try again and this time saying something relevant and sensible?

    Good parents are indeed good parents, Gay or Straight. The problem is that good parents strongly tend to be two people of opposite sex who are the biological parents of the child. Everyone else tends to be less good parents. Thus we should be encouraging the biological parents of children to get and stay married while not encouraging anyone else to do so. Given that gay marriage does seem to do so, we should not encourage it. Especially as no one much actually wants it.

    “Incidentally, if you want to use that line of reasoning then only lesbian couples should be allowed to have children, because they have lower rates of separation than straight couples.”

    And if everything else was the same, I could easily be pursauded in favour of lesbian marriage.

    57Tim Almond – “Kurtz-s argument has at least one hole with regards to Scandanavia. He cites the decline of marriage in Denmark since 1990, but the numbers in 2009”

    I thought he specifically dealt with this in one of those articles by pointing out that this is a rise in divorce people remarrying?

    And I would think immigration.

  62. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “Even if you-re just talking about gay sex, there-s a largeish minority of gay men who feel the same way you do about anal, and won-t do it.”

    This is one of these things that Gay activists always say like not all Gay men are promiscuous or Gay men are not at higher risk of taking drugs. They usually refuse to provide data.

    So how do you know? How do you know it is a minority? That it is largish? That such people exist at all?

  63. Ian>

    “For heaven’s sake Dave. Read the damned article.”

    Oh, fair point. I forgot about that.

    “This is getting beyond desperate.

  64. Ian>

    “For heaven’s sake Dave. Read the damned article.”

    Oh, fair point. I forgot about that.

    “This is getting beyond desperate. “No link”? What do you mean by that? That there is no association between gays and bottom sex?”

    Plainly. Because there isn’t. No more than there is between straights and vaginal sex. You seem to be conflating sexual orientation with sexual action – and, moreover, marriage with sex.

  65. re anal either way, it is ironic, given that Fred above linked sex to broccoli, that the standard conversation about bumming tends to go “well, I don’t like it” “have you tried it?” “NO!”.

    (for the avoidance of doubt, “have you tried it within the confines of your gender orientation. There’s all kinds of reasons why people might find the idea of personally stepping outside of their own sexuality a bit wierd.)

    I’m not going to bother taking down the obvious straw man of “it’s unnatural.” Anyone who says this is a cretin, for several reasons.

    But I don’t mind people thinking, or saying, that they find a bit of bottomry disgusting. There are many things I find disgusting. For example, the constant misuse of reflexive pronouns – so common these days – makes me want to punch people.

  66. And not all Europeans are white, not all Chinese are yellow, and not all Africans are black. Nontheless, if given a large number of yellow, black and white people and asked to sort them into Europeans, Chinese and Africans, sorting them by colour would do far better than random.

    What you mean is that there is not an absolute correlation, not that there is no correlation.

    There is only one possible mode of penetrative sex for gays, which is anal. This is thus reasonably what people mean by “gay sex”. Straights have two nether holes to choose from and predominantly prefer the vagina. There is clearly a correlation, long recognised by gay and straight alike, between gay sexual activity and anal sex. Even the martyred Oscar Wilde was convicted on testimony by a servant regarding brown stains on the sheets.

    You really are being rather silly on this point.

  67. So anyway, the only logical conclusion we can draw is that under the new morality any sexual disapproval must be condemned. Presumably nobody shold be allowed into a decent political party if they disapprove of… BDSM, masturbation, oral sex, felching, bagpiping, the Dirty Sanchez, watersports…. or will we get an approved and disapproved list handed down to us? Buggery OK, wanking despicable. That kind of thing?

  68. nobody shold be allowed into a decent political party if they disapprove of… BDSM, masturbation, oral sex, felching, bagpiping, the Dirty Sanchez, watersports

    Well, they certainly shouldn’t be allowed in the tories. What do they think is the point of the conservative party? 🙂

    Also, ‘bagpiping’? No… actually, forget I asked.

  69. SMFS,

    I thought he specifically dealt with this in one of those articles by pointing out that this is a rise in divorce people remarrying?

    What’s the numbers for that?

  70. Ian>

    “You really are being rather silly on this point.”

    Yes, I am. That’s a method I commonly use to highlight absurdity in others.

    “So anyway, the only logical conclusion we can draw is that under the new morality any sexual disapproval must be condemned.”

    Quite. And I’m no longer being silly to make a point. It’s clear that sexual activity between consenting adults is no business of anyone bar those involved. It should not normally be a topic of conversation or comment.

    Condemning something and banning it are of course very different things.

    I’m not clear whether you’re linking your distaste for bumsex with opposition to gay marriage here. If not, I can’t think of any kind of public conversation in which your views on the matter might come up, though. Raising it out of the blue and making a public issue of it seems worthy of condemnation to me.

  71. EL:

    if what I said wasn’t a fact (by contrast with your opinion), then you wouldn’t have to campaign to change the facts, would you?

    Yes, it’s a legal fact that there is currently no same-sex marriage in the UK. Once this bill becomes law, it will be a legal fact that there is same-sex marriage in the UK. At which point I suppose you will, to be consistent, become an ardent supporter of it.

  72. “Raising it out of the blue and making a public issue of it seems worthy of condemnation to me.”

    Just to clarify, I was making a general point there, not (wrongly) accusing you of anything (this time).

  73. sam: Any definition you wish you didn’t know can be found at urbandictionary.org. As it turns out, bagpiping isn’t as bad as it could be.

  74. Dave-

    Yes, I am. That’s a method I commonly use to highlight absurdity in others.

    Unfortunately, all you’ve achieved is to highlight the absurdity in yourself. You’re now I see trying to reverse out by pretending you were deliberately being absurdist. This isn’t going to work, but 10 points for effort.

    I’m not clear whether you’re linking your distaste for bumsex with opposition to gay marriage here. If not, I can’t think of any kind of public conversation in which your views on the matter might come up, though. Raising it out of the blue and making a public issue of it seems worthy of condemnation to me.

    The thread is about bumsex. It’s about whether people who find it personally distasteful must be expelled from the public arena.

    Now it’s nice of you to think that nobody should find any sexual practise, or presumably anything else, distasteful. But they do. We are talking about the right to express personal tastes, and to express moral opinions.

    Let’s put it this way; should nobody be allowed to express their view that pornography is disgusting? Many people do, including many of the leftie right-ons obsessing about gay rights. Many of them don’t just express their distate; they demand that it be banned. Should all these people be denied the right to speak? I think these people are stupid. But they have the right to express their opinion, and even to campaign on its behalf.

    Who’s going to make this list of things we are allowed to talk about? You? Do you really think that somebody who, for instance, says they find coprophila between consenting adults disgusting must not be allowed to say so?

  75. @Ian

    It’s about codes, though, isn’t it? I mean to take an example. I find red leicester cheese really disgusting. I was force-fed it at prep school and to this day if I accidentally eat a lump in it’s raw state (melted is less bad) I gag and spit it out and have to have something to take the taste away. Now, no-one (other, perhaps than a manufacturer of it) is going to take umbrage at my saying that. If I were the MP for Leicester, though, I might keep it to myself. Because saying it would be seen as an indirect attack on the place. And I’m quite happy for everyone else to have as much of the stuff as they like.

    Same here. When people say “I find gay sex disgusting” people hear “I find gays disgusting”. And, to be fair, the people saying it can sometimes mean that. And whilst I am all in favour of people saying whatever they like, because I’m funny like that, it is generally accepted that saying you find a proportion of your electorate disgusting is a Bad Thing. Well, these days, anyway.

    In any case, there is probably a difference between finding something disgusting in posse and in esse and saying publicly that you find it disgusting, which usually has a subtext. I mean I don’t “find gay sex disgusting”, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be a bit put out if two chaps started going hammer and tongs outside the kitchen window whilst I was having my breakfast.

  76. You’ve hit the nail on the head, sam. It would be nice if people always took things at face value, but when the last 5000 times you heard X it actually meant Y, you’d have to be pretty trusting (or stupid) to think the next person didn’t mean Y too.

  77. Well then, the small percentage of the electorate who are sexually dysfunctional in this particular way can vote for somebody else, presumably. Hopefully after they’ve washed the shit off their genitalia before venturing to the polling booth.

  78. Ian>

    “Let’s put it this way: should nobody be allowed to express their view… ”

    You’re the only one making that argument. As I’ve repeatedly stated, there’s a big difference between saying something is wrong and making it illegal.

    It is unnecessary and impolite to talk about other people’s sex lives in public. Of course that extends to pornography and other such things too. That doesn’t mean we ban it, but it does mean that talking about such things is very likely to upset a lot of people and lose you lots of votes.

  79. It is unnecessary and impolite to talk about other people’s sex lives in public.

    It is? Last time we tried that strategy, a lot of people got abused and when they tried to complain, were told that we don’t talk about that, it’s impolite and so on. I’m not sure we want to try that again, do we Dave?

    It never ceases to amaze me how rapidly the exciting new progressivism is turning into the terrible old fashioned Victorianism.

    “Unspeakable” was a very popular meme then, too.

  80. The gay marriage debate is obviously about power and preening, not marriage, but if they want it fair dos, I couldn’t care less.

    Dave is largely and I suspect deliberately talking bollocks, except in the bit about it being rude to discuss (uninvited, or to an audience that isn’t interested) the sex lives of others, so nothing new there.

    I’m with IanB on anal sex – not that I watch much porn, but when it crosses my retinas it is always some Doris getting it up the arse and pretending she loves it, usually preceded by a spot of analingus and then a shitty blow job finish. I’m not sure what it all means – perhaps the end of the world really is approaching.

    Anyway, do many women actually enjoy it? Do most blokes actually want to bugger women? Normal men, I mean, not your actual literal sadistic misogynists? I wouldn’t do it if I was asked, personally.

  81. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “On parenting:”

    They simply define the question as prejudice and then re-state the issue in different words. So they claim merely asking whether children do best in a two parent heterosexual couple is sexism, but then they also claim that one of the best predictors of a child’s mental well being is the quality of the relationship between the parents, such as, I would guess, whether they are still together or not.

    Three stars for dishonesty and weaseling.

    And of course the quality of parenting is a subjective value judgement. I doubt you can draw much of a conclusion from this sort of trashy research.

    The American Pyschological Association is a Gay Rights lobby group with no concern for evidence or facts when it comes to homosexuality. So they have no standing whatsoever. As can be seen by their weasel words. They do not give figures for the number of homosexual couples that are in stable relationships. They say substantial numbers are. Which suggests they know the data is not going to help them one little bit.

    But interestingly, if you want to take them seriously, they point out at some length the advantages of being married. Which obviously applies to heterosexual couples (as Gays could not marry when most of the research was done) – and to their children. It is proof that children do better with two heterosexual married parents.

    “On the prevalence of anal sex amongst gay men:”

    This takes the prize for dishonesty. They say:

    When counselling gay people about sex, it is important not to have preconceived ideas about their sexual repertoire. Perhaps as many as a third of gay men choose not to practise penetrative anal sex on a regular basis

    In other words it does not even remotely come close to saying what you claim it says. Does not like anal sex is not the same as Does not have it on a regular basis. They may be sick. They may be old. They may be single. They may be HIV positive. Who knows? Perhaps as many? Yeah. Rigorous.

    Matthew L – “And on support for gay marriage amongst gay people:”

    Research shows that the legal recognition of same sex relationships is viewed as a highly important equality issue for lesbians, gay men and others living in same sex relationships.

    More dishonesty. They do not say that they want to get married. They say that it is an important political issue for them. That is not the same thing. It is. But only because they can use it as a stick to bully other people with.

    Furthermore:

    Overall, we found that respondents were uncertain about whether civil partnership was inferior to marriage, but reported that as long as the legal rights and responsibilities attached to civil partnership were different from marriage civil partnership would not represent equality.

    They cannot even see a difference between what they have and what the activists are demanding. It is not a real issue in the Gay community except that some of them think they are being discriminated against. That they do not like.

    “Saying that [no one much actually wants [gay marriage]] is dishonest and you should stop it, before you end up as the Richard Murphy of the puritan set.”

    Actually it is a simple statement of the facts. Gay marriage is more popular among lesbians than among male homosexuals, but essentially no one cares and no one wants it. As your links show.

  82. So Much For Subtlety

    Interested – “Anyway, do many women actually enjoy it? Do most blokes actually want to bugger women? Normal men, I mean, not your actual literal sadistic misogynists? I wouldn-t do it if I was asked, personally.”

    Some women clearly do enjoy it. If you look at Victorian porn like My Secret Life, and I do not recommend it, the author, who is frank about most things he did, certainly met women who preferred it.

    Do most blokes want to? Well it is getting more and more mainstream in the world of porn so I imagine most young men will have tried it. I expect it is the result of porn fatigue. People get bored with normal sex if they see too much of it on the internet. They need something more extreme. When you have tried everything else, there is nothing left but to go to the monkey cage at the zoo and get the orangutangs to p!ss all over you.

  83. I’m puzzled by this conversation. There are some sexual practices I enjoy, and others I’m not interested in. I feel not the slightest urge to proclaim to the world which is which.

  84. Well, SMFS has shown yet again that he’s immune to evidence when it disagrees with his prejudices. I think it’s pretty clear he’s not going to change his mind, even if a hundred gay couples tie him down Clockwork Orange style and gang marry each other in front of him. That’s enough for me to chuck his opinions in the bin where they belong.

  85. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “Well, SMFS has shown yet again that he-s immune to evidence when it disagrees with his prejudices.”

    How would you know? You have yet to present me with any. When you try, you present me with evidence that, for instance, Gay people are not remotely interested in marriage. Naturally that is not going to change my mind. Why would it?

    “I think it-s pretty clear he-s not going to change his mind, even if a hundred gay couples tie him down Clockwork Orange style and gang marry each other in front of him.”

    Well as fun as that sounds, why would it change anyone-s mind? It does not sound a convincing form of argument.

    “That-s enough for me to chuck his opinions in the bin where they belong.”

    And so we are back where we started. Children do best with two married heterosexual parents. All the evidence says so. Any civilised society would encourage this. All the evidence seems to suggest that marriage collapses right after the introduction of Gay marriage. Common sense says we should not be making our present problems worse over a ceremony Gays are not even that interested in doing.

    Now perhaps we are so far down the path of civilisational suicide it hardly matters. Who knows? But this week we learn that nine out of ten cohabitating families will not be together by the time their children turn 16 and that children of married couples atre half as likely to be obese.

    Yes, the obvious conclusion is that we want to encourage more fecklessness when it comes to marriage and child rearing.

  86. PaulB @ 76, there are two answers to your question.

    1. It would merely become one of those facts which displeases me (see my comment @ 41).

    2. Your syllogism @ 76 implies that a word means something that it doesn’t mean because parliament has legislated that it shouldbe so, and I’m not persuaded of that. I do, however, accept that if enough people change their minds about what marriage means then, evolution in language being what it is, over a few generations, the meaning of marriage will have changed. Whether that occurs is a question of tanks and lawns.

  87. When you have tried everything else, there is nothing left but to go to the monkey cage at the zoo and get the orangutangs to p!ss all over you.

    Oh come on, at current zoo prices (

  88. When you have tried everything else, there is nothing left but to go to the monkey cage at the zoo and get the orangutangs to p!ss all over you.

    Oh come on, at current zoo prices (£25 for an adult!) you’ll want a much fuller itinerary than that.

    Throwaway supposed-to-be humorous comments don’t really work when you have to post them twice. FFS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *