DI Bruce Robertson Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 No, the persecution begins when one group is not allowed to marry & other groups are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DI Bruce Robertson Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Is not being allowed to marry persecution? It's definitely discrimination but I'm not sure it is persecution. Rather than pedant arguments, can you offer an answer to the wider point? I genuinely don't know where you stand on this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Ok then, educate me. From what I know this rape clause would mean that the victims would have to say they were raped to qualify? Essentially bringing back painful memories. The idea is that there is a 2 child cap on child benefit to discourage people from having kids they can't afford, however if a woman is raped and then has a child, then it would be unfair to blame the pregnancy on her so the cap is ignored.Therefore the rape clause is a good thing for rape victims. Without this clause they would be hit by the cap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 The wider point is I support gay marriage. I believe that they should have exactly the same rights and entitlements as non gay people. However I also respect democracy and the views of those who believe and think differently. I am not arrogant enough to believe that I and my society is right on every subject as history will inevitably show we aren't. I think that religious institutions and individuals should be free to discriminate if that is there wish, just as we should be free to discrimate against their businesses etc in response I don't think social changes should be forced upon people who don't welcome them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, Donathan said: The idea is that there is a 2 child cap on child benefit to discourage people from having kids they can't afford, however if a woman is raped and then has a child, then it would be unfair to blame the pregnancy on her so the cap is ignored.Therefore the rape clause is a good thing for rape victims. Without this clause they would be hit by the cap. I can't say I've heard any of them confirming this, I'd always assumed that the last thing most rape victims wanted to do was share and relive their experiences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 I can't say I've heard any of them confirming this, I'd always assumed that the last thing most rape victims wanted to do was share and relive their experiences. Well they aren't forced to. They could choose simply not to claim the child benefit for child #3 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Just now, Donathan said: Well they aren't forced to. They could choose simply not to claim the child benefit for child #3 And deprive their kids of food. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 And deprive their kids of food. Well if they want the child benefit then they have to declare that they've been raped. Quite simple really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Rape clause aside, any child benefit policy based on the number of children is always going to have problems given the different family structures that exist today. You either have a policy that has no child limit or abolish child benefit altogether. The halfway house is completely unworkable in practice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 I understand that viewpoint and for that reason I think the exemption should be removed altogether. There is no logical reason why a child born of rape needs more financial support than one born under normal circumstances. This is what happens when you get an well meaning idiot like May who doesn't think things through or take on enough consultation before rushing things into law. The only thing we should be discussing is whether there should be a two-child limit. May managed to completely f**k even that simple thing up. I'm actually agreeing with you for once. Should not have imposed any limit. It's the kids that are ultimately punished through no fault of their own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DI Bruce Robertson Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 The wider point is I support gay marriage. I believe that they should have exactly the same rights and entitlements as non gay people. However I also respect democracy and the views of those who believe and think differently. I am not arrogant enough to believe that I and my society is right on every subject as history will inevitably show we aren't. I think that religious institutions and individuals should be free to discriminate if that is there wish, just as we should be free to discrimate against their businesses etc in response I don't think social changes should be forced upon people who don't welcome them. It's kind of a juxtaposition to hold though? I believe that you are genuine in your concern & affinity in regards to gay rights, but the DUP alliance & the likely dropping of the ECHR legislation in the forthcoming parliamentary term kind of makes these types of issues a central issue at present? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 It's kind of a juxtaposition to hold though? I believe that you are genuine in your concern & affinity in regards to gay rights,? Quite an elongated way to call him gay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DI Bruce Robertson Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Quite an elongated way to call him gay. No. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 It's kind of a juxtaposition to hold though? I believe that you are genuine in your concern & affinity in regards to gay rights, but the DUP alliance & the likely dropping of the ECHR legislation in the forthcoming parliamentary term kind of makes these types of issues a central issue at present? The DUP aren't interested in trying to shape mainland laws. So no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 You reckon that anyone outside of a gay couple should be able to decide on whether they should be able to marry or not? Personally, I cannot see how this can possibly be a debatable issue. The fact that it took until 3 years ago to make it law tells you about the unhealthy obsession some people have with others relationships. I don't believe it's anyone business who someone wants to have a sexual relationship with but if marriage is a religious institution and religious folks believe it is there business then they shouldn't have to conform to society. They should be free to do what they want whether they're viewed as odd balls or not. If they don't want to marry gay people they shouldn't be forced to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 You are not agreeing with me at all. Firstly, I am saying the exemption clause should be removed. Secondly, we need to get away with this "punished" nonsense. So what should a woman who is raped, becomes pregnant and can't get an abortion do? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 And you cannot understand how painful that would be? To relive the experience AGAIN? You clearly are quite simple really. How else do we determine who's been raped and who hasn't? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 You are not agreeing with me at all. Firstly, I am saying the exemption clause should be removed. Secondly, we need to get away with this "punished" nonsense. Oh thank f**k for that. [emoji1] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Fucking hell. Are we actually debating with the puddle-drinker's 307th alias? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, jupe1407 said: Fucking hell. Are we actually debating with the puddle-drinker's 307th alias? It would be just dandy if Div could thin out the accounts of the unionist troll/s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.