It's got me thus far :)

But, really, with the Northern Powerhouse mostly regarded as a figment of Osbourne's imagination in most northern cities, and the fact that he's generally perceived to have ruthlessly cut the legs from under most working families, as well as vulnerable groups such as the disabled and seriously ill, I don't see George winning the British public over.

Then again, as the last general election shows, he wouldn't even need a public majority anyway, it's all numbers. Quite literally. Money, money, money. That, and he can apparently eat fast food on camera much more visually appealingly than Labour's recent leaders.

"Anyway, this vacancy won't be filled until after January 2016."
He says in February 2016.

"Hopefully Comrade Corbyn can push through just that when he's PM"
This is how I can tell you're joking.

@Tr: ND's just seeing to what extent he can have blatant lies slip through the conversation, in preparation for Mafia 17.

"We should refrain from mixing our British sarcastic humour with this thread. It will confuse the Americans."

No, we get it. Putin doesn't.

woohoo :)

Let's keep going, boys!

@brainbomb

I don't think government has any business in any marriage, gay or straight. I do think that a women's so-called "right to choose" should be restricted and I am for legalizing marijuana. How is that?

@KingCyrus: Who should process the "business" of marriage then, in your opinion?

Why do you see marriage in economic terms of "business" ?

Do you mean that marriage is completely arbitrary and should not be officially recognised by the state?

the state shouldn't even be involved in marriage

“While I differed with Justice Scalia’s views and jurisprudence, he was a brilliant, colorful and outspoken member of the Supreme Court... My thoughts and prayers are with his family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing”
-Bernie Sanders

@ILN: Are you saying then that marriage should be a completely private affair, not officially recognised by any body or institution?

marriage is an economic "business" because of the tax credits, the inheriting rights, visitation rights, easy joint ownership of property, etc. in the states at least, legal marriage is a huge step forward financially. the fact that the court would not extend these perks to everyone is horrible. no one should have them, or everyone. of course, our divorce rate and it's expensive consequences might even this out a bit...

Then why should the church?

Marriage is a legally binding union. God has nothing to do with two people deciding to live together and cohabitate. Not only that, what business does anyone have telling anyone who is eligible to even be married in the first place?

I would argue its ridiculous how liberally we allow same sex people to marry and divorce but were trying to harp about what the state can and cant do?

The state shouldnt be giving subsidies to greedy ranchers and farmers either. How about we give some subsidies to teachers if you wanna bitch about what the state should be doing or should not be doing.

I think staying out of peoples business seems like a good idea in all cases, hence, we let anyone get married if they want.

Christian Churches have, historically, always received payment for processing marriages. The notion of payment even appears in some translations of the Bible.

@wjessop, let religious, cultural and social bodies handle marriage, not the state. Marriage should not be defined by the state, it is defined by what the two partners (or more) want to define it as, in accordance to their social and cultural norms, beliefs and religion.

*not sure if you were replying to me brainbomb, but when I said "in the states" i was referring to the United States for our friends from other countries in this discussion. I think you and I are in agreement anyway.

yea well I would say the church has utterly failed on its track record of producing happy marriages.

divorce rates higher than ever. more and more couples opting out of getting married in favor of just having domestic partnerships. People getting married purely for tax benefits.

God has nothing to do with marriage. God isnt real anyway so why would you perpetuate this nonsensical argument about what a legal contract is between two consenting people. That is all marriage is or ever will be, is a rather distressing and complicated but breakable business deal.

"@wjessop, let religious, cultural and social bodies handle marriage, not the state."

By some definitions, the state is a social body.

legal marriage is a financial agreement, there is no way around that. Of course there is love involved in many cases, but the government shouldn't care about that part. Marriage should just be a legal document between any 2,3, 4 or more people communicating their financial and legal obligations to each other. I don't think there is anyway around this.

Or rather, "which God" are you referring too? the Muslim one where you can have multiple wives?

The Christian one where you biblically can beat the shit out of your wife if she does anything you dont like?

The Jewish concept of marriage?

The Hindu Gods concept of marriage?

Shinto?
Confuscious?

What church and what deity are you referring too that has the monopoly on the legitimate marriages? Curious you sounded like you implied that the only valid marriages are ones in Christian/American churches...

"The state shouldnt be giving subsidies to greedy ranchers and farmers either."
Right, it's only one of the most back-breaking and impoverishing professions outside of the US.
Or did you mean the factory farms which feed disease to Americans and falsely use the American romanticised view of farmwork to profit on pouring waste into rivers and keeping/slaughtering animals in disgusting and deplorable conditions?
Or other companies which employ people worldwide to harvest crops at costs so low they have no escape from poverty?

Sorry, farms cause a lot of tangents to go off at the same time.

Personally, my definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The state should not be defining it. If say a gay couple believes that marriage is also between a man and another man, then so be it, the people of their community, their friends and those with the same definition will accept it. I don't get why people want the state to support their definition of marriage over others. Its also ridiculous that in some countries it is even illegal to get married in church before going to the municipality and signing your marriage contract.

"@wjessop, let religious, cultural and social bodies handle marriage, not the state. Marriage should not be defined by the state, it is defined by what the two partners (or more) want to define it as, in accordance to their social and cultural norms, beliefs and religion."

Okay, well some religions allow polygamy. Some religions consider a wife property. Some religions like radical mormon sects think its okay to marry 14 year olds.

Is that all fine and dandy to you since its two consenting people?

the only farms who receive subsidies are the ones who aren't farming properly. Granted, that's most farmers, but it's not really their fault, the system is fucked.
Also, I am a farmer who is ineligible to receive government subsidies (because i am small, organic, and don't grow corn or soy basically) and my back is not broken nor am I impoverished. Just sayin.

"Personally, my definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The state should not be defining it. If say a gay couple believes that marriage is also between a man and another man, then so be it, the people of their community, their friends and those with the same definition will accept it. I don't get why people want the state to support their definition of marriage over others. Its also ridiculous that in some countries it is even illegal to get married in church before going to the municipality and signing your marriage contract."

Okay well thats a terrible slippery slope. Lets say in my local town I think its okay to fuck a horse. And then marry it. The horse was like neighh this is not good. But its a cultural norm among my locals so the state and government have no authority to say no.

Come on man, this is a ridiculous stance to take.

@ the house of lords, any british govt can appoint (or threaten to appoint) enough new lords to get their prefered legislation through. Thus the house of lords is entirely neutered, and largely without power (and has been losing power for more than 100 years, though i recall they delayed The Irish home rule bill in 1912 (for two years) and then world war 1 broke out... Which left us with Irish men asking Germans for help to fight the British... (Not entirely toothless back then)

I know nothing of this Scalia, so rip.

except fucking a horse is bestiality and illegal. As long as you're not infringing on others rights, your union (call it marriage, call if whatever) with your consenting partner or partners can take on any form so long as no rights are infringed (so a wife being property doesn't count, as humans can't be property)

"my back is not broken nor am I impoverished. Just sayin."
I get the feeling you could be shirkingyourwork.