Ha ha ha. Poor old clapped out Caroline Flint; Theresa May stole her thunder by honestly portraying a revised point of view, shaped by experience. Flint was ready to pounce but had to submit. I recall Caroline Flint when I worked at the House - oh how she flounced around when she held a junior ministerial post and then found herself frozen out of Blair's revised plans. Laugheth?? indeed we dideth
SWING PARTY LIAM NEESON THERESA MAY OUTSIDE NIGERIAN ARMY INSIDE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR HOODLUM SINGH BANCHEZ TYPESCOREMARKLAMARR49006515SAFEMAKER SPYING GAMES COMPLINET IMPLINET
If we hadn't continually redefined the meaning of the word marriage over the years then we would still be left with an archaic series of rituals that culminates in what is essentially the legal purchase of a female servant for a man; which is what marriage was less than 100 years ago. So please tell me why redefining a word from time to time should be construed as a 'bad thing'?
'Gay rights'. Why is something 'right' just because someone says so? Who is telling us what 'Gay rights' are? Oh yes, the education system and the media, as always.
The government has no business whatsoever in legislating people's sexuality or the nature of marriage. None whatsoever. I don't want the government lecturing children in sex 'education' or changing the definition of marrige. Why don't the government just cut the crap and declare a Luciferian State.
I'm quite content with the honourable Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount of Alamein's take on homosexuality. I have absolutely no problem with it providing the age of consent is raised to 80.
I joke of course, but what a fantastic statement! Screw political correctness!
Whether or not you agree with gay couples adopting children is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that people aren't allowed to have an opinion anymore.
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. isn't that the definition of marriage ? i'm not against gays living together but they can't actually get married because it wouldn't be marriage, it would be a civil partnership.
Marriage, Civil Partnership...call it what you may. These are just words created by society. Just because we have defined 'marriage' as between a man and women it doesn't mean that that cannot change. In fact it was originally religion that set this standard and religion, as we now know, is fast being put on the back burner.
@bigmangiff There is no reason why the definition of marriage cannot be extended to homosexual couples. The only reason why this hasn't happened is because of religious bigotry. Civil partnerships are an attempt to keep religious bigots happy while seeming to address the equality issue, but it is not enough.
@harj2009 marriage is currently between one man and one woman, but wasn't and shan't be always so; marriage used to be inescapable/sexist/racist/class-based and changed from place to place. definitions change from time to time about loads of things. "it's like making it legal for humans to be parents of monkey" true, in as much as it's a completely false comparison. it's like giving custody rights of a child to two adults who are not its biological parents, which is common practise.
@harj2009 The definition of marriage has changed over time. You simply have a definition you are comfortable with, likely in line with your religious beliefs, and don't want it to change.
@LoneRookRS1 Why is it not enough? Marriage is by definition religious historically and culturally in Britain. You cannot hijack it from the religious community. In fact, today the discrimination is reversed. It is against the religious communities. I am for gay rights but that does not mean I have to steal it from another community to give it to them. Practically, gay couples and straight couples are equally treated under law. The difference is just conceptual. And that is insignificant.
@ETworldjone Marriage is not by definition religious. It may have had its roots in religious beliefs but the concept of the monogamous joining of two people is a social phenomenon. Plenty of atheists and agnostics get married without much fuss, and it is simply the fact that religious people feel that love by two gay people affronts god and their beliefs. This is why the "discrimination" is against the religious communities, because they are bigoted and selectively discriminative.
@LoneRookRS1 You dont even know the religious definition of marriage in Britain. It is not just the monogamous joining of 'two people' but 'one man and one woman'. That is why atheists and agnostics get married without much fuss. So, when gays and lesbians 'marry', it overturns the definition of 'marriage' which was set by the religious community without their approval. Why is 'civil union' not enough? Why cant the homosexual community come up with another word? Isn't this actually a non-issue?
@ETworldjone Actually the definition of marriage under religion used to permit only white christians of a particular class and denomination. Over time, society has adopted it as an institution that goes beyond race and religion. However, the barrier of gender has not been crossed yet, merely because of religious bigotry. If you were a true "christian" you would look down on non-believers getting married, but the truth is, it is because religious people are gay haters. Simple.
@LoneRookRS1 The fact is it is not a gender issue yet from a religious perspective. The concept that homosexuals are born that way is not accepted by the religious community because there is no scientific consensus on this matter. Science does not say it is natural or a choice. Therefore, the religious community have no choice but to consider it from a philosophical and theological perspective. And from those perspective, 'gay marriages' cannot be treated as a gender issue.
@ETworldjone To me, it is irrelevant if homosexuality is genetic, biochemical or socio-cultural in causes. The fact that neuroanatomical differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals exist implies underlying biological causes, just as we see homosexuality across the animal kingdom. The religious community cannot bear this, because they make prejudicial assumptions and judgments out of their own fear, insecurity and backward view of people and society. You are simply bigots.
@LoneRookRS1 From your comment the fact the of the matter is simply: I hate the religious community and I dont care about them. To you the religious community is inferior to the homosexual community. That is why, you are indifferent to the sensitivities of the former even if that means discriminating against them for the sake of the latter. That is why, you are not satisfied even when the only difference between 'civil unions' and 'marriage' is terminology. All I can say is: Shame on you.
@ETworldjone Total bullshit, I hate people who exhibit prejudice or pass judgments on others without good reason. Yes, shame on me for speaking out against those poor, poor religious people that usurp the rights of others because they feel they have the right to speak for them, and dictate what lives to lead, and make them change or feel guilty. Calling black people "negroes" is terminology, so was calling prisons for antisocials and homosexuals "workhouses" or "asylums".
@LoneRookRS1 That is weird. You are the one who all this time labelled religious people as bigots and backward. Yet you whine and cry about the 'unfairness' of labeling you the same? That is called Hypocrisy mate. Secondly, what has 'negroes' got to do with 'civil unions'. Now you are spewing out nonsense for a desperate sake of the argument. If homosexuals dont like 'civil unions', why cant they go on and invent a word that suits them rather than whine like a child for a religious terminology.
@ETworldjone I'm not a bigot though am I, because I cite reasons for the judgments I make. Those who believe in particular religions subscribe to assumptions and prejudices as part of their unfounded system of beliefs. So I don't have a hypocritical double standard at all. Second, the selective use of language to differentiate people is an instrument of prejudice that has been used for centuries, for race, gender and sexual orientation. I doubt you would want to have a "civil union"
@LoneRookRS1 Why do gay people want to get married anyway? It doesn't benefit them anyway financially and marriage is generally a religous act so why would they want that. Also gay adoption is going to mess the child up psychologically as they will be bullied at school and also there will not be a mother and father influence that they need to define their character.
@Sparkyj1991 There are a number of benefits afforded to married couples by the state, and marriage is no more religious than christmas these days - celebrated by many people. The term "tying the knot" actually came from Paganism so christians do not have a monopoly on marriage in society. There is no evidence that adoption by gay couples harms the child psychologically, affects their character, and the only problem comes from idiot bigots like you who make it your business.
@Sparkyj1991 so you think that 'there will not be a mother and father influence that they need to define their character.' Does that mean you think that single mothers or single fathers shouldn't be allowed to bring up children?
@bigmangiff Its only semantics that stop it being called marriage. thats what it is in practice and in essence. the fact is , right now, that gay couples of faith are denied the right to express that faith at their union ceremony, namely civil partnership. Marriage should be available for those who want it.
I'm glad you're not speaking from a deluded religious basis but unfortunately you are deluded nonetheless. How can homosexuality be anything other than natural when it occurs in large numbers of other animal populations?! [Bagemihl Report] It is a fundamental instinct as is heterosexuality. Your comment in respect to negative and positives is nothing but puerile. As to what makes you "stupid or ignorant" I refer you to the comment you just made!
@ScotsmanTillDeath You believe that gay people should be denied the equivalent rights of straight members of society. That commitment to difference defines discrimination. Opposition is illogical and one can only assume you are either stupid or ignorant; it is likely you are prejudiced or bigoted. Homophobia is characterised by these qualities but is considered more 'active' than these mental elements. Your active commitment in seeking to deny gay people equality thereby makes you homophobic.
@yzenanja Oh please.Save us all the rubbish. Homosexuality IS NOT natural.Positive with Positive RETRACTS. Positive and Negative ATTRACTS. The world and civilization was built on these simple principles.While gays should be treated like humans, we must show them that their behaviour and their lust for one of the same sex IS NOT right.Spare the religious rubbish, its not how the world works. I'm not homophobic as i don't fear Gay people. Now then, what makes me "stupid or ignorant?" Liberal scum.
@ScotsmanTillDeath Just because it's not right for you, doesn't mean it's not right for gay people. They're not doing it out of spite or trying to be rebellious. The fact that you can't understand how a man can fancy another man is perfectly understandable, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to accept it. It's all consensual and between adults, so who gives a shit?
@ScotsmanTillDeath Do you have anything whatsoever to substantiate any of your claims, or is it merely regurgitation of Daily Mail columns? As long as they don't harm anyone or involve you or anyone else, why interfere? They're not doing any harm, what they do in their private time is as irrelevant as what you do in your private time.
I find it quite worrying that people such as yourself take such a ludicrous fascination in the lives of others, is it because you have an empty life yourself?
@TKDGSA Expansion on your point: even if you have a moral objection to something, it also doesn't mean you should impose said views on others. it's really simple.
'I don't like gay marriges' - don't have one
'I don't like havign my rights taken away.' - don't take them from anyone else
She looks so uncomfortable saying those things, she's clearly lying through her teeth. It's so sad that she's allowed to insult people's intelligence like that!
Equality seems to have become a cult amongst the British public, of course Teresa May changed her views as she is OBLIGED to. Otherwise she would lose her career, I bet she is going against her conscience, I'd put money on it. The PC brigade and the thought Nazi police of modern British culture will force her to espouse values she doesn't hold.
Yes I think homosexuality is a sin and contrary to the natural order, now lets see if this taboo view offends people's delicate sensibilities.
"Unnatural"? What would be your definition of that then? That homosexuality is a manufactured monstrosity which is a threat to all humans, dogs, cats, budgies and all other animate species on Planet Earth?
Sexuality, no matter what kind, remains a natural process and has been so since humankind lived in caves and said "Ug" to one another.
On this subject, you could mean what other bigots say which is "not normal".
WTF has Gay rights got to do with peadophiles? Go and crawl back under your stone. I would rather have a child under the protection of a loving Gay couple than staying in a childrens home. Or actually worse still living with you with your vile views. Theresa May is another right wing torrie Nazi, scrap Gay rights and human rights. She's a total basket case.
@superstubes Because its wrong and the poor child has no say in it,i certainly would'nt have liked to have been brought up by two men or women and no i'm not some anti gay bigot,its just wrong o.k.
"wrong" in your eyes maybe. ...if you'd of been passed from 1 foster parent to another and passed from 1 childrens home to another you might of thought different.
Theres plenty of kids from gay homes who have had a lovely upbringing.
"unnatural" to you maybe - not when youre born gay its not. Adoption couples have to go through all kinds of tests and checks ,if heteros were so perfect there wouldnt be any kids up for adoption.
@harj2009 it's neither here nor there whether you approve of what consenting adults do with their bodies. This is about human rights - it's about justice. You have no business talking about social equality in any shape or form if you don't understand the basic meaning of it.
@harj2009 "homosexual nations": are you being seriously high? a minority of people in every nation happen to be gay. you're right, they aren't a new phenomenon, they're our relations and friends. "in biblical times, they died out": i can assure you, dear sir, that they most certainly did not.
@harj2009 homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. this question has been dealt with ad nausium on facebook, that it no longer merits a full answer. there is no correlation between homosexuality and rape, in the same way that there's no link between heterosexuality and rape. incest - "well if it makes you happy" - people have been doing that one for centuries vis-à-vis Downtown Abbey.
@ispy01945 Somehow equating homosexuality with pedophilia is about the most ignorant and the disgraceful thing you can say on on the matter. Just find one rational argument that links the two any more than being straight is linked to pedophilia.
It makes me wonder seriously. There is an economic crisis, public money is being spent in the wrong areas, there are dangerous criminals wondering around and people claiming money when they shouldnt. And all they can debate about in the house of commons is something as basic and simple as two people of the same sex sleeping with eachother and their basic right to love each other.
The natural law of nature is that only sex between a man and woman can produce a child. I think this says alot about what is naturally right for children. Admittedly some hetrosexual families are not always good for chidren but that is not due to the natural law, that is due to peoples failings or circumastances, for what ever reason. I do feel for people who struggle with their sexuality, but at the end of the day only a vagina was made for a penis, not an anus, (sorry to be graphic)
@yobojoful if so, then really the penis and anus shouldn't fit together so damn well and so enjoyably.
fact is, same-sex marriages are no more harmful to children than straight marriages are, in that it all depends on the individuals. you can't blanket all gay couples with "you're not good for children", it's a case-by-case basis. some can be totally evil, abusive and just horrid to their children, but others can be perfectly nice, happy parents who just want to love their child.
@yobojoful Actually homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom as a means of population control, so the idea that it's against nature is absurd. End of the day, I'd rather a kid was brought up in a loving environment than in care, because I know a guy who was in care, said 1% of people in it made university, not a good uni, any uni.
@yobojoful It is PERFECTLY 'natural' to have same-gender sex or to want to be transgender. These are simple facts about human biology. The only question is... is it harmful to the individuals or society? The answer is - not at all. There is no evidence to think being gay is somehow wrong or unnatural. If you want to be PRESCRIPTIVE in your comments, you should first learn how to be more properly DESCRIPTIVE of the phenomena.
People have a right to give their children to the care of charities which has selective policies on who they give their children to. People have a right to state the true fact that people cannot biologically change their sex. Self-rigeous, stuck up little twerps might not like that, but this is not Nazi Germany, and they have no right to force their views on anyone else.
Is there no limit to the pandering the Tories will do? You do not have a right to have the government pay for your sex change. You'll have to make do with the organs you have, as everyone who has lived before you has done. Stop whining.
@hpd929 Unfortunatley, the vast majority of scientists and medical professionals recognise gender disorder as a health question. Like any health question, they have a right for it to be resolved through the health system. Or is this your hatred and discriminatory beliefs about another, vulnerable group of people informing your opinion?
Oh dear it looks like i've upset some poofs on here.Now all i want is for a gay person to explain to me how it's normal for another nob jockey to put his pecker in his butt.No insults now.Just prove to me how normal that is.Does the human race reproduce in this way?Does it? Well come on then mr normal explain it to me.
@kipstrange The thought of fucking an old woman (who can't bear children) or indeed any woman, frankly, disgusts me, but it's none of my business. That's life no matter how much your rant about it or tear yourself up on account of your prejudices. Get over it.
@kipstrange I'm not gay, in fact I'm 110% straight. But do you realise that gayness is quite possibly an evolutionary mechanism to control population numbers? In other words, if a species becomes overpopulated, some scientists believe that more of that species will become gay. And when the population declines, more become straight again. Evolution has many protective mechanisms like this, so it might actually be completely natural, even if the thought of it makes us straight people feel sick
@kipstrange It's normal for human beings to have diverse sexualities, it is the most healthy option to express their sexuality whatever it is between consenting adults, and it would be abnormal for humans to have exactly the same sexuality. Indeed, all credible medical organisations recognise that our sexuality, including homosexuality, which developed during our youngest years and which we had no choice over, is normal. Human sexuality, whichever gender we're attracted to, is normal and natural
I agree with section 28, but really i wouldn't want any sex taught to my children whatsoever. There is actually a credible debate on whether a government should legislate on a persons sexuality at all, the question can be asked is it really the government's business? I don't endorse homosexuality at all, of course it's not government's business to interfere with peoples private lives or feelings for that matter, but it shouldn't be taught in schools.
I don't really understand what your point is. A condom put on a cucumber to demonstrate safe sex is problematic for you? Would you show your son and daughter how? You don't have to sign the permission slip.
Is a biology lesson as problematic?
I don't see any issue with any discussion in a school. And when something like Section 28 was in play. A lack was present. A silent tongue. This is 2010. Silence is no longer mandatory.
@northnotsouth You're not asked to 'endorse' homosexuality - who do you think you are?! You simply have to accept that some people are gay, some people are straight and some people don't fit either label. Get over it.
@northnotsouth I totally agree with you. Sex ed should not be taught to children. It pre- sexualises them. Why can't we just let children be chidren. I think the goverment should be doing more to stop the media pre sexualising, not joining it.
What makes gays normal.It isn't fuckin normal you weirdos.Just because you get some publicity doesn't make it normal.How the fuck can it be normal if a guy sucks another guys cock? or a girl is a carpet muncher.Stop deluding yourselves.Hanging isn't good enough for you cunts.
@kipstrange Your comment suggests that you need someone, something to be on their knees for you to stand tall. Remove your argument; do you still feel strong, powerful, right?
Please explain what is normal? Please explain what you issue is with a sexual practice that doesn't interest you. How many times have you had someone say to you that you with the opposite sex is revolting, that hanging wouldn't be enough to rid the world of your reproductive insistence?
@kipstrange Could`nt agree more,good on you for your courage and using your right to speak and not be caught up in the pc rubbish,lets not offend this that and the next even if they are wrong,well done
If there's any gay fuck ups out there think THAT IT'S OK TO STICK THEIR COCK UP SOMEONE'S ARSE THEN YOU BETTER GET FUCKIN REAL 'CAUSE WE WILL FIND YOU AND EXTERMINATE YOU.yOU DONT BELONG IN THE HUMAN RACE YOU FUCKIN WEIRDOS.mAKE NO MISTAKE WE WILL FIND YOU.
@InexplicablyLost I hate to do the obvious cod-psychology here, but I reckon kipstrange is fighting with his/her own sexuality. Such rabid homophobia and irrationality surely comes from the struggle. :))
@kipstrange You don't belong in the human race, mate; fucking pathetic discrimination is of the past and not beneficial towards humanity's success. So shut the fuck up... and grow the fuck up. :)
To herefordguy, I'm not naturally drwan to Theresa May, however I do tink its possible that she has changed her mind over LGBT issues, shall we give her a chance?
In many ways she reminds me of my Mum & her views from years ago. My Mother has changed her view, perhaps Theresa has too, I hope so.
Her voting record clearly states that she doesnt agree with gay rights!!! How dare it be presented otherwise, Its not just offensive to gay people but to majority of straight people who belive in gay equality
@Bushy162 No that doesn't sound homophobic. What she said was exactly that, she's been convinced, she's changed her mind, that whether it's a gay couple or straight couple, the sexuality doesn't matter, its the fact that the child has a strong family at home. How is giving gay couples equal rights to straight couples homophobic? The fact that she changed her mind on this and other issues relating to gays in society, shows that she acknowledges gays deserves equal rights as everyone else.
@Bushy162 No, I acknowledge your point, and it's a valid opinion to have, I just have a different view. What I am saying is that the issues of the child's well being and equality between gay and straight are linked in the sense that, Theresa is acknowledging that a child raised in a strong home is more important than someone's sexuality. She's putting gay and straight couples on equal footing and saying that gay couples should have the right to adopt because the child will be better off.
@Bushy162 I don't know what else she can do to promote gay rights, she's now in favour of allowing gay couples to adopt, and the repeal of section 28. Whether or not it's for the child's welfare, she is now saying gay couples and gay people are on par and equal to straight couples and straight people. If that's not an endorsement of gay rights, I don't know what is.
@Bushy162 Did you see her squirming to avoid the question? She said each word individually so find more time to spew out more bullshit. When asked about her personal opinion on homosexuality, she talked about "our agenda for asylum seekers..." - I can't believe people take her seriously.
@herefordguy too right she was to right vote against gays being able to adopt, this is a sick coup against morality and free speech that she was forced when in goverment to speak of this rubbish; what are we moving forward to?!
@BiffaTW we're moving, hopefully, towards a more tolerant society that doesn't discriminate based on something as irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things, as a person's sexual orientation.
@Stevie2Sxc yeah but thats far too simplistic the word is bandied around for many things, and discrimination always be there just other things wed like to get rid of will always be there. Plus moving forward? I do recall that the Romans did not at one time judge people for their sexuality. -I think the very idea that it is 'new' and 'foward' are wrong and relative anyway.
@edmund184 I dont receive homophobia myself on a daily basis. I dont have statistical proof. But things are changing. Most people these days know someone who is gay. Thanks to the people who have campaigned hard for gay rights that is possible. From people myself who i meet most people just want me to live my life, they dont care what i do with a a same sex partner, it doesnt affect them, if im happy with them and im happy they seem glad for me
What a fantastic own-goal by Cameron. Surely it would have made much more sense to have appointed Baroness Sayeeda Warsi to Equalities Minister, given that she was the Shadow Equalities Minister in opposition? Or better yet, appoint a Lib Dem MP as Equalities Minster, who have an excellent record of promoting civil liberties in thier manifestos. As for Ms May's answer - look at how often she blinks! She's lying through her teeth.
@billydeeuk Yeah, I think Equalities has kind of been an after thought for them, they couldn't appoint Warsi because she's the only one with half a brain, and they need her for something "more important". But I agree, I think Lynne Featherstone would be the perfect choice and theres no reason not to appoint a lib dem MP.
What an idiotic thing of Dimbleby to do to not go to Theresa May first. Absolutely ridiculous - that shambles took up about 15 seconds which could have been used for proper discussion. It's about time the BBC replaced this clown now.
@trigga1uk The fact you have to ask me that highlights the fact you know very little about the gender recognition process, therefore your shallow and unsubstantiated views on this issue are utterly irrelevant.
@trigga1uk Again, you clearly know very little about this issue. Gender Reassignment Surgery is the only known cure for Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder which affects intersexed and transexual individuals. Transexuality is caused by a hormonal imbalance during gestation (in the womb) where the baby's sexual organs are developed before the brain is fully developed, meaning the baby's gender and sex are misaligned. Its not nonsense - its a medical condition.
@thenevereverboy Intersexuality is also caused by hormonal imbalances during gestation - the two 'disorders' while not identical are in fact very similar conditions. Social conditioning has taught us to persecute people suffering from one and not the other.
@trigga1uk Well it can and has been proven. Its not a personality trait its a hormone imbalance. And I'd hardly call a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder "convenient". Do you know how much physical, emotional and pain people undergo due to this condition? Nobody would choose this.
This vile country exported its sexual prudery to ALL its colonies. They should not only pay reparations to gays in England, but to those who have been maligned and continue to be oppressed by old Victorian and draconian laws instituted by England. The damage is done - this woman aught to be impeached.
@trigga1uk Oh.. my..God! I'm from Africa, and even in our fledgling democracy, we know better than you do! "promote" implies that you can somehow "turn" people gay. You just blindly disregard over a century of human sexuality research, simply to support your small-minded notions of gentility. Many kids happen to BE gay, and they deserve the right to learn about their sexuality. Why are you such a hateful bigot? Did you learn it, or did your parents "promote" it it to you?
@trigga1uk No, sweetie - "bigot" is a very specialised term used to describe people who have an irrational fear of a minority group. It does not describe moral individuals with integrity who bring to fruition original, and unwavering proofs of their devotion to a particular conclusion. Alas, you do not fall into this latter category.
@trigga1uk Did you not read what I wrote previously, or are the fingers over the eyes the thumbs stuffed in the ears, and the tongue yelling, "La-lal-la-la"? The word "Nazi" refers to Nazis - who were, I admit, bigots. "Racist" is just a parlour-word for bigot. You are neither a Nazi nor a racist. You really are caught up in terminology! I'm sorry, but you deserve neither a euphemism nor a hyperbole: plain old "bigot" is a simple, clear, and apt description.
Die in hell you repugnant whore
Memail200 4 days ago
y did she change her mind :s
kasim8t3 1 week ago
@kasim8t3
Because she's got no principles.
yington 6 days ago
Theresa May is a coward for not speaking up for the truth.
MrEnlighteneddespot 1 week ago
Ha ha ha. Poor old clapped out Caroline Flint; Theresa May stole her thunder by honestly portraying a revised point of view, shaped by experience. Flint was ready to pounce but had to submit. I recall Caroline Flint when I worked at the House - oh how she flounced around when she held a junior ministerial post and then found herself frozen out of Blair's revised plans. Laugheth?? indeed we dideth
flashtheoriginal 3 weeks ago
@flashtheoriginal
Yes but Caroline Flint is the only hot female MP, so she deserves credit for that.
yington 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SWING PARTY LIAM NEESON THERESA MAY OUTSIDE NIGERIAN ARMY INSIDE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR HOODLUM SINGH BANCHEZ TYPESCOREMARKLAMARR49006515SAFEMAKER SPYING GAMES COMPLINET IMPLINET
whotaughtyou 1 month ago
Ugh. Theresa May is the worst example of humanity, a snide sly cunt of huge proportions.
RoofLight00 1 month ago
Theresa May, what a cunt!
pootube1982 1 month ago
If we hadn't continually redefined the meaning of the word marriage over the years then we would still be left with an archaic series of rituals that culminates in what is essentially the legal purchase of a female servant for a man; which is what marriage was less than 100 years ago. So please tell me why redefining a word from time to time should be construed as a 'bad thing'?
PuppetsNStuff2 1 month ago
stupid to have one minister for equality and home office! 2 jobs there, why 1 person?
mrinvincible2001 1 month ago
'Gay rights'. Why is something 'right' just because someone says so? Who is telling us what 'Gay rights' are? Oh yes, the education system and the media, as always.
The government has no business whatsoever in legislating people's sexuality or the nature of marriage. None whatsoever. I don't want the government lecturing children in sex 'education' or changing the definition of marrige. Why don't the government just cut the crap and declare a Luciferian State.
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
Lying bigoted cow.
sail1948 2 months ago
'I have been persuaded' which basically is saying that when Labour do the right thing we Tories are forced to admit our hypocrisy.
marktopp 2 months ago
I'm quite content with the honourable Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount of Alamein's take on homosexuality. I have absolutely no problem with it providing the age of consent is raised to 80.
I joke of course, but what a fantastic statement! Screw political correctness!
ColoriProductions 2 months ago
boot faced cow
alocohc 2 months ago
Whether or not you agree with gay couples adopting children is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that people aren't allowed to have an opinion anymore.
tylerdanielblack 2 months ago
Yeah yeah yeah! We lodged reports, the committee met, we have an agenda, what a load of crapola!
Crystalgirlist 3 months ago
Her body language is at odds with her words. Watch her shake her head with a lot of no's while she answers
fieldfullofthistles 3 months ago
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. isn't that the definition of marriage ? i'm not against gays living together but they can't actually get married because it wouldn't be marriage, it would be a civil partnership.
bigmangiff 3 months ago
@bigmangiff
Marriage, Civil Partnership...call it what you may. These are just words created by society. Just because we have defined 'marriage' as between a man and women it doesn't mean that that cannot change. In fact it was originally religion that set this standard and religion, as we now know, is fast being put on the back burner.
kamma44 3 months ago
@bigmangiff There is no reason why the definition of marriage cannot be extended to homosexual couples. The only reason why this hasn't happened is because of religious bigotry. Civil partnerships are an attempt to keep religious bigots happy while seeming to address the equality issue, but it is not enough.
LoneRookRS1 2 months ago 7
@LoneRookRS1 marriage is man and woman
you cant change the defintion of something
its like making it legal for humans to be parents of monkey
or a dog be the legal guardian of a child
harj2009 2 months ago
@harj2009 marriage is currently between one man and one woman, but wasn't and shan't be always so; marriage used to be inescapable/sexist/racist/class-based and changed from place to place. definitions change from time to time about loads of things. "it's like making it legal for humans to be parents of monkey" true, in as much as it's a completely false comparison. it's like giving custody rights of a child to two adults who are not its biological parents, which is common practise.
soloasdubh 2 months ago
@harj2009 The definition of marriage has changed over time. You simply have a definition you are comfortable with, likely in line with your religious beliefs, and don't want it to change.
LoneRookRS1 1 month ago
@LoneRookRS1 Why is it not enough? Marriage is by definition religious historically and culturally in Britain. You cannot hijack it from the religious community. In fact, today the discrimination is reversed. It is against the religious communities. I am for gay rights but that does not mean I have to steal it from another community to give it to them. Practically, gay couples and straight couples are equally treated under law. The difference is just conceptual. And that is insignificant.
ETworldjone 1 month ago
@ETworldjone Marriage is not by definition religious. It may have had its roots in religious beliefs but the concept of the monogamous joining of two people is a social phenomenon. Plenty of atheists and agnostics get married without much fuss, and it is simply the fact that religious people feel that love by two gay people affronts god and their beliefs. This is why the "discrimination" is against the religious communities, because they are bigoted and selectively discriminative.
LoneRookRS1 1 month ago
@LoneRookRS1 You dont even know the religious definition of marriage in Britain. It is not just the monogamous joining of 'two people' but 'one man and one woman'. That is why atheists and agnostics get married without much fuss. So, when gays and lesbians 'marry', it overturns the definition of 'marriage' which was set by the religious community without their approval. Why is 'civil union' not enough? Why cant the homosexual community come up with another word? Isn't this actually a non-issue?
ETworldjone 1 month ago
@ETworldjone Actually the definition of marriage under religion used to permit only white christians of a particular class and denomination. Over time, society has adopted it as an institution that goes beyond race and religion. However, the barrier of gender has not been crossed yet, merely because of religious bigotry. If you were a true "christian" you would look down on non-believers getting married, but the truth is, it is because religious people are gay haters. Simple.
LoneRookRS1 1 month ago
@LoneRookRS1 The fact is it is not a gender issue yet from a religious perspective. The concept that homosexuals are born that way is not accepted by the religious community because there is no scientific consensus on this matter. Science does not say it is natural or a choice. Therefore, the religious community have no choice but to consider it from a philosophical and theological perspective. And from those perspective, 'gay marriages' cannot be treated as a gender issue.
ETworldjone 1 month ago
@ETworldjone To me, it is irrelevant if homosexuality is genetic, biochemical or socio-cultural in causes. The fact that neuroanatomical differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals exist implies underlying biological causes, just as we see homosexuality across the animal kingdom. The religious community cannot bear this, because they make prejudicial assumptions and judgments out of their own fear, insecurity and backward view of people and society. You are simply bigots.
LoneRookRS1 1 month ago
@LoneRookRS1 From your comment the fact the of the matter is simply: I hate the religious community and I dont care about them. To you the religious community is inferior to the homosexual community. That is why, you are indifferent to the sensitivities of the former even if that means discriminating against them for the sake of the latter. That is why, you are not satisfied even when the only difference between 'civil unions' and 'marriage' is terminology. All I can say is: Shame on you.
ETworldjone 1 month ago
@ETworldjone Total bullshit, I hate people who exhibit prejudice or pass judgments on others without good reason. Yes, shame on me for speaking out against those poor, poor religious people that usurp the rights of others because they feel they have the right to speak for them, and dictate what lives to lead, and make them change or feel guilty. Calling black people "negroes" is terminology, so was calling prisons for antisocials and homosexuals "workhouses" or "asylums".
LoneRookRS1 1 month ago
@LoneRookRS1 That is weird. You are the one who all this time labelled religious people as bigots and backward. Yet you whine and cry about the 'unfairness' of labeling you the same? That is called Hypocrisy mate. Secondly, what has 'negroes' got to do with 'civil unions'. Now you are spewing out nonsense for a desperate sake of the argument. If homosexuals dont like 'civil unions', why cant they go on and invent a word that suits them rather than whine like a child for a religious terminology.
ETworldjone 1 month ago
@ETworldjone I'm not a bigot though am I, because I cite reasons for the judgments I make. Those who believe in particular religions subscribe to assumptions and prejudices as part of their unfounded system of beliefs. So I don't have a hypocritical double standard at all. Second, the selective use of language to differentiate people is an instrument of prejudice that has been used for centuries, for race, gender and sexual orientation. I doubt you would want to have a "civil union"
LoneRookRS1 1 month ago
@LoneRookRS1 Why do gay people want to get married anyway? It doesn't benefit them anyway financially and marriage is generally a religous act so why would they want that. Also gay adoption is going to mess the child up psychologically as they will be bullied at school and also there will not be a mother and father influence that they need to define their character.
Sparkyj1991 1 month ago
@Sparkyj1991 There are a number of benefits afforded to married couples by the state, and marriage is no more religious than christmas these days - celebrated by many people. The term "tying the knot" actually came from Paganism so christians do not have a monopoly on marriage in society. There is no evidence that adoption by gay couples harms the child psychologically, affects their character, and the only problem comes from idiot bigots like you who make it your business.
LoneRookRS1 1 month ago
@LoneRookRS1 The child will most likely still be subject to bullying though which may screw them up.
Sparkyj1991 1 month ago
@Sparkyj1991 Not in a world free from bigots.
LoneRookRS1 1 month ago
@Sparkyj1991 so you think that 'there will not be a mother and father influence that they need to define their character.' Does that mean you think that single mothers or single fathers shouldn't be allowed to bring up children?
pinkypete1989 1 month ago
@bigmangiff Its only semantics that stop it being called marriage. thats what it is in practice and in essence. the fact is , right now, that gay couples of faith are denied the right to express that faith at their union ceremony, namely civil partnership. Marriage should be available for those who want it.
mymaranatha1 2 months ago
I'm glad you're not speaking from a deluded religious basis but unfortunately you are deluded nonetheless. How can homosexuality be anything other than natural when it occurs in large numbers of other animal populations?! [Bagemihl Report] It is a fundamental instinct as is heterosexuality. Your comment in respect to negative and positives is nothing but puerile. As to what makes you "stupid or ignorant" I refer you to the comment you just made!
yzenanja 4 months ago
I am against Gay marriage. Does that make me homophobic?
ScotsmanTillDeath 4 months ago
@ScotsmanTillDeath You believe that gay people should be denied the equivalent rights of straight members of society. That commitment to difference defines discrimination. Opposition is illogical and one can only assume you are either stupid or ignorant; it is likely you are prejudiced or bigoted. Homophobia is characterised by these qualities but is considered more 'active' than these mental elements. Your active commitment in seeking to deny gay people equality thereby makes you homophobic.
yzenanja 4 months ago
@yzenanja Oh please.Save us all the rubbish. Homosexuality IS NOT natural.Positive with Positive RETRACTS. Positive and Negative ATTRACTS. The world and civilization was built on these simple principles.While gays should be treated like humans, we must show them that their behaviour and their lust for one of the same sex IS NOT right.Spare the religious rubbish, its not how the world works. I'm not homophobic as i don't fear Gay people. Now then, what makes me "stupid or ignorant?" Liberal scum.
ScotsmanTillDeath 4 months ago
@ScotsmanTillDeath lol
Owen4103 3 months ago
@ScotsmanTillDeath Just because it's not right for you, doesn't mean it's not right for gay people. They're not doing it out of spite or trying to be rebellious. The fact that you can't understand how a man can fancy another man is perfectly understandable, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to accept it. It's all consensual and between adults, so who gives a shit?
steve5312 3 months ago
@ScotsmanTillDeath Do you have anything whatsoever to substantiate any of your claims, or is it merely regurgitation of Daily Mail columns? As long as they don't harm anyone or involve you or anyone else, why interfere? They're not doing any harm, what they do in their private time is as irrelevant as what you do in your private time.
I find it quite worrying that people such as yourself take such a ludicrous fascination in the lives of others, is it because you have an empty life yourself?
TKDGSA 3 months ago
@TKDGSA Expansion on your point: even if you have a moral objection to something, it also doesn't mean you should impose said views on others. it's really simple.
'I don't like gay marriges' - don't have one
'I don't like havign my rights taken away.' - don't take them from anyone else
KrankyBIAS 2 months ago 11
@ScotsmanTillDeath probably.
mymaranatha1 2 months ago
Hague has an equally shocking record on gay rights. Yet the hypocrite had an affair with a 25yr old lad. Tories are absolutely despicable vermin
rimarti72 4 months ago
She looks so uncomfortable saying those things, she's clearly lying through her teeth. It's so sad that she's allowed to insult people's intelligence like that!
similesmasher 4 months ago
Equality seems to have become a cult amongst the British public, of course Teresa May changed her views as she is OBLIGED to. Otherwise she would lose her career, I bet she is going against her conscience, I'd put money on it. The PC brigade and the thought Nazi police of modern British culture will force her to espouse values she doesn't hold.
Yes I think homosexuality is a sin and contrary to the natural order, now lets see if this taboo view offends people's delicate sensibilities.
Gurn92 4 months ago
Captaincomputa.
"Unnatural"? What would be your definition of that then? That homosexuality is a manufactured monstrosity which is a threat to all humans, dogs, cats, budgies and all other animate species on Planet Earth?
Sexuality, no matter what kind, remains a natural process and has been so since humankind lived in caves and said "Ug" to one another.
On this subject, you could mean what other bigots say which is "not normal".
So, what's normal?
MrThecarebear 4 months ago
WTF has Gay rights got to do with peadophiles? Go and crawl back under your stone. I would rather have a child under the protection of a loving Gay couple than staying in a childrens home. Or actually worse still living with you with your vile views. Theresa May is another right wing torrie Nazi, scrap Gay rights and human rights. She's a total basket case.
ByronRaver 4 months ago
@ByronRaver agreed> It is disgusting mud-slinging when people raise the paedophile stuff. Absolute crap.
mymaranatha1 2 months ago
Gays should not be allowed to adopt,Theresa should be stronger and stick to her beliefs and not be bullied out of them by the do-gooders
captaincomputa 4 months ago
@captaincomputa
bollocks!! Why shouldnt 2 gay males/females make good parents??
superstubes 4 months ago
@superstubes Because its wrong and the poor child has no say in it,i certainly would'nt have liked to have been brought up by two men or women and no i'm not some anti gay bigot,its just wrong o.k.
captaincomputa 4 months ago
@captaincomputa
"wrong" in your eyes maybe. ...if you'd of been passed from 1 foster parent to another and passed from 1 childrens home to another you might of thought different.
Theres plenty of kids from gay homes who have had a lovely upbringing.
superstubes 4 months ago
@superstubes The thought of being brought up by two men makes me feel sick.The Gay Mafia and pc brigade are ruining this country.
captaincomputa 4 months ago
@captaincomputa
"gay mafia" haha...........
How are gays getting equality "ruining" any country??
superstubes 4 months ago
@superstubes Its unfair on the child,its them who matter.Why do you want equality when what you do is unnatural and frankly perverted.
captaincomputa 4 months ago
@captaincomputa
"unnatural" to you maybe - not when youre born gay its not. Adoption couples have to go through all kinds of tests and checks ,if heteros were so perfect there wouldnt be any kids up for adoption.
superstubes 4 months ago
@captaincomputa I loooove the idea of a Gay Mafia! Sadly no such organisation exists. why are you being so negative captain?
mymaranatha1 2 months ago
@mymaranatha1 I'm not being negative,i just think its disgusting that Gays are allowed to adopt chlidren,its my opinion thats all.
captaincomputa 2 months ago
@captaincomputa and to think we share a common oxygen supply. ew.
soloasdubh 2 months ago
@soloasdubh More's the pity,hope i don't catch anything
captaincomputa 1 month ago
@captaincomputa ballocks
mymaranatha1 2 months ago
gay rights is not about equality its about changing laws to suit a sick lifestyle choice
harj2009 5 months ago
@harj2009 it's neither here nor there whether you approve of what consenting adults do with their bodies. This is about human rights - it's about justice. You have no business talking about social equality in any shape or form if you don't understand the basic meaning of it.
MrDarkbloom 5 months ago
@harj2009 Jesus Christ, can you be more ignorant! You sound like your from the 60's
louisdm123 4 months ago
@louisdm123 your wrong, u seem to think gay rights is a "new" and modern "idea"
there where plenty of homosexual nations in biblical times, they died out
harj2009 2 months ago
@harj2009 "homosexual nations": are you being seriously high? a minority of people in every nation happen to be gay. you're right, they aren't a new phenomenon, they're our relations and friends. "in biblical times, they died out": i can assure you, dear sir, that they most certainly did not.
soloasdubh 2 months ago
@harj2009 nothing sick about being gay my friend
mymaranatha1 2 months ago
@mymaranatha1 they say that about rape and incest as well
homosexuality is a life style choice
harj2009 2 months ago
@harj2009 homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. this question has been dealt with ad nausium on facebook, that it no longer merits a full answer. there is no correlation between homosexuality and rape, in the same way that there's no link between heterosexuality and rape. incest - "well if it makes you happy" - people have been doing that one for centuries vis-à-vis Downtown Abbey.
soloasdubh 2 months ago
will we be giving to peodophiles next
ispy01945 6 months ago
@ispy01945 Somehow equating homosexuality with pedophilia is about the most ignorant and the disgraceful thing you can say on on the matter. Just find one rational argument that links the two any more than being straight is linked to pedophilia.
MrDarkbloom 5 months ago
@ispy01945 pity you can't even spell it properly hahahaha
mymaranatha1 2 months ago
how many childrens lifes are fucked up long term with gay parents
ispy01945 6 months ago
@ispy01945 who fucked you up?
mymaranatha1 2 months ago
funny how she suddenly changed her mind!
superstubes 6 months ago
It makes me wonder seriously. There is an economic crisis, public money is being spent in the wrong areas, there are dangerous criminals wondering around and people claiming money when they shouldnt. And all they can debate about in the house of commons is something as basic and simple as two people of the same sex sleeping with eachother and their basic right to love each other.
herefordguy 6 months ago
The natural law of nature is that only sex between a man and woman can produce a child. I think this says alot about what is naturally right for children. Admittedly some hetrosexual families are not always good for chidren but that is not due to the natural law, that is due to peoples failings or circumastances, for what ever reason. I do feel for people who struggle with their sexuality, but at the end of the day only a vagina was made for a penis, not an anus, (sorry to be graphic)
yobojoful 7 months ago
@yobojoful if so, then really the penis and anus shouldn't fit together so damn well and so enjoyably.
fact is, same-sex marriages are no more harmful to children than straight marriages are, in that it all depends on the individuals. you can't blanket all gay couples with "you're not good for children", it's a case-by-case basis. some can be totally evil, abusive and just horrid to their children, but others can be perfectly nice, happy parents who just want to love their child.
Stevie2Sxc 7 months ago
@yobojoful Actually homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom as a means of population control, so the idea that it's against nature is absurd. End of the day, I'd rather a kid was brought up in a loving environment than in care, because I know a guy who was in care, said 1% of people in it made university, not a good uni, any uni.
kkwillsaveus 6 months ago
@yobojoful It is PERFECTLY 'natural' to have same-gender sex or to want to be transgender. These are simple facts about human biology. The only question is... is it harmful to the individuals or society? The answer is - not at all. There is no evidence to think being gay is somehow wrong or unnatural. If you want to be PRESCRIPTIVE in your comments, you should first learn how to be more properly DESCRIPTIVE of the phenomena.
MrDarkbloom 5 months ago
@yobojoful again a simplistic, and WRONG view.
mymaranatha1 2 months ago
@ireland3112 haha this is funny how someone started spreading a rumour about were being a whore.
Bushy162 8 months ago
Bigoted woman. Utter bullshit.
llTomlll 8 months ago 2
People have a right to give their children to the care of charities which has selective policies on who they give their children to. People have a right to state the true fact that people cannot biologically change their sex. Self-rigeous, stuck up little twerps might not like that, but this is not Nazi Germany, and they have no right to force their views on anyone else.
matrix4022 9 months ago
fuck theresa may is a whore
timetochilli 9 months ago
I can't believe David DImbleby didn't go to Theresa May first. Shitta just looked embarrased to be asked first
billydeeuk 1 year ago
I'm gay and would love to shag that bloke Theresa May
Braithwaite1922 1 year ago
Is there no limit to the pandering the Tories will do? You do not have a right to have the government pay for your sex change. You'll have to make do with the organs you have, as everyone who has lived before you has done. Stop whining.
hpd929 1 year ago
@hpd929 Unfortunatley, the vast majority of scientists and medical professionals recognise gender disorder as a health question. Like any health question, they have a right for it to be resolved through the health system. Or is this your hatred and discriminatory beliefs about another, vulnerable group of people informing your opinion?
thatcher88 9 months ago
Oh dear it looks like i've upset some poofs on here.Now all i want is for a gay person to explain to me how it's normal for another nob jockey to put his pecker in his butt.No insults now.Just prove to me how normal that is.Does the human race reproduce in this way?Does it? Well come on then mr normal explain it to me.
kipstrange 1 year ago
@kipstrange The thought of fucking an old woman (who can't bear children) or indeed any woman, frankly, disgusts me, but it's none of my business. That's life no matter how much your rant about it or tear yourself up on account of your prejudices. Get over it.
brett18uk 1 year ago
@kipstrange I'm not gay, in fact I'm 110% straight. But do you realise that gayness is quite possibly an evolutionary mechanism to control population numbers? In other words, if a species becomes overpopulated, some scientists believe that more of that species will become gay. And when the population declines, more become straight again. Evolution has many protective mechanisms like this, so it might actually be completely natural, even if the thought of it makes us straight people feel sick
pgjr00 1 year ago
@pgjr00 you make me sick
mymaranatha1 2 months ago
@kipstrange It's normal for human beings to have diverse sexualities, it is the most healthy option to express their sexuality whatever it is between consenting adults, and it would be abnormal for humans to have exactly the same sexuality. Indeed, all credible medical organisations recognise that our sexuality, including homosexuality, which developed during our youngest years and which we had no choice over, is normal. Human sexuality, whichever gender we're attracted to, is normal and natural
thatcher88 9 months ago
..I'd love to have sex with Theresa May, shes prime MILF quality.
Dungarth 1 year ago
I agree with section 28, but really i wouldn't want any sex taught to my children whatsoever. There is actually a credible debate on whether a government should legislate on a persons sexuality at all, the question can be asked is it really the government's business? I don't endorse homosexuality at all, of course it's not government's business to interfere with peoples private lives or feelings for that matter, but it shouldn't be taught in schools.
northnotsouth 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThankYouAndHello 1 year ago
@northnotsouth
I don't really understand what your point is. A condom put on a cucumber to demonstrate safe sex is problematic for you? Would you show your son and daughter how? You don't have to sign the permission slip.
Is a biology lesson as problematic?
I don't see any issue with any discussion in a school. And when something like Section 28 was in play. A lack was present. A silent tongue. This is 2010. Silence is no longer mandatory.
ThankYouAndHello 1 year ago
@northnotsouth You're not asked to 'endorse' homosexuality - who do you think you are?! You simply have to accept that some people are gay, some people are straight and some people don't fit either label. Get over it.
brett18uk 1 year ago
@northnotsouth I totally agree with you. Sex ed should not be taught to children. It pre- sexualises them. Why can't we just let children be chidren. I think the goverment should be doing more to stop the media pre sexualising, not joining it.
yobojoful 7 months ago
What makes gays normal.It isn't fuckin normal you weirdos.Just because you get some publicity doesn't make it normal.How the fuck can it be normal if a guy sucks another guys cock? or a girl is a carpet muncher.Stop deluding yourselves.Hanging isn't good enough for you cunts.
kipstrange 1 year ago
@kipstrange Your comment suggests that you need someone, something to be on their knees for you to stand tall. Remove your argument; do you still feel strong, powerful, right?
Please explain what is normal? Please explain what you issue is with a sexual practice that doesn't interest you. How many times have you had someone say to you that you with the opposite sex is revolting, that hanging wouldn't be enough to rid the world of your reproductive insistence?
ThankYouAndHello 1 year ago
@kipstrange Could`nt agree more,good on you for your courage and using your right to speak and not be caught up in the pc rubbish,lets not offend this that and the next even if they are wrong,well done
oliver69cork 1 year ago
isnt she creepy looking? she just looks like everything she says is manipulative lies.
jenniferjayy 1 year ago
That girl asking the question is fit :-)
PeteGeeza86 1 year ago 2
@PeteGeeza86 fit but dum!!!!!!
BiffaTW 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If there's any gay fuck ups out there think THAT IT'S OK TO STICK THEIR COCK UP SOMEONE'S ARSE THEN YOU BETTER GET FUCKIN REAL 'CAUSE WE WILL FIND YOU AND EXTERMINATE YOU.yOU DONT BELONG IN THE HUMAN RACE YOU FUCKIN WEIRDOS.mAKE NO MISTAKE WE WILL FIND YOU.
kipstrange 1 year ago
@kipstrange Actually, being gay is as biologically normal as being left-handed. Read a book. Until then, stfu.
AshillaBeige 1 year ago
@kipstrange Grow up you Nazi idiot.
InexplicablyLost 1 year ago
@InexplicablyLost I hate to do the obvious cod-psychology here, but I reckon kipstrange is fighting with his/her own sexuality. Such rabid homophobia and irrationality surely comes from the struggle. :))
MrDarkbloom 5 months ago
@kipstrange You don't belong in the human race, mate; fucking pathetic discrimination is of the past and not beneficial towards humanity's success. So shut the fuck up... and grow the fuck up. :)
CuriousVirga 1 year ago
To herefordguy, I'm not naturally drwan to Theresa May, however I do tink its possible that she has changed her mind over LGBT issues, shall we give her a chance?
In many ways she reminds me of my Mum & her views from years ago. My Mother has changed her view, perhaps Theresa has too, I hope so.
dan1911a 1 year ago
WHAT A SEXIST PREJUDICED ugly cunt
zeb120 1 year ago
Her voting record clearly states that she doesnt agree with gay rights!!! How dare it be presented otherwise, Its not just offensive to gay people but to majority of straight people who belive in gay equality
herefordguy 1 year ago 11
@herefordguy gay rights is nothing but gay power freaks you scum!
NatDemUK 1 year ago
@herefordguy I'm gay, I'm not offended, I'm a big Theresa May fan. You really can't just write broad statements like that.
Cnd1867 11 months ago
Comment removed
Bushy162 8 months ago
@Bushy162 No that doesn't sound homophobic. What she said was exactly that, she's been convinced, she's changed her mind, that whether it's a gay couple or straight couple, the sexuality doesn't matter, its the fact that the child has a strong family at home. How is giving gay couples equal rights to straight couples homophobic? The fact that she changed her mind on this and other issues relating to gays in society, shows that she acknowledges gays deserves equal rights as everyone else.
Cnd1867 8 months ago
@Cnd1867 I think you're missing the point. She's only bothered about the child's security, not the gay's rights.
Bushy162 8 months ago
@Bushy162 No, I acknowledge your point, and it's a valid opinion to have, I just have a different view. What I am saying is that the issues of the child's well being and equality between gay and straight are linked in the sense that, Theresa is acknowledging that a child raised in a strong home is more important than someone's sexuality. She's putting gay and straight couples on equal footing and saying that gay couples should have the right to adopt because the child will be better off.
Cnd1867 8 months ago
@Bushy162 I don't know what else she can do to promote gay rights, she's now in favour of allowing gay couples to adopt, and the repeal of section 28. Whether or not it's for the child's welfare, she is now saying gay couples and gay people are on par and equal to straight couples and straight people. If that's not an endorsement of gay rights, I don't know what is.
Cnd1867 8 months ago
@Bushy162 Did you see her squirming to avoid the question? She said each word individually so find more time to spew out more bullshit. When asked about her personal opinion on homosexuality, she talked about "our agenda for asylum seekers..." - I can't believe people take her seriously.
llTomlll 8 months ago
@herefordguy too right she was to right vote against gays being able to adopt, this is a sick coup against morality and free speech that she was forced when in goverment to speak of this rubbish; what are we moving forward to?!
BiffaTW 10 months ago
@BiffaTW we're moving, hopefully, towards a more tolerant society that doesn't discriminate based on something as irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things, as a person's sexual orientation.
Stevie2Sxc 10 months ago
@Stevie2Sxc yeah but thats far too simplistic the word is bandied around for many things, and discrimination always be there just other things wed like to get rid of will always be there. Plus moving forward? I do recall that the Romans did not at one time judge people for their sexuality. -I think the very idea that it is 'new' and 'foward' are wrong and relative anyway.
BiffaTW 10 months ago
@herefordguy How do you know the majority of straight people believe that?
edmund184 6 months ago
@edmund184 I dont receive homophobia myself on a daily basis. I dont have statistical proof. But things are changing. Most people these days know someone who is gay. Thanks to the people who have campaigned hard for gay rights that is possible. From people myself who i meet most people just want me to live my life, they dont care what i do with a a same sex partner, it doesnt affect them, if im happy with them and im happy they seem glad for me
herefordguy 6 months ago
what a joke!!!
Appleton84 1 year ago
Fishy...
radomu1 1 year ago
What a fantastic own-goal by Cameron. Surely it would have made much more sense to have appointed Baroness Sayeeda Warsi to Equalities Minister, given that she was the Shadow Equalities Minister in opposition? Or better yet, appoint a Lib Dem MP as Equalities Minster, who have an excellent record of promoting civil liberties in thier manifestos. As for Ms May's answer - look at how often she blinks! She's lying through her teeth.
billydeeuk 1 year ago
@billydeeuk Yeah, I think Equalities has kind of been an after thought for them, they couldn't appoint Warsi because she's the only one with half a brain, and they need her for something "more important". But I agree, I think Lynne Featherstone would be the perfect choice and theres no reason not to appoint a lib dem MP.
thenevereverboy 1 year ago
@thenevereverboy It just surprised me how quickly the mask of "Compassionate Conservativism" slipped
billydeeuk 1 year ago
What an idiotic thing of Dimbleby to do to not go to Theresa May first. Absolutely ridiculous - that shambles took up about 15 seconds which could have been used for proper discussion. It's about time the BBC replaced this clown now.
pmanngw 1 year ago
Flint is a witch never trust a thing she says ever
Crapulency 1 year ago
No more excuses; no more apologies - it's time we made them pay reparations. Money talks - talk is cheap.
auntiesanity 1 year ago
Comment removed
trigga1uk 1 year ago
I smell .........
J2BAN 1 year ago
She wasn't there for the vote on gender recognition FOUR TIMES!! She NEEDS to give us some answers.
thenevereverboy 1 year ago
Comment removed
trigga1uk 1 year ago
@trigga1uk Oh ok, so intersexed people shouldn't be allowed to become legally male or female?
thenevereverboy 1 year ago
Comment removed
trigga1uk 1 year ago
@trigga1uk The fact you have to ask me that highlights the fact you know very little about the gender recognition process, therefore your shallow and unsubstantiated views on this issue are utterly irrelevant.
Also, haven't you ever heard of google??
thenevereverboy 1 year ago
Comment removed
trigga1uk 1 year ago
@trigga1uk Again, you clearly know very little about this issue. Gender Reassignment Surgery is the only known cure for Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder which affects intersexed and transexual individuals. Transexuality is caused by a hormonal imbalance during gestation (in the womb) where the baby's sexual organs are developed before the brain is fully developed, meaning the baby's gender and sex are misaligned. Its not nonsense - its a medical condition.
thenevereverboy 1 year ago
@thenevereverboy Intersexuality is also caused by hormonal imbalances during gestation - the two 'disorders' while not identical are in fact very similar conditions. Social conditioning has taught us to persecute people suffering from one and not the other.
thenevereverboy 1 year ago
Comment removed
trigga1uk 1 year ago
@trigga1uk Well it can and has been proven. Its not a personality trait its a hormone imbalance. And I'd hardly call a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder "convenient". Do you know how much physical, emotional and pain people undergo due to this condition? Nobody would choose this.
thenevereverboy 1 year ago
This vile country exported its sexual prudery to ALL its colonies. They should not only pay reparations to gays in England, but to those who have been maligned and continue to be oppressed by old Victorian and draconian laws instituted by England. The damage is done - this woman aught to be impeached.
auntiesanity 1 year ago
Comment removed
trigga1uk 1 year ago
@trigga1uk You can't "promote" homosexuality, you anal-retentive little homophobe.
auntiesanity 1 year ago
Comment removed
trigga1uk 1 year ago
@trigga1uk Oh.. my..God! I'm from Africa, and even in our fledgling democracy, we know better than you do! "promote" implies that you can somehow "turn" people gay. You just blindly disregard over a century of human sexuality research, simply to support your small-minded notions of gentility. Many kids happen to BE gay, and they deserve the right to learn about their sexuality. Why are you such a hateful bigot? Did you learn it, or did your parents "promote" it it to you?
auntiesanity 1 year ago
Comment removed
trigga1uk 1 year ago
@trigga1uk No, sweetie - "bigot" is a very specialised term used to describe people who have an irrational fear of a minority group. It does not describe moral individuals with integrity who bring to fruition original, and unwavering proofs of their devotion to a particular conclusion. Alas, you do not fall into this latter category.
auntiesanity 1 year ago
Comment removed
trigga1uk 1 year ago
@trigga1uk Did you not read what I wrote previously, or are the fingers over the eyes the thumbs stuffed in the ears, and the tongue yelling, "La-lal-la-la"? The word "Nazi" refers to Nazis - who were, I admit, bigots. "Racist" is just a parlour-word for bigot. You are neither a Nazi nor a racist. You really are caught up in terminology! I'm sorry, but you deserve neither a euphemism nor a hyperbole: plain old "bigot" is a simple, clear, and apt description.
auntiesanity 1 year ago