What Will They Say in Tunbridge Wells?
Alan Duncan is tying the knot with James Dunseath it is announced on the Court & Social page of the Telegraph. Some serious social changes are encapsulated in that, not so long ago the only Queen on that page was Elizabeth II, and the letters pages were full of outrage at gay marriages. Congratulations to Alan and James...
73 comments:
Tunbridge Wells needs to Get Over It!
All the best to them both from Tuscany!
Isn't "civilisation" wonderful.
Remember the Romans?
This weekend, Iain Dale reported that there were burglars in Tunbridge Wells.
But we all knew that, didn't we?
Yes indeed Congratulations
And congratulations also to the once Equality Minister Jacqui Smith who in 2004 brought the bill to parliament
Would you like a list of the Tory MPS who either voted against the Civil Partnership Bill, or didnt bother to vote in it.
Its a very long list.
Congratulations! Really good news.
If we want to know what Tunbridge Wells thinks, shouldn't we go to Iain Dale's blog? Oh, hang on...
Is this worthy of reporting? Even snidely?
The thing wrong with this 'equality' bill is that, say, sisters living together cannot enjoy the same benefits.
Whats wrong with just two people who are just friends sharing costs and living together (and freeing up the housing market) being able to nominate the other as a legal beneficiary (otherwise we have the silly situation of people pretending to be homosexual to get the same benefits).
Quite frankly its not homosexuality that bothers me (surprisingly I don't tend to think about it too often) it is promiscuity no matter what the sexual orientation which I find objectionable.
Meantime lets hear it for the pink vote.
Trevor,
Snidely? He is the first Tory MP to enter a civil partnership, surely that is remarkable on a slow Monday morning.
Nothing snide intended or done.
Well at least they are open about their feelings, which is more than can be said about the expense claims of others....
A new speaker is needed.
Trevor,
The whole sisters thing was put up by those determined to play down the significance of this legislation. As a society we should value relationships between individuals not otherwise attached by blood. To throw sisters, strangers and everything together would be to demean the point of a committed relationship. In any case marriage or civil partnership is not purely a financial contract.
Mrs Duncan looks like Andrew Lloyd Webber.
anon 11.20
I would say he looks a little more like the entirely heterosexual, non coke sniffing Lord Linley
PS
How long before Mr Dunseath is getting paid for "secretarial duties" ?
Trevor
"as a society we should value relationships between individuals not otherwise attached by blood"
Why?
As a member of 'society' what possible benefit do I derive from whatever these two people do in their private lives?
And what's it got to do with the state?
If a couple are presumed to be intending to produce another little taxpayer it's understandable that the state might have an interest in assisting that endeavour but why otherwise?
Sorry, I think I may have addressed above comment to the wrong person.
I dont agree with this law at all, as it is against my beliefs, but good luck to them.
Whilst as a confirmed hetro I do not approve, I congratulate Alan on his honesty and integrity in this matter.
Rather different I think from other such 'worthies'; Simon Hughes, Mark Oaten, Ron Davies and of course Gay Gordon spring to mind!
I hope he continues to enjoy life to the full.
It's good to see people looking so happy. Congratulations to them both.
Can we rest assured, that if James is employed by Al as a 'researcher', that you will pile into him with venom?
Gary
I suppose that we have to say 'well done' 'wish you well' etc as it against the laws introduced by the gay thought police to say otherwise. I want politicians to make choices for me.... to shag someone of the same sex seems to be to be a strange and perverse choice, so I would choose not to be represented by a gay of any party.
I await the knock on my door for having such opinions....
" not so long ago the only Queen on that page was Elizabeth II"
beneath you Guido, we value you for your gunpowder plot - not your tory credentials
Sorry I wouldn't bum either!
jus' askin' - What benefit do you gain from this? None. What benefit do you gain from denying people the opportunity of formalising their partnership? None.
I fail to see what the problem is, although noting the tone of your post I can hazard a guess.
He's a damn sight prettier than Gay Gordo's beard.
Come out Gorgon, and fuck off.
At the 2004 Tory Conference in Bournemouth, between debates, the Screen showed various interviews with members of the shadow cabinet and their teams asking them personal questions, such as, "What's your first political memory?", etc. One question that several of the team were posed was, "Do you remember your first kiss?" Just as well, they never asked Alan Duncan that one
What do they think about it in Oman where the propsal was made?
well played that haddock
Which one is Heath Ledger?
Is it the one that looks like a corpse?
What do they think about it in Oman where the propsal was made?
LOL - as the Sultan is generally believed to be gay, whatever the law in his country may state, I expect in practice they're not too concerned. I was intrigued to see that's where the proposal took place; it's a beautiful country and strikes me as a highly-appropriate setting. Good luck to the two of them! :)
Good luck to both of them. I still wouldn't vote Tory, though I might sleep with one.
Non of them are a patch on my Gordy but given the chance I probably would!
Tunbridge Wells says 'congratulations'!
James Burdett
I think you misunderstood me.
I have absolutely no interest in what these people do in their private lives. None whatsoever.
However, I find it difficult to understand why their private preferences alone should entitle them to be treated differently for tax purposes than any other pair or indeed group of individuals. I would say the same about a heterosexual couple who married without the intention of having children.
I wonder what Julian Brazier is going to say. Perhaps it might finally do for him leaving a seat open for someone who lives at least in the 20th century to stand...
Andrew Pierce fixed it for Jim.
Bit below the trouser belt with that headline Mr. Fawkes!
But good luck to the happy honest couple.
Just a pity such personal honesty was not displayed at SW1A.
Still think Alan Duncan has a bit of the 'Swiss Tony' look about him, only in his case it would be "Being an MP is a bit like making love to a beautiful man".
Alan Duncan must be mad. What is it with men, some of them simply don't know how lucky they are. If I was gay, not having to get married I think, would be one of the best things about being gay, surly.
I have long since believed that any MAN not having or intending to have children who gets married to anyone, should be certified insane.
As I am sure they are not planning to do so. What in the hell is the point of getting married?
REALLY what is the point?
Its the quickest way to unforeseen poverty, of buggering up a otherwise good friendship and a rampant uncomplicated sex life, the devil herself has yet come up with.
I would love to hear these two discussing the colour of the new curtains or who's going to do the washing up next?
Oh I forgot these people live on us. So they pay a women to do these things for them.
Still, if someone please, gay or not, can come up with a non public political propaganda reason, for two good looking men, with plenty of cash in their pockets, getting married to each other. I would like to hear it.
Was Duncan coming under pressure from his constituency to start conforming to some kind of, something sort of conformist, or what?
Is there now something suddenly wrong with being gay and single, or have I missed something?
One good thing, its more honest then what Gordon Brown did, and is still doing , however mind blowingly silly.
ATLAS shrugged.
Why is it that Duncan has felt able to be honest about his sexuality whilst some his colleagues and opponents have not?
Is lying the sensible option in the long term?
Eileen
"What they get up to in the bedroom is the least of it."
Good luck to them.
Duncan seems to be honest as well as comopetant.
I can't speak for the whole of Tunbridge Wells, but from me I say good luck to them.
It's none of my cocking business what he gets up to at home any more than it's Stalin's business what I do behind closed doors at home.
Zorro.
Great news! Good luck Alan and James.
anon asks why men would want to get married, if they're gay. There are liberal and Tory reasons:
- it regularises your legal status as next of kin. This has an important benefit with respect to visiting rights in hospital and inheritance duties. It prevents unkind people like haddock, on learning of the death of a gay blood relative, making life a misery for his late relative's partner.
- it sends a signal to wider society that stable and committed relationships are the norm. This is a good thing as such relationships are healthier for those concerned and cost society less in the long run.
Marriage is great, all Tories agree. It was weird of us to deny its extension to gay couples. We're on the side of institutions which act as counterweights to the atomisation of society, with all the breakdown that brings. Those who hate gay people and civil partnerships should note that the only political company they share are the perverted marxists who, from the 70s on, lectured gay men that it was their duty to be promiscuous, to help smash the "patriarchy" .
The best reason of all, of course, is that Mr Duncan loves and is loved. A politics that can't find the space to recognize, celebrate and reward that most basic and human of desires is un-Tory. Let's leave the politics of algorithms to the socialists. Congratulations to them both!
"Buggering up a good friendship" - what can you possibly mean?
What'll they say?
"Disgusted"
It leaves a bad taste in the mouth .. allegedly.
Marriage is great, all Tories agree. It was weird of us to deny its extension to gay couples.
No, it was right, not weird. Conservatives are supposed to "conserve", not help destroy institutions.
We're on the side of institutions which act as counterweights to the atomisation of society, with all the breakdown that brings.
If you really think gay marriage is going to help prevent "atomization", you're as stupid as you seem to be. "Gays" are one of the groups most active in destroying the country, as any glance at ZaNuLab will show.
Those who hate gay people and civil partnerships should note that the only political company they share are the perverted marxists who, from the 70s on, lectured gay men that it was their duty to be promiscuous, to help smash the "patriarchy".
No, it's not the only political company we share. Not that we do share it: care to quote anything from the "Marxists" opposing gay marriage? Didn't think so.
The best reason of all, of course, is that Mr Duncan loves and is loved. A politics that can't find the space to recognize, celebrate and reward that most basic and human of desires is un-Tory.
Pardon me while I throw up. That slimy reasoning would justify any making a marriage of any relationship in which both partners "love and are loved".
Let's leave the politics of algorithms to the socialists. Congratulations to them both!
It's to understand why the UK is doomed when a so-called Tory reasons like that.
"Bugger me!" - satisfied somebody said it Guido.
Congratulations to them both.
bedtimetory = spiteful nasty idiot
How, exactly, does permitting gay marriage undermine heterosexual marriage?
How, exactly, does it do that?
And please don't tell me that "it's obvious" or criticise my "slimy reasoning".
Explain yourself, if you can...
Hmmm... This is very worrying indeed - despite being a [not very] red-blooded heterosexual, I find the blue-blooded homosexual Mr Dunseath strangely attractive in an Emma Thompson posh totty kinda way.
Perhaps he wears black undies and patent stilettos when Mr Duncan is around...
congratulations to alan and james.
I wish them a happy and long lasting marriage.
Why is putting your willy up another man's bottom rewarded by the taxman?
bedtimetory appears to have an intellectual capacity equivalent to his moral reasoning. His ignorance beggars belief, as do some of the other comments on this thread. To say that gays are destroying the country tells one nothing about gays, but everything about the twisted mind of the person expressing the view.
As for those wondering why other couples cannot have the benefit of civil partnerships, one only has to read the Act to understand (especially the provisions governing the ending of a partnership). As for haddock, what has objecting to promiscuity got to do with the subject? If he is keen to reduce it, he should be rushing out to support marriage and civil partnerships, rather than contributing to a society that, by its attitude towards gays, has encouraged clandestine contact. The hypocrisy of people like haddock is stunning.
One more reason why I will not be voting Tory again.
when do they claim their new children whos heads they can completely fuck up, on account that they like to put their cocks up each others ass and stir each others shit and because the marxists say its ok!
Strange, can`t usually move for homo insults on this board!
Now a Tory goes public about fucking other men up the arse and found an arsehole he really likes the smell off and its smiles all round!
plenty of Tory hypocrites on this board now Masquerading as PC marxist Liberals, playing party politics.
Now i understand how Liberal `Dave` got elected!
whats next giving children to gay couples where it is proven to cause great mental damage and confusion in many of them!
its all equal right!
Even some researchers in favour of gay adoption admit that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be homosexual.
Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, studies indicate significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting outcomes for children. One of the largest pro-gay studies found that children raised by homosexual couples had the worst outcomes in terms of education and social adjustment. Children raised by cohabiting couples were better, but those raised by married couples had the best outcomes.
Gender confusion seems to be rife with daughters of lesbian mothers.
now fuck off you commie cunts!
As the great Michael Gambon, I think it was, once said -
"I used to be a homosexual of course. I was forced to give it up. It made my eyes water." :-)
Fair play & good luck to them both. My inherent dislike for politicians of any hue does not extend to their preferences or private lives (notwithstanding hypocritical preaching etc - then it's game on). However I suspect most of the vile homophobic commenters on here would object with ECHR vigour to their private lives being bandied about on this organ.
Garcia.
Just want to check with the religious police - is fucking women up the arse OK or not?
I want to marry my horse.
"Pardon me while I throw up. That slimy reasoning would justify any making a marriage of any relationship in which both partners "love and are loved"."
If marriage isn't for those who are in love what is it for?
Social cohesion? OK but based on what exactly?
Preventing the 'atomisation' of society? So no individual liberty there then.
Protecting propety rights? OK ...but you cant take it with you and is that really what life is about?
Oh dear bedtimetory, you have been damaged at some time havent you dear. Do try and get out more and have a little think about what party you really belong in.
Congrats to the happy couple. Perhaps there is something in this thing called 'progress' after all.
Not that I would do it you understand: marriage (to either gender) tends to limit one's future nookie.
This particularly applies to gays and bi-folk who (in my case) can otherwise look forward to a loads of raunchy sex with lots of interesting partners.
bedtimetory = spiteful nasty idiot
Exactly like countless Conservatives in the past, who would be revolted to see what the party has become today. Cameron is a Bliar clone with the same agenda: serve special interests in return for power.
How, exactly, does permitting gay marriage undermine heterosexual marriage?
How, exactly, does it do that?
And please don't tell me that "it's obvious" or criticise my "slimy reasoning".
Explain yourself, if you can...
A priori, anything New Labour are in favour of will not be good for the UK. And as if by magic, "Enver" Hodge pops up today to provide further proof. Visit the page below and read, in particular, the reasoning after "However, perhaps you could explain just how, precisely, the recognition of homosexual marriage will adversely impact on Western civilisation." (Please excuse "adversely impact" -- it's an American site.)
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009994.html
If marriage isn't for those who are in love what is it for?
From "marriage is for those in love" it doesn't follow that "all those in love should be able to marry". And one of the other groups Cameron's frantically sucking up to might suggest love isn't essential anyway.
bedtimetory appears to have an intellectual capacity equivalent to his moral reasoning. His ignorance beggars belief, as do some of the other comments on this thread. To say that gays are destroying the country tells one nothing about gays, but everything about the twisted mind of the person expressing the view.
Bleat away from the Big Book of Easy-to-Remember PC Phrases for Half-Wits: the truth will eventually sink in. "Gays" are ONE of the groups destroying the country and not the most important. They're still worth opposing.
Explain yourself, if you can...
Obviously you can't, judging from the above.
It is no more the business of the state what two consenting adults get up to in their own bedrooms than it is what god they worship or what political creed they believe in.
And if you think it is, fake tories, then there is a perfectly good party that just longs for people like you who think the state should have the power to interfere in people's private lives even when they are not infringing anyone else's freedom. I heartily suggest you **** off and join it.
The only thing worse than NuLab power-crazed nanny-statists is tory nanny-statists. At least the former have the courage of their pissy convictions.
oh dear, until yesterday I thought Brown and crew where the nastiest bunch on the planet. Now I lift up the conservative sitting room carpet and find something even nastier. Here's a box of swan vestas Guido, go to it.
I will certainly take a poll when I am on my daily shopping trip and let you know what they think.
Mrs. Trellis
Could this be described as an "open ended relationship?"
puke! homosexuality should be illegal as it was in the 60's, Mr Duncan et al should be viewed in the same way as gary glitter.
I have been quite impressed with Alan Duncan. He can be serious and thoughtful when he needs to be, yet has a great sense of humour and is very "human" somehow. As we saw in today's "Daily Politics", he can even deliver Shakespeare rather well.
This other business of "Civil Partnerships" is, I confess, somewhat alien to me (but the again, what do I know about any kind of pairing!) but the important point here is to get its description right. Some of the UK press have incorrectly described it as a "marriage", which it most certainly is not, and never can be.
God created marriage and the family, and we can never put our "politically convenient" (or whatever) preferences above God's laws and wishes.
It is one those rare things in this universe -- an absolute, with no shades of grey.
ChrisC said...
Explain yourself, if you can...
Obviously you can't, judging from the above.
Now that moderation's off again...
I've given you a link. Follow the link. I'm not required to write "explanations" to order for your benefit. If you think otherwise, think again.
Post a Comment