God help us - UKIP councillor blames storms and floods on gay marriage....

[tech_guy]

Yet another reason not to vote for this dangerous bunch of out of touch morons:

 

BBC News - UKIP councillor blames storms and floods on gay marriage

 

Farage is just another rich boy playing at being a bloke you could have a smoke and a drink with.

 

Politicians - I'd shoot the lot of them.

 

Idiots.

 

/RANT OVER

Edited January 18, 2014 by tech_guy

[elsiegee40]

There's a reason the one and only spokesman for UKIP is Nigel Farrage; he can't trust any other member of his party to open their mouth!

[witch]

Doomed, Doomed

We're ALL Doomed...

[Arthur]

Yet another reason not to vote for this dangerous bunch of out of touch morons

David's comments have more to do with his personal (and outmoded) views as a Christian, rather than being a right-wing councillor.

 

Religion and politics are never a good combination.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Arthur

[AngryTechnician]

UKIP = UK Intolerance Party. Pretty sure that being a nut in some way is a requirement for membership.

[Arthur]

twitter.com/UkipWeather

[nicholab]

I glad we all so tolerant to this persons views. I was against gay marriage I remember hearing about it 10 years a go in the Netherlands I thought it never happen in a country like UK.

[synaesthesia]

People like that are desperate to turn us a deep south US state. Those very people need to bring themselves into the 21st century and take a good hard look at themselves. Edited January 20, 2014 by synaesthesia
Humanised

[elsiegee40]

The moderators are watching this thread. It has the potential to go out of control.

 

All of you: Please take care of what you say and how you say it.

Edited January 20, 2014 by elsiegee40

[GREED]

I did wonder if this bloke wrote headlines for Daily Mail...

[Arthur]

I did wonder if this bloke wrote headlines for Daily Mail...

or the script for ...

 

[seawolf]

Religion and politics are never a good combination.

 

You're right about one thing, Christianity and politics never make a good combination. Politicians have to perpetually lie and be as cunning as a fox to be successful, which is pretty inconsistent with being a Christian...

[sparkeh]

I glad we all so tolerant to this persons views. I was against gay marriage I remember hearing about it 10 years a go in the Netherlands I thought it never happen in a country like UK.

Tolerance toward rational views is to be encouraged, but someone who says we in the midst of a biblical plague? That deserves ridicule.

 

Gay marriage was always going to happen as the UK as, in general, the UK is a tolerant and forward thinking country, and its to our credit.

[JJonas]

twitter.com/UkipWeather

 

CharmlessNurk had an interesting tweet on this topic as well but as it was very much NSFW I'm not going to link to it.

[synaesthesia]

Like racism, and indeed many other "isms" it shouldn't even have to be thought about in this day and age. Humanity is a delicate breed and it'll take a few more generations I think until we've grown sufficiently as a race to do aware with them properly. For many of us the groundworks for being rather more open minded and tolerant was laid by our parents, for some of us they are the generation doing it. The change period is always going to be the most difficult and the best thing we can do is to ensure our children go on to be open and accepting. Of course we still need to work hard at it ourselves. Let's hope these politicians' kids turn out rather more accepting too. That is one time peer pressure is usually better than parental guidance!

 

And to that NSFW tweet mentioned a couple of posts ago. Absolutely, that "insult" has now forced it's way into my vocabulary For those that don't wish to look it up, leaving the insult out, it's roughly "Dear UKIP, Surely if gays were in charge of the weather, every day would be fabulous?"

Edited January 20, 2014 by synaesthesia

[seawolf]

It is clear to me that the real meaning of "tolerance" has been lost to an entire generation. Tolerance does not mean agreement, it in fact means disagreement with something (a point of view, a lifestyle, etc.), but allowing it to exist anyway. As in not trying to persecute or imprison people holding that view.

 

The Latin word 'tolerare' that we derived the word tolerate from meant "to bear, to endure (often associated with pain)". So, to say that you will only tolerate something that you find somewhat agreeable or rational is an oxymoron.

 

So, when many people use the word "tolerance" what they really mean is "agreement with". In which case, you find most people to be intolerant of many things.

[synaesthesia]

This ^

 

Good example being our current Pope. I haven't read too much into it but from what I can understand from other people is he's doing a reasonable job in trying to increase acceptance regardless of someone's status. Not agreement of course, due to religion but still happy to point out we're all human, atheist, catholic, agnostic, jedi, whatever.

Edited January 20, 2014 by synaesthesia

[sonofsanta]

I have never understood why some people take such umbrage at other people's happiness.

 

As posted by the fabulous George Takei on Facebook t'other day:

[Garacesh]

I've always tried to think of myself as an open person, tolerant of the views of others. But denying someone's rights based on sexual orientation? Nuh-uh. Although I won't be confrontational or aggressive about it, I won't stand for it either. I welcome people to discuss their views with me, but unfortunately nobody has ever given me a better reason than "Because religion" or "Because I just don't agree with it", the latter never being expanded upon.

 

I don't agree with the recent badger cull because it needlessly puts them through harm, and there was no conclusive link between badgers and bovine tuberculosis.

I don't agree with parents that don't vaccinate their children because it puts their health at risk when there's no reasonable medical evidence for doing so.*

 

The thing is, it's the 'because' that makes the opinion valid, in my eyes. Even if your justification is biased or even completely incorrect, it's better than 'just because' (which is also what I consider the religious approach to be, more on that later). A biased or incorrect justification leaves your opinion open for debate. It's that justification that allows me to discuss your opinion (and, of course, my justification that allows you to discuss mine) and through this we may be able to reach a mutually better understanding.

 

"I don't agree with homosexuality because I feel it goes against the nature of our species. As any species evolves, one of their functions is, without fail, the ability to propagate itself.'

Now that I'd debate with. Admittedly I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd be more than willing to have an adult and mature discussion if somebody gave me that as their reasoning. Thing is, I've never heard that. I've never had somebody able to qualify why they feel how they feel. I've had "Well, it's just wrong, isn't it?".. Well why is it wrong? Can you justify it? I've heard "$religion says it's wrong", but again, why is it wrong? And have you properly evaluated that information and come to your own conclusion?

 

I don't want to sound like I'm religion-bashing. Whilst not religious myself, I respect other peoples rights to their spiritual beliefs of every and all kinds. But please, stop using your beliefs to infringe upon others rights. If you don't like the fact that people are homosexual, that's fine - we all don't have to like everything everybody else does. But can we please, please start judging people on their moral choices, rather than their sexual orientation?

 

Imagine what would happen if you showed up at a wedding venue, with your soon-to-be husband-or-wife, and the priest decided "You may now kiss the br- Oh. Wait. You're straight? No, sorry. Can't do this. You're not allowed, because you like the opposite sex. Get out, you filthy breeders!". Would that be fair? What if you got into your car, leaned out of your window and kissed your significant other goodbye for the day - and then your neighbour started declaring that the thunderstorm that was about to set in was because you were straight? Is that fair? No? So why should it be okay the other way around?

 

*I was never given the whooping cough vaccine because our family has a history of complications with it, which has resulted in fatalities. I was given every other vaccine when I was younger, though.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Garacesh

[Oaktech]

The problem with the concept of tolerance is that when the person spouting the rhetoric 'to be tolerated' is in some position of influence and should be capable of sensible and dispassionate discussion.

[Andrew_C]

The bible is quite clear on this:-

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 18.32

It doesn't mention God sending floods or anything, just that Gays should be put to death. Then again, the bible does say a whole host of other things that in today's society should be treated with ridicule to the highest degree.

[ICTDirect_Dave]

ukip Sure do know how to make headlines. Unfortunately I can only see this gaining them more supporters from the nutcases out there. The creation of the @ukipweather account on twitter however has given me a right old laugh so I guess it all balances out. We all know he's both wrong and a bigot!

[localzuk]

The bible is quite clear on this:- It doesn't mention God sending floods or anything, just that Gays should be put to death. Then again, the bible does say a whole host of other things that in today's society should be treated with ridicule to the highest degree.

 

But Christianity doesn't follow the Old Testament any more does it?

 

Homosexual marriage is the only thing I've had a blazing row with one of my colleagues over in 8 years working with them, it really gets me riled up.

 

I can't believe that UKIP is still seen as a serious party - its near enough weekly that one of their councillors comes out with something from the middle ages. They're just an absurdity with no sensible policies.

Edited January 20, 2014 by localzuk

[E_G_R2]

2 examples from the new testament found on a US deep south fundamentalist web page

 

1 Cor 6:9-10

Rom 1:26-28

 

Times change and I feel that if Jesus was around today he would embrace these people as he did the beggers and cripples etc.. The thing with the old/new testament and the letters of the apsotles is that they represent change in ideas, its just that we've stopped adding to the offical 'manual'

[Sdrawkcab]

The bible is quite clear on this:- It doesn't mention God sending floods or anything, just that Gays should be put to death. Then again, the bible does say a whole host of other things that in today's society should be treated with ridicule to the highest degree.

 

This doesn't actually say that gays should be put to death, it says that men who have sexual intercourse with other men should be put to death. Do you need to have sex to have a healthy relationship? Christians would largely have you believe that no, you don't.

 

That being said, hypocrisy from christianity is hardly suprising.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Sdrawkcab