210 réponses à ce sujet

[Inquisitor Recon]

People are their disgusting cakes.

[Inquisitor Recon]

My clearly sarcastic comment aside, no one is suggesting we return to our pre-civilization society. That being, we should be under no illusions; things we do to elevate ourselves above animals is not some immutable sacred law. It has changed and will continue to change, just as we threw away our flip-phones and bought smartphones. Change is only constant.

Most of the time change sucks. It is not something to be thought of highly or sought out because of the notion that it is constant. It's only worthwhile if it's beneficial to the people as a whole.
 

Which has changed over time and will continue to change. Did you know that in Ancient Greece, a widow whose husband die before she bore a male heir could be forced to marry a male relative? This was because inheritance was considered more important than personal feelings.

That sounds about right. And as far as I know the ancient Greeks had no sort of gay marriage despite being renown for screwing anything with a pulse. If it is all about practicality what's the problem here?
 

Eh, issuing marriage licenses and their associated rights and benefits is the least the government can do to address problems they clearly caused, and make people's lives just a little easier. Go ask a gay couple about they have do to get simple things done, like hospital visitations and shared bank accounts, without the ability to marry. Their horror stories is what would happen to straight couples too if they stop issuing marriage licences altogether.

What problem they (the government) caused? If you mean the effects of bureaucracy then realistically there must be better ways than just more marriage licenses. And from why should the government bother with the lost tax revenue? Once polygamous marriages become legal (and why shouldn't they if we expand the legal definition of marriage) how will they even handle that with the current system? Might as well think ahead.
 

Secular and non-religious don't get married. That's news to me.

What's your point here? They can apply for whatever status the government comes up with. Also "secular" isn't a term used to describe a person although some rabid atheist think it is.

[Gotholhorakh]

Well I have to say I wouldn't have called this conversation arising from the OP.

 

Amazin.

 

Anyway, to put the license fee in context for Americans, it is a tax that is levied on people for a license to own a TV set that is capable of watching TV (eg with an aerial and tuner), whether you watch it or not, it is criminally punished/enforced, and the money goes to the BBC.

 

It amounts to 1 in 10 of all criminal prosecutions in magistrates' court in the UK - people being forced to pay for the BBC when they cannot afford to, or do not wish to on principle (because of eg:  extreme political bias or the now well established facilitation/cover-ups of mass child abuse by entertainment celebrities like Jimmy Saville). Lots of those people are handed down large fines *and* given a criminal record, and 50+ people actually go to prison each year for inability or refusal to pay it.

 

There has been some broad agreement in the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National and Labour parties that the license fee ought to be "decriminalized".for these reasons, but more often than not that feeling is used as a threat in negotiations with the BBC by the government of the day, rather than to destroy the status quo. Even the remit of the BBC is based on bygone times when a lot of people had little access to information/education, so the justification for criminally enforcing it for people's "own good" is arguably obsolete. Still, it's the real expense and consequences for people and the justice system that are less debatable.

 

The BBC itself and its programming are liked/loved in part by (probably most) people, and many would offer up payments voluntarily without a second thought (I probably would), but decriminalization is not really opposed with conviction by any party.

 

So far from being a "tory" thing specifically, if/when it is put forward that the license fee be decriminalized, it's likely to be broadly supported across the house, unless one of the parties fancies they can make political currency from it, I guess.

 

http://www.adamsmith...f-prosecutions/

[Gotholhorakh]

Decriminalisation may not be a Tory thing, but Philip Davies accusing the BBC of "dancing to Labour's tune" kind of is.

 

Well you say that, but actually the accusation of political bias is also an SNP thing, and a UKIP thing, and a Liberal Democrat thing, and a Green Party thing, and this is before we get to a former BBC boss's quotes about the corridors at the BBC being "lined with empty champagne bottles" after a party's election win, or before we get onto respectably established bias in reporting on conflicts abroad. I can think of countless accusations in various directions actually, although that isn't really the issue at play.

 

I don't necessarily subscribe to the less well established concerns about bias. You might say, however, that where there is a large scale perception of extreme political bias and even propaganda in a broadcasting service, there is absolutely no place for compelling people to give money to that service with the same weight of law used to enforce taxes - imagine how people would feel if forced to pay for Fox News on that basis. You might even say that if the perception were wrong, frankly.

 

None of that really matters, though, because the basis for decriminalization isn't that, it is about devastating consequences for real people of something that probably shouldn't even be a criminal matter but a civil one, and about 1 in 10 criminal prosecutions in the UK, being based on what is pretty much a vestigial measure nobody is now asking for.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Meh... the BBC isn't what it used to be, too many repeated programmes now imo although cuts always suck. 
 
Also, i gotta at the marriage discussion with some of the dumb views about it

[Eternal Phoenix]

It's one thing if you just walk into a bakery and order a cake but if walk through the door, tip your fedora, request a cake that looks like Richard Dawkins and saying "god sucks", they should be able to tell you no.

 

Best post in this thread.

[Fast Jimmy]

Marriage is indeed a social contract but there are reasons for the existence of it. As for the government's role in marriage if they feel the need to "revise" the definition of marriage under whatever pretenses people can come up with they might as well abandon it altogether as it becomes rather pointless. Leave it as a religious ceremony.

If the conversation had originally been about preserving the institution of marriage, this wouldn't have come about. Homosexuals have been able to enter into civil unions for quite some time, outside of the definition of marriage. The problem? They aren't legal equivalents.

If you were in a civil union (either a heterosexual or homosexual one), your partner could not come visit you in the hospital if you were incapacitated without the permission of the next of kin. Imagine the parents of your partner who despised your "life of sin" being the ones who make the choice on whether or not you can see the person you've committed yourself to for twenty years, let alone making any decisions about their care or continuity of life.

If you were in a civil union, you would be unable to add your partner to your company's health insurance plans, leaving them possibly without coverage, no matter how long you'd been with the company or how long you had been with your partner. Prior to the ACA coming out, this meant millions of people were unable to obtain coverage for basic medical services that people who got drunk in Vegas and hitched by an Elvis impersonator were able to obtain without question.

Tax breaks, adoption proceedings, custody battles... the list goes on. Marriage is better in every respect than the alternatives offered to gay couples. The fact that civil unions were not allowed to have these rights, despite decades of people trying for them, shows this was never about the word marriage, it was about denying people equal rights.


But let's take a step back. Say government got out of the business of marriage - a total train wreck for any type of legal proceeding, btw - and we leave it to "religion." That could work fine... except I only read your phrase to say "the religion I like best." Because that's the only way you "protect" the sanctity of marriage.

For instance, there are numerous Christian reltigions that perform gay marriage ceremonies. They aren't recognized by the the state where gay marriage isn't legal, but they are able to be performed. So you've got gay marriage already allowed under certain Christian religions.

In addition, some Orthodox forms of religions allow polygamy. So if someone and their multiple spouses all get freaky together one night, that's going to be some form of bisexual/homosexual activity. So religion covers that there as well.

I am a certified minister of the Church of Dudeism. It's a church that adheres to the tenets of The Dude from the Big Lebowski. It's a certified religion and, as a certified minister, I am able to perform religious ceremonies that are both entirely legal and recognized by the state. I'm not joking - Google it. So leaving it to "religions" is quite nebulous in terms of what you will get.

Lastly, if you left everything marriage-related to religious institutions, atheists couldn't get married. Which, if the social contract was nothing more than a ceremony instead of a legally binding alliance; I guess wouldn't be any different than saying atheists can't have a briss or a first communion. Still, it locks people into being part of a religious organization in order to format declare their love and commitment to another person.



Any way you slice it, getting government out of the marriage game and leaving it to religion solves absolutely zero percent of your perceived problems. And I didn't even touch on how crippling it would be for basic day-to-day transactions to occur if there was no rule of law about who is truly married or not.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Think about something more.

Suppose my religious faith doesn't allow me to bless a homosexual union, even if it was stated by national laws. If you punish me with an administrative penalty, you're discriminating my religion, in order to protect the civil beliefs of some people. So I too should get a refund from the state.

 

It's funny because the couple are now separated and claiming to suffer from post traumatic stress from being refused service.

 

The court should have turned around and said "bake a cake for this lesbian couple" if it was such a big problem and then gave therapy lessons to the lesbian ex-couple for their clear mental health issues that obviously go beyond being refused service.

 

"hey we don't bake cakes for gay weddings..sorry mate"

 

 

(funny thing is, one of the lesbian women looks like the woman above with a butt chin and all, I wonder if they're related?)

[Fast Jimmy]

Somewhat more on topic, I'm shocked that more people aren't, well, shocked that a political party is talking about axing (or at least effectively taking the ax to) a public news agency on the basis of their news coverage. I mean, sure, there are issues with having a government sponsored news station covering political events and - more importantly - exhibiting political views (i.e., not being wholly neutral, as if that were even possible). But I would think the idea of actually then taking the step to interfere with this news agency - which is certainly very dictatorial, even when you're in the right entirely - should be terrifying.

Are they truly trying to censor them? Or are they cutting their funding due to a perceived political bias? I think there is a fine line between the two.

I'm genuinely asking - I'm not sure.

[Fast Jimmy]

Think about something more.
Suppose my religious faith doesn't allow me to bless a homosexual union, even if it was stated by national laws. If you punish me with an administrative penalty, you're discriminating my religion, in order to protect the civil beliefs of some people. So I too should get a refund from the state.

Religious groups and entities are perfectly within their rights to refuse to perform a ceremony based off their religious beliefs. Churches can refuse to marry people who have slept together before marriage, or who are from different religious backgrounds, or who don't have the right midichlorian count to achieve Xeno-Level Alpha 9... freedom of religion is still in play here.



Last I checked, no part of Christianity gave special holy countenance on baking freaking cakes. A baker has a business. That business is baking cakes and is, in no way, shape or form, tied to a religious institution. This is not a freedom of religion discussion - they are free to pray to whatever invisible man they so choose. That still has nothing to do with a business refusing service in a manner that breaks the law.

[Gotholhorakh]

Are they truly trying to censor them? Or are they cutting their funding due to a perceived political bias? I think there is a fine line between the two.

I'm genuinely asking - I'm not sure.

 

Mostly a matter of injustice towards people who cannot pay or refuse to pay the TV license.

 

Given the BBC's bias *and* the fact that it has engaged for decades in institutionalised facilitation/cover-ups of child abuse by "celebrities" under its auspices using BBC resources (eg, ones paid for with the license fee), there are naturally people who do not wish to be compelled to sponsor them, so it isn't only people who can't afford it.

 

If it were a matter of censorship, anyway, it's not censorship to stop giving people's money, on pain of criminal prosecution, to a STATE-OWNED broadcaster (whether that broadcaster has spent years broadcasting party/pro-establishment propaganda or not)..

 

If a person were seriously anti-censorship, the existence of the current entity and its funding set-up are the things that might be of concern.

[Fast Jimmy]

Mostly a matter of injustice towards people who cannot pay or refuse to pay the TV license.

Given the BBC's bias *and* the fact that it has engaged for decades in institutionalised facilitation/cover-ups of child abuse using BBC resources (eg, ones paid for with the license fee), there are naturally people who do not wish to be compelled to sponsor them, so it isn't only people who can't afford it.

If it were a matter of censorship, anyway, it's not censorship to stop giving people's money, on pain of criminal prosecution, to a STATE-OWNED broadcaster (whether that broadcaster has spent years broadcasting party/pro-establishment propaganda or not)..

If you are seriously anti-censorship, the existence of the current entity and its funding set-up are the things that might be of concern.

I do agree that having a special BBC Channel tax is a bit shocking. Why not just lump it in with other general taxes? Why have a special process for collecting a BBC tax? That just seems a setup that is ripe for trouble.

[In Exile]

Are they truly trying to censor them? Or are they cutting their funding due to a perceived political bias? I think there is a fine line between the two.

I'm genuinely asking - I'm not sure.

I suppose my issue is that I don't really see a difference between the two. I do agree with the idea that a state news agency can cross some worryingly serious lines when reporting on politically charged topics. And I'm amenable to the view that changes have to be made.

I just think that an official platform of "cut funding" because of "expressed political views" is a source for concern. The Tories may well be right - I don't know anything about the BBC or its coverage.

But then at the same time I'm not sure why bias in a publicly funded agency is worse than bias in a privately funded one. I suppose the argument is "tax money pays for it" but that argument is a non-starter since our tax money pays for a lot of services (or service cuts) implemented by political parties we do not agree with in principle. I'm not sure that funding a news agency is different.

What I'm (now) shocked (this thread seems be shocking for me) is that this BBC fee has a criminal component. I will have to research it further to see if it is truly criminal or whether the remedy is in the nature of contempt (and civil contempt at that). At least in Canada the mere fact something is a fine set out in a legislative regime doesn't make it criminal.

[Gotholhorakh]

I do agree that having a special BBC Channel tax is a bit shocking. Why not just lump it in with other general taxes? Why have a special process for collecting a BBC tax? That just seems a setup that is ripe for trouble.

 

I think funding from the treasury is open to abuse by the government of the day, in all honesty.

 

I would be in favour of a voluntary TV license, with subscription technology per Sky etc., which would ensure fairness all round and enable the BBC to continue with the good stuff.

 

What is most likely going to happen is short of that, however - probably a license fee freeze and the fee being made a civil matter like telecoms, electricity, coal/gas/oil, Sky TV etc.

 

 

What I'm (now) shocked (this thread seems be shocking for me) is that this BBC fee has a criminal component. I will have to research it further to see if it is truly criminal or whether the remedy is in the nature of contempt (and civil contempt at that). At least in Canada the mere fact something is a fine set out in a legislative regime doesn't make it criminal.

 

Watching television without a license in the UK is a criminal offence under the Communications Act 2003 (see: http://www.legislati...003/21/contents and the BBC's "tv licensing" website: http://www.tvlicensi...penalties-top5# )

[Fast Jimmy]

I suppose my issue is that I don't really see a difference between the two. I do agree with the idea that a state news agency can cross some worryingly serious lines when reporting on politically charged topics. And I'm amenable to the view that changes have to be made.

I just think that an official platform of "cut funding" because of "expressed political views" is a source for concern. The Tories may well be right - I don't know anything about the BBC or its coverage.

But then at the same time I'm not sure why bias in a publicly funded agency is worse than bias in a privately funded one. I suppose the argument is "tax money pays for it" but that argument is a non-starter since our tax money pays for a lot of services (or service cuts) implemented by political parties we do not agree with in principle. I'm not sure that funding a news agency is different.

I'd assert that (major, established) political parties are all publicly funded EQUALLY. If there was a publicly funded counterpoint to the bias the BBC was propagating, that may possibly be alleviated...? But that seems like a substantial investment that really would be more work than its reward would be. Best to have publicly funded media outlets be as non-political biased as possible to avoid the issue entirely.

What I'm (now) shocked (this thread seems be shocking for me) is that this BBC fee has a criminal component. I will have to research it further to see if it is truly criminal or whether the remedy is in the nature of contempt (and civil contempt at that). At least in Canada the mere fact something is a fine set out in a legislative regime doesn't make it criminal.

Yeah, this is concerning for me as well. If not paying for the BBC gets you thrown in prison, that seems decidedly one-sided. And, again, makes me wonder why they don't have it as a part of normal compulsory taxes.

[In Exile]

Watching television without a license in the UK is a criminal offence under the Communications Act 2003.

It's a summary conviction offence, yes. I'm assuming since the UK does not have a formal criminal statute that using terms like "offence" and "summary conviction" are enough to denote a penalty is criminal rather than civil?

In any event that's absolutely absurd. What possible argument could there be in favour of this thing?

[Gotholhorakh]

I'd assert that (major, established) political parties are all publicly funded EQUALLY. If there was a publicly funded counterpoint to the bias the BBC was propagating, that may possibly be alleviated...? But that seems like a substantial investment that really would be more work than its reward would be. Best to have publicly funded media outlets be as non-political biased as possible to avoid the issue entirely.


Yeah, this is concerning for me as well. If not paying for the BBC gets you thrown in prison, that seems decidedly one-sided. And, again, makes me wonder why they don't have it as a part of normal compulsory taxes.

 

There is usually a stage of a fine that a person who can't afford a TV license can't afford (eg: £1000) and that doesn't give a person who doesn't want to fund the BBC for reasons of conscience (eg bias, child abuse, etc) a choice but to pay up or go to prison.

 

 

 

It's a summary conviction offence, yes. I'm assuming since the UK does not have a formal criminal statute that using terms like "offence" and "summary conviction" are enough to denote a penalty is criminal rather than civil?

In any event that's absolutely absurd. What possible argument could there be in favour of this thing?

 

In times gone by there was a gap and the BBC filled it, not just entertaining people but putting a lot of relatively uneducated people in touch with information/education "for their own good".

 

Times have changed, of course. I have enjoyed much of the BBC for a lifetime, and will pay my license fee either way, but the antiquated set-up we have now, needs to be changed imo. It is compelling the peasants to be exposed to information from those who know better for their own good, and in the modern age (where we all have immediate access to more knowledge than the beeb will ever broadcast) that is in no way a good fit.

[In Exile]

There is usually a stage of a fine that a person who can't afford a TV license can't afford (eg: £1000) and that doesn't give a person who doesn't want to fund the BBC for reasons of conscience (eg bias, child abuse, etc) a choice but to pay up or go to prison.

A cursory search on my end shows that the fines effectively never reach that level with most offences being in the 150£ range. But the amount is really irrelevant here - someone won't be able to pay it at some point due to financial means and that person will be liable to criminal punishment for effectively not affording a tax. That - to me - is offensive to the idea of justice.

[Inquisitor Recon]

What you or I feel about change is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that it is inevitable. The only relevant action you can take is get used to it. I have.

Practicalities change. Our current "touchy-feely it's all about feelings" reason for marriage is a relatively new phenomenon. As I said, change is the only constant.

Get used to the constant stupidity of mankind which is the harbinger of so much change? That would be pointless.
 

Yeah... good luck with that. When was the last time you've seen government ever do anything cleanly and efficiently, without unintended consequences, or think ahead?

Well of course it will be far from perfect, but we're talking about a hypothetical scenario where the government isn't horribly incompetent so much of the time.
 

I was mocking you for the dumb assumption that modern marriage is somehow an exclusively religious ceremony. Don't take it too seriously.

I never said it was a exclusively religious ceremony, I'm arguing that perhaps it should be. You could still apply for certain legal conditions from the government but it wouldn't be considered "marriage".
 

Truth be told, "secular" is a very broad term. You can have secular Jews and secular Muslims. But it also includes many people who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious." Because as it turns out, religious belief is not a binary "you either believe or don't believe" - there are many, many dynamics at play that determines a person's beliefs, and the word "secular" doesn't adequately describe what is happening.

It was a broad term that I probably shouldn't have used, and I apologise. Slip of the fingers.

Seems to be a complete mess of a term because all sorts of groups hijack it for different uses. Personally I'd consider a secular Muslim to be a Muslim who supports a secular government versus a state based around Islam. A non-practicing Muslim would be different and would refer to his personal decisions.
 

If the conversation had originally been about preserving the institution of marriage, this wouldn't have come about. Homosexuals have been able to enter into civil unions for quite some time, outside of the definition of marriage. The problem? They aren't legal equivalents.

Yet there is no reason civil unions cannot be made legally equivalent to marriage. You act as if "gay marriage" was the only solution to this problem. If the people believe that gay couples should have the same legal benefits as a straight couple then let them have them, but to insist on calling it marriage is pointless and only serves to ****** off others.
 

But let's take a step back. Say government got out of the business of marriage - a total train wreck for any type of legal proceeding, btw - and we leave it to "religion." That could work fine... except I only read your phrase to say "the religion I like best." Because that's the only way you "protect" the sanctity of marriage.

For instance, there are numerous Christian reltigions that perform gay marriage ceremonies. They aren't recognized by the the state where gay marriage isn't legal, but they are able to be performed. So you've got gay marriage already allowed under certain Christian religions.

In addition, some Orthodox forms of religions allow polygamy. So if someone and their multiple spouses all get freaky together one night, that's going to be some form of bisexual/homosexual activity. So religion covers that there as well.

I am a certified minister of the Church of Dudeism. It's a church that adheres to the tenets of The Dude from the Big Lebowski. It's a certified religion and, as a certified minister, I am able to perform religious ceremonies that are both entirely legal and recognized by the state. I'm not joking - Google it. So leaving it to "religions" is quite nebulous in terms of what you will get.

I wouldn't really care what religions perform marriages at that point, you could be married by a Jedi church if you wanted to. It would be a ceremonial affair. Everybody would still have to go to the government for their civil union papers or whatever.
 

Lastly, if you left everything marriage-related to religious institutions, atheists couldn't get married. Which, if the social contract was nothing more than a ceremony instead of a legally binding alliance; I guess wouldn't be any different than saying atheists can't have a briss or a first communion. Still, it locks people into being part of a religious organization in order to format declare their love and commitment to another person.

Well that sucks for them I suppose. But it really doesn't matter.
 

Any way you slice it, getting government out of the marriage game and leaving it to religion solves absolutely zero percent of your perceived problems. And I didn't even touch on how crippling it would be for basic day-to-day transactions to occur if there was no rule of law about who is truly married or not.

It solves the primary one. Inefficient day-to-day transactions part will just be one of those unfortunate consequences until the bureaucracy corrects it. It might also even mean a bit more tax money for the government to work with. If most people have to suffer a bit financially as a result I suppose that will have to be acceptable. "This is why we can't have nice things" and all of that.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

BBC Tax?

 

Just Burn it down already!

[The Devlish Redhead]

I do not understand this.

 

Are conservatives the same everywhere? Cut, cut, cut, and more cuts?

 

Over here we have the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) which is close to what your BBC is and our conservative govt. keeps attacking them for not being pro government..

 

Is this how a conservative govt. works?

 

Science = We don't believe in that
Education = You don't need that so cut funding
Health = Health is optional you don't need that
Arts = Can't have that arts is for lefties

 

Did I miss anything?