Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Duffer
Lv 6
Duffer asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 8 years ago

Is it time for compulsory retirement?

Although I have no personal interest in the recent gay marriage debates in Parliament, I was struck, in the snippets that I caught, by the fact that those speaking against the motion were talking about only God or the "yuk" factor. Rational argument came there none. Since a review of the dissenters showed that they were nearly all men past their prime it occurred to me that perhaps we should reform membership of the Commons (and the Lords for that matter) to those people who are under, say, 63 at the election. What do you think?

Update:

Horseman: None of the arguments I heard had any rational basis, they seemed to be reactionary only - hence my question. Maybe, just maybe, younger people (i.e. those under 70) could make better arguments either for or against. You seem to have missed the point.

Update 2:

R99. I have no idea where you get arrogance from my question. I simply wonder whether the affairs of the nation in general might be better served by people younger than 70, since those of that sort of age in Parliament, from what I heard in this particular debate, seem to be reactionary. No logical arguments were advanced, just personal feelings. Is that what Parliament is supposed to be about? BTW I shall be 71 next birthday. I have no personal feelings either way about gay marriage.

Update 3:

R99. I have no idea where you get arrogance from my question. I simply wonder whether the affairs of the nation in general might be better served by people younger than 70, since those of that sort of age in Parliament, from what I heard in this particular debate, seem to be reactionary. No logical arguments were advanced, just personal feelings. Is that what Parliament is supposed to be about? BTW I shall be 71 next birthday. I have no personal feelings either way about gay marriage.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    You really need to be careful when you make suggestions like that. Your opponents may make an equally valid argument that Parliament should be limited to those age 63 and older.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    I'd like to see what you think when you are 63, you arrogant little f****r.

    The thing about the young, is this: When you are 16, you are sure you know everything. When you are 30, you think you know best. When you are 60, you know more than you ever did before, but you realise that that's hardly anything.

    I don't think it would be a good idea to fill parliament with teens and twenty-somethings, most of whom don't know their a55 from a hole in the ground.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Listen to yourself -- "Rational argument came there none."--- or to put it another way , their opinions are different to mine and therefore not only wrong , but not worth hearing.

    The classic argument of extremists everywhere, both Left and the Right !

    There are in fact valid arguments against Gay Marriage -- and they have nothing to do with "yuk" factors or old fuddy duddies simply resisting the march of "equality".

    As for your age limit, and the inference that generally anyone over 63 has nothing worthwhile to say --I would suggest that a bigger proportion of under 21 year olds fit that categorisation better .

    Many young people cannot get jobs today because they simply "p***ed away" their school years and are effectively unemployable because they are lazy and unreliable. They expect to be supported.

    Over the next 20 years , this country will gradually lose a large proportion of the knowledge,skills and experience residing in its over 50 year olds -- and not enough of our younger generations are up to the task of replacing them .

  • ?
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    As long as we get our SS and Medicare you could make it fifty as far as I care.

    But really all the youngsters out there, the only thing they know how to do is play shell games with other peoples money. You know, the people who get Million Dollar bonuses. If we want to be a top producer, we have to produce something.

    BTW, keep a sharp eye on how they want to utilize carbon credits. It's more of the same crap, taking our money and parleying it to Billions of dollars for essentially doing nothing. These greedy bastards keep making up new games and we blindly follow them.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    While I don't agree with gay marriage I do support the idea that MPs and Councillors should retire at 60.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Yes. Millions of young lads are wasting away on the dole because there is a shortage of jobs. And to make matters worse they also have to compete with women, immigrants and machines. This is why you see men pushing the pram during the day. A pitiful sight.

  • Di
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    No one should be forced to retire and frankly, it is very discriminatory towards the older population.

    Don't give Cameron any ideas.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Why not ban heterosexuals from running while you are at it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.