c4countdown

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:12 pm It told my mother she should retrain as a vet, and she doesn't even like animals.

In fairness I can think of no more heartbreaking job for someone who likes animals.

So, what do we think about this whole extension (or lack thereof) of Free School Meals over the holidays?

I don't really get the argument for their extension as a covid measure. With schools now back to normal, why shouldn't FSMs be back to normal? If you want them extended over the holidays forever, that's a separate debate.

I think, in terms of it being a Covid measure, it's probably because a lot of people are struggling (more than normal) financially in the current climate. Similar to financial aid being given to businesses etc. which are struggling.

Time for a universal basic imcome...

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:59 pm I don't really get the argument for their extension as a covid measure. With schools now back to normal, why shouldn't FSMs be back to normal? If you want them extended over the holidays forever, that's a separate debate.

Don't you think that voting against the school meals is a political own goal for the Tories?

On the face of it, the government providing extra support to ensure that kids get a decent meal during a pandemic seems like a good idea. Wales and Scotland seem to think it is.

But whatever your views, it's turned into a(nother) PR disaster for the Tories. For the relatively small cost, it should have been a JFDI.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:43 pm it's turned into a(nother) PR disaster for the Tories.

Yep. See also: internal market bill. Not that controversial when you look at it in detail.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:20 pm

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:43 pm it's turned into a(nother) PR disaster for the Tories.

Yep. See also: internal market bill. Not that controversial when you look at it in detail.

Putting personal opinions aside, I think the free meals will turn out to be much more of a disaster for the Tories than the internal market bill. Judging from what I've seen, it will lose them a lot of votes especially in the Tory gain seats in the North like my constituency.

Martin Long wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:38 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:20 pm

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:43 pm it's turned into a(nother) PR disaster for the Tories.

Yep. See also: internal market bill. Not that controversial when you look at it in detail.

Putting personal opinions aside, I think the free meals will turn out to be much more of a disaster for the Tories than the internal market bill. Judging from what I've seen, it will lose them a lot of votes especially in the Tory gain seats in the North like my constituency.

On the other hand, Martin, we are 4 years away from the next election and this isn't (unlike Clegg) actively breaking a promise they made.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:43 pm On the face of it, the government providing extra support to ensure that kids get a decent meal during a pandemic seems like a good idea. Wales and Scotland seem to think it is.

But whatever your views, it's turned into a(nother) PR disaster for the Tories. For the relatively small cost, it should have been a JFDI.

Perhaps my favourite of Fiona's acronyms so far

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:20 pm

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:43 pm it's turned into a(nother) PR disaster for the Tories.

Yep. See also: internal market bill. Not that controversial when you look at it in detail.

Saving for posterity for the next time someone accuses Rhys of not acknowledging when 'his side' have made a mistake.

Jeremy Corbyn has been suspended from the Labour Party because of his reaction to the anti-Semitism report.

So do you reckon Starmer suspended Corbyn to distract from the fact he hit a cyclist with his car or do you reckon he intentionally hit the cyclist for fun knowing it wouldn't get much attention because he was suspending Corbyn?

Mark James wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:24 am So do you reckon Starmer suspended Corbyn to distract from the fact he hit a cyclist with his car or do you reckon he intentionally hit the cyclist for fun knowing it wouldn't get much attention because he was suspending Corbyn?

The latter.

Inb4 the cyclist was Jezza.

Looking at the odds right now it's looking about 80/20 in favour of Biden over Trump in the US election. However, the winner will not be the leader of the free world, because that's not a thing.

Romney 2024, anyone?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:51 pm Romney 2024, anyone?

Eh no.
https://mobile.twitter.com/therecount/s ... 6118041602

Conservatism is a death cult.

Apparently Boris has spoken out against devolution.

I have written about this at University, but also that I wouldn't want to be the politician who speaks out against it.

I love Boris.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:18 pm Apparently Boris has spoken out against devolution.

I have written about this at University, but also that I wouldn't want to be the politician who speaks out against it.

I love Boris.

Apparently so. But:

A Downing Street source: "The PM has always supported devolution, but Tony Blair failed to foresee the rise of separatists in Scotland."Devolution is great - but not when it's used by separatists and nationalists to break up the UK."

Is this enough to love Boris Johnson? That's the question here.

On a more serious note, I'm not sure what there is to love about Johnson unless you buy his "loveable buffoon" persona, but surely that wore thin years ago. He has no integrity as a politician whatsoever. He's out of his depth and basically has no principles, doing merely what he thinks is needed to further his career.

Just listen to Owen Jones here.

I’d rather eat my own shit than listen to Owen Jones.

Anyway, Jeremy Corbyn is back in the Labour Party but there are people who still don't want him to get the party whip back. As I understand it, Corbyn was suspended for the comments he made in the video embedded on this page where he talked about exaggeration. But if you listen to what he said about the 30% and 0.3%, is what he said so bad? I think lots of people do exaggerate the problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour party. That's not to say it doesn't exist (although I shouldn't have to make this clarification). Sometimes I think it's like 1984.

Rachel Riley has been talking about it.

Keir Starmer has just said that Corbyn won't be returning as a Labour MP. But anyway, to summarise the issue, from that article:

Sir Keir Starmer said those who think the issue had been "exaggerated" should "be nowhere near the Labour Party".

But later, Mr Corbyn released a statement, saying the scale of anti-Semitism had been "dramatically overstated" by his opponents, and he was suspended by the party.

So it's impossible for anyone to exaggerate the issue? If a serial killer kills five people, and someone says they've killed ten people, it's an exaggeration. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that because something is a serious issue, it can't be exaggerated.

Some people have such simplistic thinking when it comes to emotive issues, and from there it can easily become a witch hunt. I don't know if Starmer's thinking really is that simplistic but he's just doing the things he feels he needs to for an easy life because of other people's simplistic thinking.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:41 am Keir Starmer has just said that Corbyn won't be returning as a Labour MP. But anyway, to summarise the issue, from that article:

Sir Keir Starmer said those who think the issue had been "exaggerated" should "be nowhere near the Labour Party".

But later, Mr Corbyn released a statement, saying the scale of anti-Semitism had been "dramatically overstated" by his opponents, and he was suspended by the party.

So it's impossible for anyone to exaggerate the issue? If a serial killer kills five people, and someone says they've killed ten people, it's an exaggeration. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that because something is a serious issue, it can't be exaggerated.

Some people have such simplistic thinking when it comes to emotive issues, and from there it can easily become a witch hunt. I don't know if Starmer's thinking really is that simplistic but he's just doing the things he feels he needs to for an easy life because of other people's simplistic thinking.

I still believe that people are confusing anti semitism with anti zionism

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:27 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:41 am Keir Starmer has just said that Corbyn won't be returning as a Labour MP. But anyway, to summarise the issue, from that article:

Sir Keir Starmer said those who think the issue had been "exaggerated" should "be nowhere near the Labour Party".

But later, Mr Corbyn released a statement, saying the scale of anti-Semitism had been "dramatically overstated" by his opponents, and he was suspended by the party.

So it's impossible for anyone to exaggerate the issue? If a serial killer kills five people, and someone says they've killed ten people, it's an exaggeration. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that because something is a serious issue, it can't be exaggerated.

Some people have such simplistic thinking when it comes to emotive issues, and from there it can easily become a witch hunt. I don't know if Starmer's thinking really is that simplistic but he's just doing the things he feels he needs to for an easy life because of other people's simplistic thinking.

I still believe that people are confusing anti semitism with anti zionism

Yes - some zionists are doing this deliberately. (and technically Palestinians are Semites, too!)

The point is that saying it's exaggerated, it's overdramatised, it's mood music, etc., amounts to a denial of the issue given how widespread things had become so as to drive out various Jewish Labour MPs and the nonsense hurled at Rachel et al.

Edit: I do wonder if it's a case of defending Corbyn purely because he's a hard left socialist, when you can have a hard left socialist leader who isn't sympathetic to antisemites.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:04 pm The point is that saying it's exaggerated, it's overdramatised, it's mood music, etc., amounts to a denial of the issue given how widespread things had become so as to drive out various Jewish Labour MPs and the nonsense hurled at Rachel et al.

Edit: I do wonder if it's a case of defending Corbyn purely because he's a hard left socialist, when you can have a hard left socialist leader who isn't sympathetic to antisemites.

A true socialist government has not been in power for more than 40 years and its a sad fact that socialism as a political force in the ahem, caring, sharing 21st century England is as dead as a dodo.

Peter Mabey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:06 pm (and technically Palestinians are Semites, too!)

And that's why "anti-Semitism" isn't really a useful term. Well, it is useful for some people because they use the word instead of "racism" and can therefore sneak in extra meaning to it (including criticism of Israel etc.).

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:04 pm The point is that saying it's exaggerated, it's overdramatised, it's mood music, etc., amounts to a denial of the issue given how widespread things had become so as to drive out various Jewish Labour MPs and the nonsense hurled at Rachel et al.

I don't think so. Some aspects can be exaggerated and it's fair to say so without being accused of belittling the whole thing. As it happens I don't think Corbyn played the PR game very well over this whole issue, but he doesn't deserve to be demonised for that.

Edit: I do wonder if it's a case of defending Corbyn purely because he's a hard left socialist, when you can have a hard left socialist leader who isn't sympathetic to antisemites.

I'm not even a Corbyn fan but I think he has been treated unfairly, and not just in this case. When he first became Labour leader, many of the other Labour MPs tried to oust him, really before he'd had a chance to even do anything, but they failed spectacularly and this did severe damage to the reputation of the party. In the 2017 election, Labour weren't actually that far off being able to cobble together some sort of coalition, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they would have been able to do so if not for the wilful destruction of the party by the likes of Angela Eagle. Of course, they might have considered him a bad leader, but Boris Johnson is also a bad leader, and if the party sticks together and backs their voted-for leader they're much more likely to get results. I can't see that Corbyn was so terrible that they couldn't have just shut up until at least after the 2017 election.

Edit - And it's not just Corbyn. Remember Ed Miliband wasn't fit to be Prime Minister because his dad was said to be a Communist and he was once photographed eating a bacon sandwich.

Pretty awful human being Priti Patel has been found to be bullying, but Boris Johnson just tries to make it go away.

https://jarick.works/spekr/test/

According to this test I’m a centre-right neoliberal, so it’s pretty accurate.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:32 am https://jarick.works/spekr/test/

According to this test I’m a centre-right neoliberal, so it’s pretty accurate.

My results:

Economic -20, cultural -48

You were spekd as liberal

You support a balance of both economic freedom and restriction alongside light restrictions on cultural freedom. You oppose economic deregulation and any reduction in taxes.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/12/free-sch ... -13887331/

They really are shameless. If there was a GE tomorrow they'd probably still get a majority. What the fuck is wrong with people?

It’s the outsourced company which ought to have its contract revoked. What a waste of public money. Further proof, if any be needed, that taxpayer-funded programs offer little value for money.

I'm sure the fact that the chairman of the organisation happens to be a Tory party donor had nothing to do with it at all, then.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:55 pm It’s the outsourced company which ought to have its contract revoked. What a waste of public money. Further proof, if any be needed, that taxpayer-funded programs offer little value for money.

I think the reason people are blaming the Conservative party for this rather than the company/companies is that the Government (or Department of Education) is presumably responsible for appointing the company/companies to outsource the work to. If the pictures in the article Jono linked are representative of what's in these food boxes in most cases then at best they've chosen very poorly here. There's also some vaguely made allegation that a (or the, or some?) company that is allegedly profiting from this has "Tory links". That's the phrase used in the headline of that Metro article anyway, although the only clarification of that in the article I can find is:

Some parcels were supplied by private catering company Chartwells, which is part of the food service giant Compass Group. The group’s former chairman, Paul Walsh, was once a member of David Cameron’s business advisory group.

which is very tenuous indeed. (edit: while I was writing this Ell posted that the chairman of the company is a Tory donor. If true that is a LOT less tenuous that the "link" detailed in the Metro article)

Would be interesting to find out if these few pictures, assuming they are honest, are massive outliers or quite close to the norm.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:08 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:55 pm It’s the outsourced company which ought to have its contract revoked. What a waste of public money. Further proof, if any be needed, that taxpayer-funded programs offer little value for money.

Some parcels were supplied by private catering company Chartwells, which is part of the food service giant Compass Group. The group’s former chairman, Paul Walsh, was once a member of David Cameron’s business advisory group.

which is very tenuous indeed. (edit: while I was writing this Ell posted that the chairman of the company is a Tory donor. If true that is a LOT less tenuous that the "link" detailed in the Metro article)

Would be interesting to find out if these few pictures, assuming they are honest, are massive outliers or quite close to the norm.

I believed him to be, and should have done my research a little more thoroughly instead of just jumping in (though having done it, I'm still not really sure who holds the title - or whether he's the chairman of Compass, which owns Chartwells.). So I'll apologise for that comment as potentially being misguided. However, I still maintain that this is absolutely deplorable, and if these packages are representative of the majority, and not the exceptions then people need holding accountable for this.

Edit: In this report https://www.compass-group.com/content/d ... _FINAL.pdf "Paul Walsh" is mentioned as the chairman in December 2020. So, depending on when this contract was agreed, and if he is still chairman, the link may be valid.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:55 pm It’s the outsourced company which ought to have its contract revoked. What a waste of public money. Further proof, if any be needed, that taxpayer-funded programs offer little value for money.

Taxpayer-funded programs have the ability to do well. When in the hands of this government, who have proven time and again they have all the competence of a sloth on horse tranquilizers and are quite fond of cronyism (or 'corruption' to be blunt), then little wonder that things are going wrong. Having been on the receiving end of Gavin Williamson's idiocy, both by working in a school and having my A-Levels cancelled, it's more to do with the wrong hands rather than it being taxpayer-sourced.

Little bit of an own goal for Marcus Rashford (ba-doom tish) who was praising the company a few weeks ago for coming on board. https://twitter.com/marcusrashford/stat ... 76224?s=21

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:37 pm Little bit of an own goal for Marcus Rashford (ba-doom tish) who was praising the company a few weeks ago for coming on board. https://twitter.com/marcusrashford/stat ... 76224?s=21

Are you seriously suggesting that his failure to anticipate this absolutely abysmal deliverance (assuming that the photos are representative) is an "own goal"? Of course he's going to be happy for any company coming on board, he spearheaded this campaign.

Before you try and reverse that into "how could the government anticipate this?" - he isn't the one handing over the enormous contract. I'd expect the government to thoroughly investigate any company being given a contract, so that they can be confident it is the best one to award it to. Maybe they did, but, having shown that there is potentially a big "chum" in the company, you can't deny that there's significant room for doubt as to whether this was awarded solely on merit.

I'd say it's more like if Man Utd signed a new player, he welcomed them on twitter, and then he passed the ball to them on their debut and then they scored an own goal. Or something.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:54 pm I'd say it's more like if Man Utd signed a new player, he welcomed them on twitter, and then he passed the ball to them on their debut and then they scored an own goal. Or something.

Spot on analogy. It certainly isn't an "own goal" from Rashford.

Arguing about the politics rather misses that the most needy families are getting these packages and feeling absolute despair.

Just treat people with dignity and respect and give £30 supermarket vouchers - very little admin, no extra costs - and allows for individual dietary requirements or preferences.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:35 pm Arguing about the politics rather misses that the most needy families are getting these packages and feeling absolute despair.

Just treat people with dignity and respect and give £30 supermarket vouchers - very little admin, no extra costs - and allows for individual dietary requirements or preferences.

As ever, on the mark. This would have been a far better solution.

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:51 pm

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:35 pm Arguing about the politics rather misses that the most needy families are getting these packages and feeling absolute despair.

Just treat people with dignity and respect and give £30 supermarket vouchers - very little admin, no extra costs - and allows for individual dietary requirements or preferences.

As ever, on the mark. This would have been a far better solution.

Maybe there were trying to bypass the small minority of parents that would use the vouchers to gain contraband

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:14 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:51 pm

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:35 pm Arguing about the politics rather misses that the most needy families are getting these packages and feeling absolute despair.

Just treat people with dignity and respect and give £30 supermarket vouchers - very little admin, no extra costs - and allows for individual dietary requirements or preferences.

As ever, on the mark. This would have been a far better solution.

Maybe there were trying to bypass the small minority of parents that would use the vouchers to gain contraband

Assuming "contraband" means alcohol, cigarettes etc. I'm pretty sure the vouchers just don't work on them (though I guess you could always sell them to someone else and spend that money on alcohol). But even then the "waste" from that feels like it must be less than or at worst comparable with the waste of having to get people to make all the food parcels, beyond the added benefit of what Fiona said about giving people respect and the ability to make their own choices.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:14 pm Maybe there were trying to bypass the small minority of parents that would use the vouchers to gain contraband

From the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55641740

- cost of food (if purchased from supermarket) - £5
- cost to company - £10.50 (so packing and distribution = £5.50)
- cost to taxpayer - £30 (so one assumes profit to company = £19.50)

I could buy a twelve pack of stella and 20 fags, and still spend a lot more on food for my kids, but the risk of a tiny number of the poorest people making those bad choices makes it better to leave children hungry and make the richest people even richer.

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:12 am Shameless

That was excruciating to watch.

Thing is, if he actually had the grace to say "you know what, yes, I do regret voting against it", then I might find a very small iota of respect for him at least having the decency to admit it. Truly reprehensible man.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:51 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:14 pm Maybe there were trying to bypass the small minority of parents that would use the vouchers to gain contraband

From the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55641740

- cost of food (if purchased from supermarket) - £5
- cost to company - £10.50 (so packing and distribution = £5.50)
- cost to taxpayer - £30 (so one assumes profit to company = £19.50)

I could buy a twelve pack of stella and 20 fags, and still spend a lot more on food for my kids, but the risk of a tiny number of the poorest people making those bad choices makes it better to leave children hungry and make the richest people even richer.

You're forgetting the parents who would buy five twelve packs of Stella and 100 fags, don't you realise?

Yeah, it's a scandal. So many folk in precarious employment forced to go to work and send their kids to schools that are supposed to be closed just so they can be sure they get a hot meal. Just write the bloody cheques

"I totally agree with you, Marcus Rashford, these food parcels do not meet the standards we set out and have made it clear to the company involved that this is disgraceful. The company concerned has rightly apologised and agreed to reimburse those affected." - Boris

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:12 am Shameless

He is so bad. In every way.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:29 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:12 am Shameless

He is so bad. In every way.

Probably the worst thing the Conservatives have done. Make Piers Morgan look good.

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:11 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:29 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:12 am Shameless

He is so bad. In every way.

Probably the worst thing the Conservatives have done. Make Piers Morgan look good.

I wouldn't go that far. He hasn't broken the Tier 4 lockdown rules by jetting off to Antigua on holiday whilst simultaneously and hypocritically calling for more lockdown misery.

Milan are taking the smoking ban outside. Good news. I'm surprised anyway that being smoked on doesn't count as some form of assault. If I started pumping out some other random noxious gas into people's faces I doubt I'd be allowed to continue.

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:53 am

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 7:00 am I voted "No" on gay marriage

Just to slightly deviate from the topic at hand, might one enquire why you voted "no"?

No problem.

I was ashamed that same sex marriage was being pushed for, that it made its way onto the political agenda, and very disappointed that many gay people were campaigning for it as though it were an advancement of gay rights. Personally I think it is a backward step... and a rather petulant one at that. (I did consider organising a "Gay Shame Parade" to commiserate the referendum win...)

Marriage, for the most part in most cultures, is understood to be something that formalises the sexual union from which offspring can arise. It is very clear. If you are a married man, you have a wife. Simple. The introduction of SSM just confuses that language... a man says he's married, you are still unsure as to whether he has a wife. And many people will quietly hold this against the gay community for needlessly ruining the language. It was a false step forward. In truth, by insisting on redefining the word "marriage", gay people made themselves new enemies who previously would not have had an issue.

That is the meat of my objection...

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:25 am

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:53 am

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 7:00 am I voted "No" on gay marriage

Just to slightly deviate from the topic at hand, might one enquire why you voted "no"?

1) The introduction of SSM just confuses that language.

2) Gay people made themselves new enemies.

These appear to be the substantive objections. They seem pretty flimsy to me. The first one would be solved by maybe five seconds of additional conversation. On the second one, what quality of a person who turns into a homophobe over a slight increase in the potential meanings of a particular word is worth anything of anyone's time anyway?

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:25 am

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:53 am

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 7:00 am I voted "No" on gay marriage

Just to slightly deviate from the topic at hand, might one enquire why you voted "no"?

No problem.

I was ashamed that same sex marriage was being pushed for, that it made its way onto the political agenda, and very disappointed that many gay people were campaigning for it as though it were an advancement of gay rights. Personally I think it is a backward step... and a rather petulant one at that. (I did consider organising a "Gay Shame Parade" to commiserate the referendum win...)

Marriage, for the most part in most cultures, is understood to be something that formalises the sexual union from which offspring can arise. It is very clear. If you are a married man, you have a wife. Simple. The introduction of SSM just confuses that language... a man says he's married, you are still unsure as to whether he has a wife. And many people will quietly hold this against the gay community for needlessly ruining the language. It was a false step forward. In truth, by insisting on redefining the word "marriage", gay people made themselves new enemies who previously would not have had an issue.

That is the meat of my objection...

So your objection appears to be one of changing word definition.

Pretty sure the definition has changed many times over the centuries, and is different in different countries/cultures.

So why is the "male/female" definition the correct one?

Personally, I'm more likely to be upset by people who say mischievious than I am about a changing definition of marriage.

Jesus where do we even start with what L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:25 am I was ashamed that same sex marriage was being pushed for, that it made its way onto the political agenda, and very disappointed that many gay people were campaigning for it as though it were an advancement of gay rights. Personally I think it is a backward step... and a rather petulant one at that. (I did consider organising a "Gay Shame Parade" to commiserate the referendum win...)

Marriage, for the most part in most cultures, is understood to be something that formalises the sexual union from which offspring can arise.

So if a straight couple can't or don't want to have children, should they be prevented from marrying?

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:25 am It is very clear. If you are a married man, you have a wife. Simple. The introduction of SSM just confuses that language... a man says he's married, you are still unsure as to whether he has a wife. And many people will quietly hold this against the gay community for needlessly ruining the language.

Is this even a serious argument? Assuming it is, if someone mentions that they're married but doesn't mention the gender of their spouse, then it probably wasn't relevant. And if it is relevant, it's not hard to find out by one extra question. This is like complaining about the invention of mobile phones because when someone says "I have a phone" it's no longer clear whether they mean a mobile or a landline.

Prior to same sex marriage becoming legal, someone could equally well say "I am in a relationship", giving no information about gender. I don't see how marriage is any different.

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:25 am It was a false step forward. In truth, by insisting on redefining the word "marriage", gay people made themselves new enemies who previously would not have had an issue.

I wouldn't even call it a redefinition. It's still marriage, it still means the same thing, it's just opened up to a wider range of people. If you'd lived 100 years ago, would you have complained that giving women the vote was redefining the word "vote"?

Anyway, words getting redefined is natural in language. If you're upset about what is essentially a minor redefinition (if you want to call it that) of the word "marriage", wait until you find out about the word gay.