BBC in celebratory mood today as the moment draws nigh when “gay marriage” becomes legal thanks to nice Mr Cameron. But hang on a moment, there is a cloud on the horizon..
“About one in five British adults would turn down an invitation to a same-sex wedding, research suggests.”
Oh no. Homophobes! How VERY dare they not bow down to the new orthodoxy.
Sadly for the ‘community’ no one really cares that much – live and let live; each to their own etc. Being gay does not give you super powers – get over it.
I believe the true figure for the percentage of homosexuals is about 1% of the population. Like other minorities, they tend to cluster together, They also make a disproportionate amount of noise. I wish they would realise that most people are not remotely interested in them and would just shut up and get on with their lives. But the BBC loves minorities and has a higher than average number of gays on it’s payroll as part of its enthusiastic support of “diversity”.
I wish they would realise that most people are not remotely interested in them
Biased BBC is *so* not remotely interested in gay people, that Vance can’t stop going on about them. I don’t think gay people are the ones who need to take any lessons in shutting up from the likes of you.
Ah, a gay troll. You are doing your cause no good at all, Scott, just come across as a bit strange.
Ah, here we go: try and marginalise somebody who’s prepared to stand up for themselves as a “troll”, because you’re not prepared or able to present a coherent argument.
Which pseudonyms have you used before, “onlyne”? Or is it just a coincidence that the tactic you attempt to use is so common amongst Biased BBC’s regular commenters?
You are a troll. Your only purpose here seems to be to mock and insult your host and to gainsay other commenters.
When challenged to argue a point, your default is to run away and when substantial issues of BBC bias are raised, you are silent.
1.5 Hrs. Later and still no response – perhaps his shift has finished???
No, my train journey finished and I had better things to do. Sorry to disappoint you and your typically absurd conspiracy theories. I’ll let you get back to thinking that you know what you’re talking about now.
I love a troll calling someone else a troll. The irony is always lost on them!
He isn’t.
You are.
Gays are hilarious – its a free show so let him carry on entertaining us.
I just love the victim culture. Besides, let them have gay marriage – the institution has been devalued to the point where its a booby prize and, heck, why shouldn’t they be as miserable as the rest of us!
Oh dear, David Vance has used the trigger word “gay” which was guaranteed a response from this site’s resident militant homosexual.
Scott will you get it into that thick skull of yours that the majority of contributors to this blog don’t give a damn about what you lot get up to behind closed doors. It’s obvious you don’t do self-awareness because that crack about marginalising people seems to be projection on your part. Who is it that regularly accuses others of being a homophobe or racist when they criticise, however legitimately, the practices of the gay lobby. That’s not trying to marginalise others is it?
You are welcome do do what you want with your life, it’s the triumphalist way militant gays push their agenda that get on one’s threepenny bits.
I keep on hearing in the media it’s all about two people being in love. Scott, do you want to explain the mechanics of homosexual “love”? No. please don’t, we already know, but it’s something militants like yourself seem very keen to prevent the rest of us thinking about, instead pushing the image of “loving” couples and emotional committment.
I say live and let live. Gay marriage isn’t going to change my life and it’s not going to cost me any of my hard earned cash – unless some local authority decides you lot need a grant to start married life. Just don’t be so bloody triumphalist about it!
Scott will you get it into that thick skull of yours that the majority of contributors to this blog don’t give a damn about what you lot get up to behind closed doors.
Yes, Biased BBC commenters do have a tendency to go on and on and on about how they don’t give a damn, and then explain in long, tedious paragraphs just why they don’t give a damn about something, and all the reasons why they don’t like, agree or understand about this thing they don’t give a damn about.
It’s all quite hilarious, really. Still, every time you want to make yourself look like even more of a laughing stock, do continue.
If only it was behind closed doors. The nature reserve near where I live has long been and continues to be a venue for homosexuals to practice their ‘craft’ outdoors. As dusk approaches the dog walkers and bird watchers are replaced with single men in cars and I’ll leave the rest up to your imagination.
You’re very smug, Scott – are you quaire?
Is this Evan Davis with glasses on?
And how many of that 1% were bothered about having ‘civil partnership’ renamed as ‘marriage’? I think Richard Starkey’s views may have been typical.
Try listening to Radio 4 weekdays between 9 and 5. It’s a continuous feminist rant by middle-aged mumsy liberals. Only let-up is desert island discs today.
Gay marriage to me is a complete farce, and i’m a gay man. From what i’ve experienced over the years with gay couples, is that they wouldn’t know the true meaning of marriage if it bit them on the arse. The whole thing just makes me cringe.
It is difficult to find any reason to support ‘gay marriage’ (unless it involves children). If it involves children it is DOUBLY dubious both in the ways and means. It undermines the ‘aims and means’ of traditional Marriage to support (and protect) a family (including our parents and grandparents). We will now have children forcibly removed from so-called ‘troubled Families’ and placed into Lesbian state care(less) homes awaiting adoption by (new) gay sex adoptees. Natural Families are undermined by this downward ‘reclassification’ which was never voted ‘for’ by any EU member states and never open to democratic debate and is still a source of anxiety that will never be ‘normal’ (under any circumstance). It will predictably involve creating a police state of ‘favoured’ enforcement (not far short of blunt Russian orthodoxy). Except the Russians are not too keen on it either. Behind all this is the EU super state of failure and corruption with secret meetings. My heart goes with DANA who speaks on how the EU agenda works against the family and children (which is contrary to democratic principles in her home country as it is with the UK). We are losing our rights and entering a police state from now on. Marriage will not be respected or adhered to, nor family, nor siblings. It is Orwellian and chilling that Euthanasia and abortion (will involve the same EU enforcement).
See interview on English Manif with Dana on how the EU works.
http://englishmanif.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-mechanics-of-eu-decision-making.html
I knew a gay single man who adopted a very troubled child and made the most fantastic parent. The child would never have succeeded in a family with other children. I have no objection to the right parent with the right child whatever their sexuality. But I fail to understand gay marriage compared to civil partnership. I felt the campaign was rather like that of female vicars and bishops, something on the lines of Violet Elizabeth Bott. But as usual the reporting by the BBC today has been triumphalism with the tinge of pity that one fifth of the population would not attend a gay marriage without a real analysis of the figures. I bet if one of the couple was a son / brother / close friend the figure attending would be much higher.
I don’t care if they’re ‘married’ or in a civil partnership – although what is the difference? – and rather applaud homosexuals if they are prepared to make a lifetime commitment, very different from all the bed-hopping chavs and fatherless ‘families’ that comprise most of the bBBC’s phone-in audiences.
BUT, I don’t want them to keep going on about their sexual choices, parading through our streets etc. And I don’t want the bBBC to spend my TV-tax on a weekend in Brighton so that they can broadcast non-stop homosexual propaganda.
Given the horrors one has to tolerate attending family and friends’ weddings over the years, I’d say a bit more BBC research would clearly indicate one in five UK adults wouldnt go to a hetrosexual wedding either……
That’s because the institution of marriage has already been deliberately debased to the level of a pantomime (for the purposes of deconstructionism)
Making it the venue for homosexual playacting is just the continuation of that process.
Halfway down this BBC article there’s a quote by a Catholic priest: “In our modern culture it is increasingly difficult to have an open debate without being labelled bigoted and intolerant.” But this is reported under a sub-heading saying “Bigoted and intolerant”, which is what the BBC wants us to think about these recalcitrant homophobes. Thus the BBC clearly confirms the priest’s point.
Correct – and on Radio4 a reporter described people who objected to gay marriage as” short sighted and bigoted”. So much for “fair and balanced”.
Glad I cancelled my license, more people should be doing it – not watching celeb shows, quizzes, soaps, repeats, biased news/politics progs and not being tied to a schedule for live broadcasts is a revelation. Add to that not supporting an incestuous, self perpetuating organisation mired in marxism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, paedophilia, grotesque pay, pensions, payoffs and waste is something that every self respecting Briton should consider.
The BBC never let a small thing like going against majority opinion get in their ideologically charged way. If you support Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve then it should be kept behind closed doors and not forced down everyone’s throat (no pun intended!).
Curious what passes for bias these days. A story by the BBC reporting that 20% of people would not attend a gay marriage is evidence of bias.
David Vance (who irronically shares his name with a homoerotic photographer) does seem to have a curious fascination with gay marriage. A google search of this and his other site brings back 1,820 results on the other one, 733 on this site. For someone who professes not to care very much one way or the other, that is an awful lot times he hasn’t cared.
There are a lot of anti-gay campaigners who turn out to be gay. Here’s a list http://gayhomophobe.com/
Are you suggesting that it is impossible for a homosexual to oppose ‘gay marriage’?
If not what is the point of your post?
Perhaps you simply have as curios a fascination with Mr Vance as the BBC has with gay marriage.
I don’t think the BBC is the one with the curious fascination. The number of times Vance has bleated on about gay people – from marriage rights to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – it’s clear he has a problem with gay people believing themselves to be equal member of society. Usually, such problems stem from someone’s own insecurity – a desperate need to be superior to others rooted in an inherent fear that that’s far from the case.
As I explained to you before ,at some length, it has nothing to do with equality
homosexuals already have that
(Please try and avoid your usual personal vitriol in any response)
it has nothing to do with equality
homosexuals already have that
Oh, you poor lamb. You really have no clue, do you?
Yes I think I do have very much aclue as to the true motives behind ‘gay marriage’.
And when I explained this to you before you counter argument almost instantly dissolved into very personal abuse.
But Ill try again. You have always been equally free to marry any women of your choice to the same extent as any other man.
You have always been equally free to marry any women of your choice to the same extent as any other man.
That’s an asinine argument. Would you say that a ban on interracial marriages would be OK because a white man could marry any white woman he chose?
There is absolutely no equivalency between those two scenarios
The institution of marriage has evolved over centuries as union between a man and a women ( in all cultures) for the security of women and the protection of children
Some version (monogamy) are better at that than others
Anti miscegenation laws are a post Darwinist phenomena and have completely different objectives .
Here we go Scott, your “hot” Jihadi…..Pull on your burka and ask for his hand in marriage…Set him free!…
http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/quazi-mohammad-rezwanul-ahsan-nafis.jpg
How about if you understand this simple fact.
Every time we hear ‘gay’ among men, we have to visualize a prick pushing shit uphill. You might find it enjoyable, but to those familiar with the joys of the vagina, it’s a real turn off.
It’s nature’s way of saying – no thanks.
Oh, you poor love. You try and pretend you’re a hard man, but really you’re just a mess of insecurities, aren’t you? Bless.
You really don’t get it – and writing to you certainly doesn’t make me ‘hard’.
The straight way we go into the place where new life can be produced.
Your way you go into last nights dinner.
Now who’s insecure?
By “we”, you’re implying that you’re actually sexually active. I hadn’t realised women existed with such poor taste.
Now listen arsehole – all I’ve done is state FACTS you moron – and YOU have resorted to personal abuse because you have no other real way to answer them.
Does this show you something about yourself, and address your insecurities?
Bless. You really do get agitated when somebody doesn’t fall for your hard guy act, don’t you? And then you whine about “personal abuse” while calling me an arsehole and a moron. Hilarious. But oh so consistent with the way you fling insults about.
Perfect you have shown how distorted is your version of events to try and justify your view.
You also avoided the points I made.
Just so long as every reader will see for themselves who’s who here, you’ve proved my point.
You also avoided the points I made.
You mean the way you confuse marriage with sex? The way you assume that all straight people indulge in one form of sex, all gay men indulge in one other, and that’s it?
I’ll happily debate with intelligent adults. Any time you decide you want to become one, do let the rest of us know.
I would strongly suggest you avoid sites like this where you will encounter intelligent people, otherwise you will only continue to embarrass yourself and show yourself up.
You are a twisted liar. I defy you to post my words to you here where you see I’ve ‘confused marriage with sex’.
Stop throwing idiotic statements around until you have done so.
Now get this you idiot.
I didn’t ASSUME anything about the different ways males might engage in sex with each other, but I’m quite sure I identified the one that most will be, and told you how visualising that is distasteful to normal heterosexual males, and why. If this makes you uncomfortable or insecure – I’m glad to hear it. You really don’t belong here as you have nothing to add with regard to BBC Bias, except you like the way they report on the subject of gays. We don’t.
You’re just a poor sad individual, not very bright, anxious to make your sexuality relevant, as if this will improve your status as a human being. About you personally – I believe you also like to suck shit, otherwise you wouldn’t keep coming on this site, and you sure as hell can’t stop spouting it.
Every post of yours has ignored what was actually written, and it is you who launch into personal abuse first, and twist the facts that were stated. It has nothing to do with you being gay – just somebody with a low level mentality with some serious personality issues.
told you how visualising that is distasteful to normal heterosexual males, and why
Tell me – when you meet a straight married couple, do your thoughts immediately turn to what they get up to in the bedroom? Or is your fascination with private, consensual sexual activity solely limited to gay men?
I have had a few crap vag’s in my time.
Scott, I’ve no problem with true equality but it seems there are plenty in the militant gay lobby who want to be treated as SUPER-equals. Not true equality at all.
“it seems there are plenty in the militant gay lobby who want to be treated as SUPER-equals.”
Ah, the fictional argument that rears its head time and time again on Biased BBC – never backed up by actual evidence, of course. As usual on Biased BBC, provoking a rash of “like” thumbs ups is more important than telling the truth, eh?
If I deny you a job because of your sexual orientation I would be opened up to legal action.
If you denied me a job I would not be able to successfully sue you. That is inequality.
We are here and we are not gay. Get used to it!
If you denied me a job I would not be able to successfully sue you. That is inequality.
It’s not true in the slightest. Have you got any justification for your bigotry that isn’t fictional?
OK Scott
What of the 9 Scottish firemen who declined to attend a gay rights march
All were disciplined one was demoted
Only one had any success at industrial tribunal on the basis of his religion
Your pretty good at tracking this stuff down can you find a successfully pursued case of discrimination by a heterosexual?
Ok. So this is a reference to this story;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5304524.stm
Firefighters asked to hand out fire safety information at a public gathering refused because it was a gay pride event. I guess you see fireman who were rightly frightened for their personal safety and who were apparently worried they’d see offensive nun costumes which are such a feature of gay pride events.
I see public servants refusing to do their job because … you know.. gays! The whole thread has been people moaning how they don’t care about gays… just don’t “shove it down my throat” (and it’s not a pun that’s clearly a subconscious need). But the story you thoughtfully brought to the debate proves that as recently as 2006 firefighters were refusing to do their job in case they met gay people. It’s not acceptable to refuse to put out a fire in a house because the owner is gay. And it’s not acceptable for a public servant to refuse to hand out leaflets about fire alarms because the person taking them might be gay either.
(Also for what it’s worth, how gay is Teddy Bear? Jesus. He just wants to be flipped on his back and wriggle his legs in the air like a beetle doesn’t he? And don’t get me started on Prance sorry Pounce)
Did they refuse to put a fire out because the house resident was gay?
Homosexuals only go out to gay pride marches they couldn’t get fire safety information else where?
So homosexual firemen would have to attend fundamentalist christian events and hand out leaflets would they?
Your arguments a crock, name-shifter (for it is you) and you know it. The firemen were being dragooned into making a political statement that they disagreed with
And the employment tribunal held up the states right to do that except in the case of religious objection (for now)
Anyway you’ve kind of made pahs point for him haven’t you?
I see you keep changing your name every time you have been shown consistently to be unable to answer the points made.
Getting rather tiresome.
I think my pots clearly show just how gay I am. And for your information I miss the gay old times we used to have many years ago – that’s when you were known as queers until you hijacked that term.
There’s really nothing gay about you, but you sure are queer, and I’m not just referring to your sexual preference.
But they have already achieved that ‘super-equal’ status, along with other minorities with professional lobby groups such as disabled people and those from some races.
Anyone who dares to commit a crime against any of these special people will get a lengthier sentence than if they attacked another person, or other out-of-favour minorities like little old ladies or, worst of all, normal white men.
I’ve never understood this tendency of gay rights activists to label homophobes as ‘gay’. Seems a bit self-loathing to me.
Perhaps you just have to get used to the idea, like every one else, that not every one likes you or your hobbies and just damn their eyes?
Curious interest? Utter obsession.
I don`t mind that the Church and Jews get a classic BBC smearing for being “intolerant of gay marriage”…just as long as Islam gets the same for being similarly blinkered and judgemental.
Somehow though I doubt this…the BBC have already shown themselves more scared of the Islamic knife that the gay frosty look(Free Speech on BBC3 finished any pretence that the BBC had anything but hummous for a spine).
My view of gay marriage and homosexual rights is very simple. I’m bored to tears hearing about it. I’m neither for it or against it. I rather like the wife to wear only opera gloves. I don’t feel compelled to go on the radio every ten minutes insisting others tell me it is perfectly normal, or that swans like it too.
Campbell covered the gay marriage topic on the phone-in this morning, so any pretence at even-handedness went out the window from the get go. It’s funny when you hear the real beliefs of these people in full flow, after being used to a far more subtle approach. Gay marriage, the Paralympics, Islam and women’s cricket are the Five Live cornerstones. The first tetraplegic muslim lesbian off-spinner is going to be the most famous person on the planet.
There was a moment of apparent clarity, however. One woman, in favour, alluded to the struggle some gays have with their conscience before finally coming to terms with their sexuality. I think this is key. I have known a few homosexuals, men and women, and many do seem to have had such difficulties. I wonder if this is partly the reason having had the courage to fully come out they cannot shut the hell up about it. If a heterosexual went on about sex as much as they do you’d rightly think them round the twist.
As usual Five Live find utter cretins to put forward the case against, and Panto herself was in full sneer mode. One woman, who had the gall to disagree, was snidely asked “Is it PC gone mad?” and not realising he was taking the piss promptly agreed, to, I would imagine, giggles and high fives through the glass.
Listening to Nolan’s 1 in 5 revelation on Five Live last night I was left with a vague impression that the next push to freedom will be compulsory attendance of gay nuptials for those guilty of not towing the line.
I’d better go and cut the arse out of my best dress trousers. Don’t want to make a fool of myself.
Fantastic comment Milverton. Everything superbly observed
“HOMOSEXUAL ‘MARRIAGE’ IS JUST THE BEGINNING”
By late Lawrence Auster (2012).
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021798.html
Here we go, BBC-NUJ’s leftist Ms Richardson, giving a big spread to this:
“Traditional British family a myth, academic says”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26784754
-A pro-family article to follow shortly? Breathe not held.
Beeboid Richardson has form:-
“The BBC v free schools (2)”
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-bbc-v-free-schools-2.html
I can’t imagine many gay people would consider inviting Vance to their wedding in the first place: a joyous occasion celebrating a life of happiness together is hardly the place for such a bitter old ham. Not to mention that it would be an event that was not about him, so I doubt the egotistical Vance would even consider going.
Loads of gay couples are rejoicing in the new ability for their long term relationships to be celebrated in law in absolute parity with those of their straight married friends and relatives. And if the nasty, twisted, pathetic souls of Biased BBC commenters feel put out by that, well tough. You carry on festering on your own pits of despair, and let those who want to marry and celebrate the marriages of others do so.
I don’t care that gay people are marrying, it’s non of my business, it’s got nothing to do with me..
However, having militant homosexuals like yourself demanding more than equal treatment, gets on my goat in every possible way…..
demanding more than equal treatment
How exactly? Funny, all the nasty little men like you who come out with bollocks like that never back it up with facts. So do explain how I’ve demanded “more than equal treatment”, please – with facts rather than bigoted, false innuendo.
Same sex couples have the option of having a Civil Partnership, mixed sex couples haven’t.
And what would a civil partnership give opposite sex couples that a civil marriage doesn’t?
“Same sex couples have the option of having a Civil Partnership, mixed sex couples haven’t”
it appears that statement is too difficult for scotty ….
“And what would a civil partnership give opposite sex couples that a civil marriage doesn’t? ”
oops! … scotty in the doo doo
then why do gay rights militants insist on “marriage” at all then?
leave “marriage” alone, get some other name, more applicable to your leanings ….
an APC for instance? Anal Probes Charter
really … it doesn t matter what?
Oh here we go, the self righteous Scott is waxing lyrical…..I’m a “nasty little man” for daring to disagree with you, and yet a creature that attempts to blow up Times Square in New York is apparently “hot” in your “esteemed” estimation..
Scott!…..Know me in my environment, and yes we would disagree on many things but there would be zero chance of violence….However, meet that “hot” Islamist potential boyfriend of yours in his neck of the woods,and you’d no doubt be beaten to a pulp in a short period of time, yet in your leftist mind, all Muslims are somehow the protected species, and no matter how Muslims may err or stray (attempting to blow up times square for instance) they will be exonerated because right wing views are your greatest anathema…
Just like the BBC, of which of course you would love to be part and parcel of…
So you’re not going answer the question? Let me ask it again. Just how have I demanded “more than equal treatment”?
(Clue: I haven’t. And, as you well know, you’re lying when you say I have.)
The problem isn’t gay marriage. It is the thought police who come with it. I don’t care a jot about a gay marriage anymore than I do some random heterosexual marriage taking place in my local church every Saturday of the year. They don’t involve me.
I wouldn’t consider myself homophobic. I just don’t like to see two grown men kissing, and I fail to see what the fuck it has to do with anyone else. If you do like to see men kissing then that’s absolutely fine by me, and I wouldn’t wish to impinge on your enjoyment in any way. Knock yourself out.
Why must I be expected to join in celebrations I consider irrelevant and why, if twenty percent of the population wouldn’t wish to attend such an occasion, is it seen by Stonewall and other gay fascists, such as Five Live, as somehow beyond the pale? There is a certain stench of Kim Jong Un’s birthday about it. Not only must you celebrate it, you must be seen to celebrate it, lest you are denounced as an undesirable.
Let’s be honest. This isn’t as much about gay equality any more as much as it is about that enduring left wing desire to silence any contrary opinion on any topic found, in that awful modern parlance borrowed from the USA, “inappropriate”.
Well, bollocks to that.
Be interesting to know in a poll how many people wouldn’t attend any wedding. There is a suggestion in the BBC report that the 20% are homophobes who need re-education. Maybe some are simply not bothered.
“The iron fist in the velvet glove of gay marriage.
“Under the radical cover of being pro-gay, the state is expanding its sovereignty over all of our private lives and most intimate relationships.”
By Brendan O’Neill
(2012).
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13164#.UzXRbKh_u9Y
Yes, the BBC is in full party mode. They’ve pushed the “Gay Agenda” for years now and it’s almost as if Midnight signals that they’ve “won the war”.
No doubt, the new “marriages” which will take place at Midnight will be reported and broadcast relentlessly tomorrow. With the usual lack of BBC balance.
In the televised debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage, Nick Clegg played to the populist agenda by fully supporting the Gay and Lesbian marriage legislation.
He said it was all about two people in “love” but it’s not.
It’s defiance against God and the divine order of male & female union.
I remember hearing a few years ago from a Christian who had attended a Gay & Lesbian rally. He attended with the intention of gently offering and handing out small Christian leaflets to any who would accept it.
In his own words, there were all the usual colourful rainbow banners and banners with “love” and “peace” being waved aloft.
As he quietly moved among the crowds though it wasn’t long though before he found himself being confronted and, eventually assaulted.
The violence towards him got so bad that he ended up on the ground and, in his own words, had to “curl up into a ball to try and protect myself from the worst of the blows”.
Love and Peace?.
Will the BBC report the first gay marriage divorce? Somehow I don’t think so. Remember all the news footage of the first couple getting hitched in a Civil Partnership? France lasted longer in the Second World War than that equality milestone.
Asan adjunct to this thread there is also yesterday’s report on domestic violence. This is also rife among homosexual couples – probably as common as among heterosexual couples. This never seems to be mentioned in reports about domestic violence, though.
Any naysayer (Scott) should check the official statistics. They can be found if you check the correct site.
Domestic violence statistics are cods anyway.
If a man (sic) hits a woman it is male violence.
If a woman hits a man it is female violence.
If a woman hits a man and he hits her back it is male violence.
When evened out domestic violence is almost equal between parties with men about 2% higher on the scale.
The thing about this constant pushing of homosexuality is that it’s really a non-issue. The law changed nearly half a century ago so that consenting adults could do whatever they wanted so long as they didn’t do it in the street and frighten the horses. That merely formalised what was already common thought and practice anyway, (don’t be fooled by all this queer-bashing tripe; I was around at the time and that’s not what it was like). So when a day doesn’t go by without some mention of homosexual rights (as if rights aren’t universal, but different sub-groups had their own individual ones) something else is happening; there is some other agenda.
Maybe Homosexual rights could be known as “Queer Sharia”? i’m sorry but the intolerance exhibited by militants from both groups is so similar.
The law changed nearly half a century ago so that consenting adults could do whatever they wanted so long as they didn’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.
That’s not true. The laws around what gay men could do consensually and in private were very different from those covering straight people in the same situations, even after decriminalisation in 1967.
People tried to make the same point every time attempts were made to equalise the laws: gay people should just shut up and accept the second-class status in the eyes of the law. And every time people said, “No thanks, we’d rather be equal,” they were mischaracterised and bullied by straight people who were scared, and would lie as a result.
I do know what does scare me, Scott. That photograph you use as an avatar. Can you send me a copy? It would be great to put on my front door at Halloween to keep the trick-or-treaters away.
Bless. Did that insult make you feel any better about yourself? If so, at least your predilection for personal abuse has some small benefit.
Firstly, there is no such thing as equality.
What there should be is equality before the law. That is to say that everybody who is accused of a crime should be treated in the same way and everybody who claims to be the victim of a crime should be treated in the same way. Having stuck to precedent and procedure, however, the law – and society – should still discriminate between those who are found guilty of crimes and those who are not.
There should also be freedom to be educated or to educate yourself and the freedom to make a living within the law. People should be free to read whatever they like and there should be a free exchange of ideas.
With reference to the first of those, the State, with its near-monopoly on education, long ago decided that its interests were not served by using that monopoly to optimise the academic achievement of the electorate; thus, they embarked on the rather successful policy of minimising it. As can be noted by anybody who is sentient, the architects and implementers of this policy don’t send their own children to the schools they have designed for the rest of us. Apparently, lacking any well-developed sense of irony, they are also the ones most likely to bang on about ‘equality’. What they say to each other when they are behind closed doors and the champagne corks start to pop is anybody’s guess. But in any event, people still fall for the ‘equality’ tripe and re-iterate it as if nobody had ever heard it before and as if it was clever.
There is no such thing as homosexual marriage; it is an oxymoronic concept and the demand that people pay lip-service to it is merely the demand that people who know what marriage is indulge certain homosexuals (not all, actually) in an infantile fantasy.
The fact that homosexual marriage – a concept which until recently would have been regarded as satirical – seems to have found favour with so many people is an indication of the extent to which the concept of real marriage has been perverted within society. Homosexuals are not responsible for bringing the concept of marriage to that sorry state of misconception – heterosexuals are.
I wouldn’t mind if it was ‘marriage’ and ‘equal’ but it isn’t !
I wonder Scott if this is another rose tinted socialist fantasy for you, while knowing little about the Gay ‘lifestyle’?
We see someone like George Michael who tells us that he is in a ‘committed relationship’ with a life partner but then gets caught in a lavatory and tell us that sex with multiple partners is all part of the Gay ‘scene’ and it’s probably the reason that the fascists in power omitted Adultery from gay ‘marriage’ making it a parody of the real thing.
The thing is from the mouths of Gay men themselves and as most straight men will attest, nature gives men the drive to impregnate as many females as possible, without any ‘inconvenient’ relationships. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see what happens when two people with that same drive come together, – they still want to impregnate as many as possible without ‘complications’.
It is rather odd that most people commenting here seem to believe that only men are Gay, let me enlighten you that women are too, but they have different drive and do seem happy to commit to one another without the need for extra marital relationships.
The politics of the gay marriage idea is banal to say the least. It’s the Tories attempting to soften their image (like a well lubricated sphincter) to tempt gay voters who haven’t voted Tory before. I suspect most gay voters will continue voting for parties other than Tory. So I’m not sure how many votes it will pick up. Staunchly religious Tory voters won’t stop voting Tory because of this so no problem there.
The world is getting dangerous. Any amount of problems. Crimea, North Korea.,Iran There is a real mystery over flight 370.
And what obsessess the liberal elites of good old GB. Gay marriage.
It is not a serious issue but it does generate an awful amount of heat. Why I have little idea.
Something to do with equality perhaps. Liberals love the notion of equality. Equality of opportunity , equality of outcome, equality of life chances etc etc. Mostly meaningless.
On reflection maybe not this. What then?
No idea.
Perhaps this is the way a civilisation ends. In trivia and important issues that are anything but.
Putin is only the first tyrant to realise the West is a busted flush. And he is one of the better ones. Wait for the other monsters to arise.
Never mind we will still be going on about bedroom taxes and gay marriage.
What a very unedifying exchange this has proved to be. 43 (and counting) responses to show how little everyone cares. Full of the usual stereotypical views, the incipient homophobia, the ignorance, the bigotry, the “I have nothing against gays but … Arguements are always reduced to the sex act. Well here’s some news – it isn’t only gay people that have anal sex – about 25% of straight couples have tried it.
Does anyone who has responded think that they have advanced the debate by a millimetre, do they think they have brought anything new, do they think they have done anything but repeat entrenched, tired and old positions?
I love the idea that gay marriage is making a mockery of the institution of marriage. I would have imagined drive through weddings and 6-hour celebrity marriages have done far more to undermine the institution than two people of the same sex wanting to express their mutual love in front of their friends.
I thought this was a site about BBC bias. It isn’t.
‘I thought this was a site about BBC bias. It isn’t.’
The Beeb has led the charge for gay rights – which I agree with in sentiment, but it isn’t their job.
Oh, and marriage was a construct to provide a base for kids to flourish – and it works. You want to destroy it?
If they cannot control it they will strive to destroy it. Aided and abetted by the bBC.
Don’t waste your time the name-shifter is engaged in some personal vendetta against
Vance – read his initial post again -he could care less about gay rights than about sticking his tongue out and saying ‘see Vance is a secret queer’
One thing is for certain, there is absolutely no future for the continuation of the human race in gay marriage and relatioships
He said Vance was curious. I very much doubt if Vance has taken one. He’s too bloody ugly for any gay to be interested!
Scott, why do you hide behind so many different names.
I don’t. I post on here as myself. But it’s a common tactic for Biased BBC commenters to claim I do. One more instance, as if any more were needed, of commenters lying to prop up their own prejudices.
Scott, you’re telling porkies now. You once admitted that you posted comments under another name because you accused David Vance of blocking your posts.
Selective memory?
Yes, I used an alternative name for a while because Alan was deleting every single post I made under my own. But I was open about who I was. I’ve never pretended to be multiple people in the way Pounce et al insist without foundation.
I love the idea that gay marriage is making a mockery of the institution of marriage.
You sound like you must come from a dysfunctional family. This is the problem, so many do, and that’s why they can’t see the problem of demeaning marriage. It’s their way of getting even. So you wouldn’t begin to understand why many are not in favour of gay marriage.
By the way, what have you done to advance the debate here?
I will tell my parents who celebrated their golden wedding anniversary a few years ago how dysfunctional they must have been. It may come as a blow to them at their age that after all this time and having raised as many children as they did, and seen as many grandchildren and even great grandchildren that they were dysfunctional. But you obviously know them better than we do. And I should take the views of a person who indulges in fantasies about “a prick pushing shit uphill.”
But an interesting arguing technique. Make up things about a person that you don’t agree with, and then use your made up stuff as evidence. A sort of double straw man approach.
I think I raised the point that if you want to claim that marriage is being undermined, then drive through services conducted by Elvis impersonators and 6-hour celebrity marriages a la Britney Spears, and the burgeoning divorce rate show the institution is rather more to blame than events that haven’t even taken place yet.
I never said Vance is a secret queer. I said he has an unhealthy obsession with the topic, dedicating a very large amount of his time to a topic he professes not to care about. As do a lot of other people on this thread.
First thing to tell your parents is ‘I love the idea that gay marriage is making a mockery of the institution of marriage’ That will make them so proud of you.
Be sure to do it now and let me know how pleased they are with you. Otherwise you’re full of bullshit.
Pushing shit uphill is a term for sticking it up somebody’s arse – a hole for excreting waste – not for regular procreation. You have a problem with the term, or don’t you like hearing it relegated in that way? If you understood my post properly you would know that I DON’T indulge in the fantasy about it, but I in fact object to being made to have to visualise it.
If you truly were bothered by the reasons you gave for marriage, then wanting to see it denigrated further is hardly an intelligent way of dealing with it. Which is why I see you as dysfunctional – it’s quite logical.
I never mentioned David Vance, but seeing as you have – the gay agenda is very much part of the BBC narrative. I think if you analysed the amount of posts David has made in total, the amount concerning Gays is probably in proportion to the related issues brought about by the BBC. So your statement about him having a an unhealthy obsession about it is only in your twisted narrative.
Bes sure to tell us how you get on with your parents after you tell them – okay?
That is the second time you have mentioned “a prick pushing shit uphill” and how you like to visualise it.
As up to 25% of straight couples have tried it you probably have lots of opportunities to dwell in this fantasy land of yours. Maybe you should try it (or maybe you already have). Whatever floats your boat.
I will be sure to pass on your regards to my awful dysfunctional parents and tell them that they have been a terrible role model and harmed us all.
Now it is my turn to play your game and make up stuff. Seems only fair.
I guess your bitterness and anger (I had a look at your site. You come over as someone with some pretty serious issues – and isn’t it rather depressing for you when 12 out 13 posts on a thread are written by you?) comes from the fact that you are unmarried and don’t have a partner.
You live on your own and are angry that gay people should be allowed to get married when you can’t. Or perhaps you may have a partner, but it isn’t a very happy union and you resent that. Have you tried counseling?
Your unhealthy obsession with feces (your choice of language and the imagery) and this fantasy that you indulge in (you have alluded to it multiple times in a short space of time) make me think you have coprophile tendencies.
That is the second time you have mentioned “a prick pushing shit uphill” and how you like to visualise it.
I respond to your fixation on it, and I see your lack of comprehension skills and accuracy you display throughout your posts are equal to your imagination about who I am.
I’ll try again – Just tell your parents YOUR WORDS – ‘I love the idea that gay marriage is making a mockery of the institution of marriage
That’s all – let them think what they like.
It’s clear that you are dysfunctional, but I have a feeling that they probably know that already. It’s not me insulting you by the way – it’s YOUR OWN WORDS that show it.
Your mathematics is also terrible – about two thirds of the posts on my site are mine.
As for my personal life – you would be among the last that I would want to share it with, so think what you like.
Carry on digging your own grave in this exchange.
Here’s something to turn you on.
Yet more references to feces. I am quite seriously asking if have you considered counseling? An obsession with fecal matter is a very strong indicator of arrested emotional development.
Your responses show I touched a raw nerve. Coprophilic passions are strongly associated with submissiveness and a desire for punishment.
Your choice of pseudonym – Teddy Bear – is regressive. It suggests a wish to remain in a pre-adolescent phase of development.
Also revealing is your need to claim dysfunctionality in others. It is a classic subconscious defensive mechanism.
Was there some major emotional trauma in your life around puberty? Did your parents divorce when you were young and do you still blame yourself for what happened? It would explain your coprophilia, your submissiveness, your anger, your inability to form meaningful relationships, and your defensiveness.
It would also explain your site. The obsessiveness and the conversations conducted with yourself.
Counseling will help. I have helped (successfully) many like you. From what you have revealed about yourself you appear to be a prime example of the damage that a cavalier attitude adopted by parents to raising children can cause.
The usual response from the various trolls and sock puppets is that someone hasn’t replied, usually because they haven’t been online.
But Teddy bear has been online since was posted.
I think this is a direct hit on the poor sad lonely man. I hope he does get the help.
Just think about what you have been doing to ascertain when I came online, then tell us about sad lonely men.
Now I feel I need a shower.
I see you won’t be telling your parents your feelings about marriage then. The rest is what you need to do to try and present yourself as intelligent. Notice it doesn’t relate to any of the points made to you.
Why do these gay trolls here seem to all be full of shit???
Ohhhhh 🙄
Years ago I complained about a lunch time soap “The Doctors ” because it had two men together in bed . The BBC would never think of showing a hetrosexual couple together in bed at 1pm on day time TV.
This erosion of hetro sexual relationships by emphasising homosexuality as the norm is what is the most concerning thing about the way the BBC keeps talking about homosexuality .
The BBC would never think of showing a hetrosexual couple together in bed at 1pm on day time TV.
Oh, they would. And you know that. It’s just that it wouldn’t even cross your mind to say anything, because you’re not obsessed about stopping people from seeing straight relationships.
This erosion of hetro sexual relationships by emphasising homosexuality as the norm
How are heterosexual relationships “eroded”, exactly? Is your straight relationship harmed in any way by gay couples’ existence? No, it’s not. Are straight couples’ marriages diminished by gay couples being afforded the same right? Absolutely not.
The only thing that’s eroded by the increased visibility of gay people is some insecure straight people’s prejudice. And that’s the only real thing under threat here – hence why, on this thread as on so many others, Biased BBC’s nastiest elements have been getting so aggressive.
So homosexual relationships are all Platonic?
As another poster on this site might say “Oh, you poor lamb”.
When homosexuality was legalised it also legalised sodomy between males (age limits being decreased over the years – 21, 18 and now 16).
At the same time, however, a man sodomising his wife in consensual sex, could still be imprisoned for any number of years up to, and including, a life sentence. This law was still in force until relatively recently. Some equality, eh?
My own personal view is that using the human body’s waste disposal system as a sexual playground doesn’t seem too healthy, even among heterosexuals. But that’s my personal opinion.
“I think I raised the point that if you want to claim that marriage is being undermined”
Yes twice but it had Already been covered in reply to harryurz @7:50 pm
“I never said Vance is a secret queer”
No?
“There are a lot of anti-gay campaigners who turn out to be gay. Here’s a list”
Your words, name-shifter your words
BBC bias is a given. I no longer even worry about it. I like this site as it usually diametrically opposed to everything the liberal holds dear.
I keep trying to explain. We are in a culture war for the future of the West. Marriage, sexuality and the rest just gets caught up in it.
Nothing to get out of shape about. You have your views and I have mine. In fact I am just not interested in this particular facet of the liberal vs the rest battleground.
In the end reality will prevail. Might take some time but it always does in the end.
I have nothing against gays, blacks, disabled people, Muslims, Poles, plebs and uncoupling celebs BUT I do wish they’d stop clogging up the news bulletins.
I have no objection whatsoever to gay marriage, that it has been made possible for loving couples is a measure of a mature society and one that recognises the value of commitment and stability in a relationship.
BUT, there is a clash of rights here. While it is right that there is respect for homosexuals who wish to ‘tie the knot’, it is right that those who’s deeply held values and their conscience do not permit them to perform a marriage ceremony (for example) should also be respected. And I do mean those who genuinely hold those views – not homophobes.
And this is where I see that the BBC up to their old tricks. Marriage is not enough. Notice how on the 10 o’ Clock News tonight, early in the report the BBC were at pains to make the point that marriage is as far as it goes, a church ceremony is illegal. This echoed the same point made on a Five Live report yesterday. And on Gameshow this morning, a Stonewall activist, indulged by the BBC’s megaphone made the point that gay people of a religious conviction cannot marry in church.
It is clear that with the help of the BBC, the protections that have been given the church, in law are under attack, will be challenged and will become the next battle ground.
Mutual respect seems to have gone out of the window. In the BBC world it seems to be a very one-sided commodity. The BBC seem to be taking a position.
You make a very good point. The issues of homophobia and gay equality are masking a more serious issue which potentially affects the British constitution. What has actually happened here is that the state has decided that all religions, apart from the Church of England, can marry same sex couples, therefore the state is declaring that the C of E is the only officially recognised religion (or that the C of E is different to other religions), further cementing the bond between church and state. Is this a problem? Well, when the state pokes its nose into religious affairs and dictates which religions are equal and which religions are different, we are opening the door to “thought-control”. Freedom of thought and freedom of religion are two fundamental basics of a free and fair nation – so why should the government pass judgement on anything of a religious nature?
cant wait until two gays want to get married in a mosque,and they go to the ECHR and make them.Then watch the religion of peace go into overdrive stoning them or even worse kill them
It will never happen, as we all know what will happen. The Gay person will end up with his throat cut, the bBC will write an article referring to his death as suicide and the relgious bigots who carried out this ugly act, will toast themselves by uttering the words…”Bottoms up”
And Scott and his ilk will defend them.
so question time on thursday on bbc 1 just by a strange quirk is located in the gay far left radical capital enclave of brighton,umm and of course the 1 only christian who opposed gay marriege got harrassed in the audience and death threats on twitter made against her after by the brighton anti christian leftists,( but i noticed the bbc did not invite the homophobe muslim dr mohamed nasseem of the birmingham hate filled extremist birmingham central mosque on there panel to express his views on gay marriege) but the bbc gay rights lobby spent all night demonising the only christian young woman in the leftie audience who had the balls to stand up and say she is not a homophobe but just does not agree with gay marrieige..booooooo hissssssss homophobe booooooooo boooooooo homophobe is all that poor woman got shouted at by the far left plants in the gay capital of the uk brighton..booooo.hisssssssss bbc you pro gay lobby anti christian haters,booooooooooooo.sorry,but i am just gayed out at the moment.
the sooner we get more non white muslim and bme gay boys in the police force and as radio 4 presenters the better,thats what i call all true diversity
Question?
Now that lesbians and gays can get married , what has happened to civil partnerships ?
The question is; why would a gay couple want to have a religious wedding ceremony after thousands of years of castigation?
It’s a bit like a Jewish family applying for membership to the Nazi party.
Just because people are OK with same sex marriage doesn’t mean they don’t laugh about it. It is a bit weird for us heterosexuals to see two men or two women getting married. Good luck to them.
But I reserve the right to be amused by them.
It is a bit weird for us heterosexuals to see two men or two women getting married.
It may be a bit weird for you. For many more straight people, they’re just happy that their gay relatives and friends are tying the knot.
But you go on conning yourself that you speak for all straight people. I reserve the right to be amused by your idiocy.
It may shock you but the majority who live outside of the metrosexual bubble don’t have gay friends or relatives and neither do my friends.
And if I were you I wouldn’t delude myself that you speak for all gay people, many gay commenters themselves are against it. Just stand by for a rise in the divorce rate, your not the most manogomous lot are you?
The solicitors must be rubbing their hands with glee…
The solicitors must be rubbing their hands with glee
And once again we see the real reason behind the change of a law.
It may be hard for one of Biased BBC’s most frequent purveyors of fiction to believe, but “some pseudonymous nobody says some shit on a website” does not constitute a “real reason” in law.
It may shock you Geoff that many do (I have no idea if it is a majority or not). I live in a small English village (two pubs, a church, a village primary school). There is a gay couple that have lived here for years and years, a transsexual (there were two but one died), and one of the publicans’ sons is gay and lives in the pub with his boyfriend. And that is just the people who are open about it.
England has always been a tolerant place.
I see Scotts other ID (Danny) has come on baord in which to defend himself.
Hey Danny/Scott/Whatever
London isn’t a small village
Scotts other ID
Still not true. You do seem to have a problem with understanding the most basic of facts, don’t you? Quick, blame the Muslims! You know you want to.
Scott,
Please, you have been caught out time and time again with alternative IDs. You really do try your best to wind people up by trying to act the cunt (note cunts are useful, you are not)
How about you act like a man for once.
“Please, you have been caught out time and time again with alternative IDs.”
No, I haven’t. Other Biased BBC commenters who haven’t liked that not everybody agrees with them have, like you, claimed that I have posted under multiple pseudonyms – like you, without any evidence. They were lying, and so are you.
Do carry on, though. The more you show your true colours, the more comical it is. Just don’t forget to blame the Muslims, or how will we know it’s really you?
Scott wrote:
“No, I haven’t.
And that Scott is how I have got under your skin, like you do to others and you know what, you don’t like it. If you want people to respect you, treat them as you would like to treated themselves or even better if you can’t take the abuse, go elsewhere.
Instead you come on here, with your multi IDs in which to act like the little girl you think you are.
with your multi IDs
*rolls eyes*
Won’t ever be true, no matter how much you repeat it.
‘Blame the muslims’??????
Go pronounce your sexual persuasion at Finsbury Mosque and see how much ‘social justice’ you get.
Fucking hypocrite.
That oft repeated paranoid delusion.
I am not Scott and he is not me. Here is a very simply check. Look at the IP address of my post and that of Scott’s.
Meanwhile, ignoring the attempt to distract the argument, my answer was in reply to “the majority who live outside of the metrosexual bubble”. No one would describe the village in which I live as metrosexual.
England has always been a tolerant place.
Ah Scotts alternative supercilious male ID Danny (I am so much better than everybody else here, which is why I frequent this board) opens his pus ridden mouth and talks….shite.
Are you capable of constructing an argument? Do you even know what one is?
I don’t think he does. He realises he’s in a hole, and seems to have decided he’ll just keep digging.
Here’s your experience of digging a hole
Here’s your experience of digging a hole
Hilarious, Teddy Bear. Not the illustration, I mean – but the way you trot it out (this is what, the fourth or fifth time now?) every time you run out of other ways of showing that you can’t debate like a grown-up.
Danny/|Scott/George wrote:
“Are you capable of constructing an argument?
What you mean like that condescending crap you came out with when I caught you out. The thing is dick splash, little pricks like you are so fucking hard on the internet. I find in real life people like you have never left home, have mummy issues and cry foul play when somebody walks up to them in the street and say:
“Have you got something to say to me”? after they have squeaked something.
So that’s a no.
I hope you are able to control your anger (and your language) around your children.
Sorry Danny I do not believe you. Everyone knows there can only be one gay in the village.
Well that’s one small English village.
Any others?
So you’re not the only gay in the village?
I wouldn’t delude myself that you speak for all gay people
I don’t claim to, nor have I ever done.
Just stand by for a rise in the divorce rate, your not the most manogomous lot are you?
British straight couples have one of the highest divorce rates in the EU. I don’t think failed marriages are likely to be the sole domain of same-sex couples, do you?
And if you think that all straight people are monogamous, and no gay people are – have you ever stepped foot out into the real world?
Scott wrote:
British straight couples have one of the highest divorce rates in the EU.
Wrong yet again:
_(per_1_000_inhabitants).png)
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Crude_divorce_rate,_selected_years,_1960-2011_(1)_(per_1_000_inhabitants).png&filetimestamp=20130130111212
Alternatively, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-52829/Britain-highest-divorce-rate-EU.html
42% of marriages in England and Wales end in divorce, according to the ONS. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/divorces-in-england-and-wales/2011/sty-what-percentage-of-marriages-end-in-divorce.html
Bloody hell Scott, I quote EU facts and you quote the Daily Mail.
Is that the same Daily Mail the left castigate time and time again and the EU which the left promote as the only way forward.
You really are pathetic.
Do you have a point?
I was responding to Geoff’s assumption that divorce rates will go up because gay people are not monogamous. Do you have a contribution on that point, or are you just going to lash out like an overtired toddler again?
Actually Prance do you understand the statistics you posted? First of all to be clear, you don’t think the countries down the left are in order of divorce rates do you? Hopefully not, but you never know. Moving on. Your figures only go till 2011 so clearly not up to date, but if you look at the 2011 column you can see that saying the “UK has one of the highest divorce rates” is perfectly reasonable. Why not try plotting the numbers yourself on a bit of homemade graph paper?
FFS,
Radio 2 news at 7am.
Main headline…Gay Marriages (Fine, that is the news and I can accept that)
Followed by…the words of union uttered by two blokes in Islington to great applause (err is that necessary bbC?)
Followed by a snippet that the CoE is against Gay marriage.
(Correct me if I am wrong, but the CoE is the most liberal faith in the Uk, they have gay clergy, now can somebody point me in the direction of a faith which openly declares ‘homophobia’ and has no problem killing gays., I sure the bBC knows somebody in Birmingham who can speak on this subject)
I heard that.
The whoops and party poppers drowned out what exactly the vicarette was pronouncing them as.
Would that be husband and hunk?…or what?
I didnt` hear-maybe it`s best I didn`t…
I noticed that but thought it had been edited out. Does anybody know how it goes :-
“…..I now pronounce you man and……….??????”
I mean we would not want to get it wrong and upset anyone would we ?
No chance of that. You’re dealing with seasoned umbrage takers and grievance merchants.
How many imams are in favour of gay marriage then ?
Good point. Where are Scott and George Arse to answer that one.
20% of people would not attend a gay marriage
“Of the 1,007 British adults polled by ComRes for the Stephen Nolan Show, 22% said they would spurn an invitation to attend a same-sex wedding ceremony.”
“A majority of 59% of people asked agreed a person should not be considered homophobic for opposing the legislation permitting gay marriage.”
There is mention throughout the article to the age & the gender of the respondents, but not the religion.
If the biased BBC have made sure they have a fully representative sample of the populace then there is no doubt that the Muslims polled would not attend unless it was to grab the couple and throw ‘them off a high place’.
Having said that, as people like Scott will tell you, the murder of gay people by Muslims, is perfectly acceptable, and not a sign of homophobia at all. In fact it would be Islamophobic of Gay people not to offer themselves up for slaughter voluntarily.
Might I therefore propose some fascist compliant gay wedding venues guaranteed not to offend Muslim sensitivities.
Beachy head?
The Post Office Tower, with special access to the outside?
Any Church Steeple or minaret.
Hot air balloon?
In fact anywhere your imagination takes you!
This way gay people can remain fully fascist compliant and accede to the top of the hierarchy of isms – Pakistani Muslim Men, and must strive not to offend them by their sexuality in any way. After all not to do so would be Islamophobic !
Do you think that the quiches and sponge cakes would be better than those offered to heterosexuals when they get married.
Thinking Allowed?…More or Less?…well worth a research grant from Falmer i`d have said?
Just listening to our beloved PM telling us that gay marriage reveals something important about equality in Britain today. Equality? Apparently some Christian and Jewish groups aren’t exactly overjoyed at the prospect and will, no doubt, be referred to as “bigots” “homophobes” and in numerous other pejorative terms. Of course, as usual, there is one religion that isn’t particularly renowned for its liberal approach to homosexuality that hasn’t been mentioned. I’m very happy that Gary and Barry can tie the knot, I just don’t think it’s going to be nearly as easy for Abdul and Abdullah…
Wonder what, or who, inspired Cameron……Sure the policy had absolutely nothing to do with Sam Cam’s brother being gay.
No complaints about ‘the old boys club’, so to speak, from the BBC here? What if Etonians had special marriage privileges in some shape or form?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2591974/Blue-wig-yellow-frock-Meet-Sam-Cams-VERY-flamboyant-drag-queen-brother.html
Now I understand the PM. He just doesn’t want earache from the in-laws at Christmas.
If the new head of Al Queida announced that this whole terrorism thing obviously wasn’t working out for them, and instead they were going to dedicate themselves to feeding the hungry, healing the sick and establishing the Osama Bin Laden Foundation for Niceness in Public Life, that still wouldn’t justify the kind of coverage the BBC has been giving to ‘gay marriage’ this week.
That’s the point. When it’s an issue that favours the right, the BBC can’t wait to indulge in an orgy of ‘on the other handism’ even to the point where they can’t report on an economic recovery without claiming that it’s creating the wrong kind of jobs, it’s not sustainable and some guys in Swansea are still poor. Meanwhile, a hole gets blown in one of the central institutions of western civilisation and the BBC claims you’re a bigot if you think this won’t end well.
The research also found that younger people were more likely to support same-sex marriage, with 80% of 18 to 34-year-olds backing it, compared with 44% of over-65s.
Its very encouraging to see that your attitudes will die out soon.
Well, that is the question isn’t it? How come it’s the right that’s ‘nasty’ and the left that’s ‘tolerant’ when it’s liberals that keep fantasising about whole chunks of society being swept away as though by a purifying wind?
Because those on the ‘right’ believe that fundamentally people are bad, but capable of good acts, and the ‘left’ believe the opposite.
That purifying wind has always been blowing, it just takes its time. Its attitudes and ignorance that gets blown away though not people.
“Because those on the ‘right’ believe that fundamentally people are bad, but capable of good acts, and the ‘left’ believe the opposite.”
Nothing could be further from the truth or more inverted
That’s why the left from Robespierre through Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao have tried to re-engineer humanity into some form of imagined perfection
The BBC continue that tradition in their constant promotion social (and racial) engineering.
The ‘right’ have always championed the individuals right to make their own choices
Ive been hearing that since the 1970’s .But 40 years of indoctrination, legislation and intimidation by the liberal inquisition has still failed to make any one of its constructs stick
The problem is you cant keep people at school and under your gentle ministrations for ever. Even the invention of thousands of pretend university degrees only delays the point at which people, freed from the constant unremitting barrage of agitprop, make judgements based on their first hand experience and observation. (Despite the best efforts of the BBC, pulpit of said inquisition)
“Making a mockery of marriage”
By Melanie Phillips.
(2011.)
http://www.melaniephillips.com/797
And the left (including the Pink brigade) tell me that Sharia law is peaceful.
Mind you I do love Family Guy
How nice for Biased BBC’s nastiest, most bigoted and prejudiced people to realised how much they have in common with the worst of Islam. That was your point, wasn’t it? Or was it just that if you screech “Islam” loud enough, people won’t notice what a despicable person you are yourself?
Scott wrote:
“How nice for Biased BBC’s nastiest, most bigoted and prejudiced people to realised how much they have in common with the worst of Islam. “
You mean like this Champion for Homosexual rights Scotty:
Tatchell becomes Patron of Muslim campaign, Tell Mama
Lets not forget this example of the Lefts fav
BritishAustralian Gay freedom fighter where he attacks Islamic homophobic attacks by blaming…Non-Muslims.Muslim vigilantes: Peter Tatchell on homophobic abuse
How about how this non-Muslim killed his wife because she found out he was..Gay.
‘I just snapped’ says Walsall husband accused of murdering his wife
The problem with leftwing arseholes like you Scott is you only try to silence those who don’t fit into your jimmy shoes who can’t (or won’t harm you) you actually defend those who do by playing the Bigot card.
As i keep fucking telling you. Anybody who doesn’t know you, won’t know you are are gay when you walk into a room or walk down the street.
Try being a fucking packy and do likewise. No contest yer pillock. You want to play victim, I can can beat you every time, but you know what, I can take a joke, I walk with my head held high and I only target those who actually threaten me. Unlike you yer frilly shirt button. Now scuttle back into yer cave, you’ve inked enough on this spread.
Arsehole.
I only target those who actually threaten me. Unlike you yer frilly shirt button.
Sticks and stones, Pounce. I know you want to feel some sort of sense of superiority and that’s why you resort to name-calling. Unfortunately, it won’t work.
Try not being a dick. You may find people start to think more of you.
And as usual you divert the thread of the story by trying to play the moral superiority card. Just because you think your a woman, don’t mean you are one. (Squatting to have a piss doesn’t count)
Not everybody here is homophobic and just becasue you think they are, doesn’t mean what you say is fact.
Funny enough, while I have no problem with the L and G community, Mrs Pounce can’t stand them. (Currently away for the night so as to spend tomorrow with her mum)
you divert the thread of the story
Silly me. I forget: the only acceptable way to divert a story on Biased BBC is for one of the usual hypocrites and liars to spout “bullshit bullshit bullshit MUSLIMS”.
I have no problem with the L and G community
I think your pronouncements on this and other threads indicate that’s really not the case. But I think you seem to have more than enough chips on your shoulder, so I guess one more won’t hurt.
Scott wrote:
“Silly me. I forget: the only acceptable way to divert a story on Biased BBC is for one of the usual hypocrites and liars to spout “bullshit bullshit bullshit MUSLIMS”.”
So Scott what have you got to say about how the bBC censored a gay Muslim after an openily homophobic Islamic leader told them to do so
So Scott what have you got to say about about how Peter Tatchell was used by the bBC to defend intolerant Islamic homophobes by pointing at..Islamophobia.
Tell us all Scott would you you feel safe asking the local mosque to host a Gay Parade. I mean according to the bBC, Muslims are more gay friendly than us non-Muslims.
The irony here is I a straight bloke am defending the gay community from another community which hates them, yet you, an openly gay bloke is screaming away like violet Elizabeth that Islamic beliefs isn’t an issue.
And you try to refer to me as a hypocrite.
Ponce, how many posts do you leave here each day? It’s all day by the look of it.
Really, is that your life?
How very sad.
Ponce, how many posts do you leave here each day? It’s all day by the look of it.
Ah the left who attack the rest for so called abuse, use abuse. Oh in answer to your question. The wife is away and I am left looking after the rug rats and cats in other words I can’t leave the house.
BTW why are you here, I mean you hate this board don’t you:
Scott/Danny/George.
What’s it to you.
You come on a site you clearly hate to troll abuse. How sad are you?
“The irony here is I a straight bloke am defending the gay community” Oooh, Prance.. why not add some fictitious gay family members to your already hilarious back story? That will really give you the internet high ground.
What do you think of the persecution of homosexuals in muslim countries?
I think it’s horrific. And I think the stuff that’s been posted here is part of the same homophobic spectrum. I’ve protested about both in the real world. Now look at yourself and other posters here. Do you think if they were born in Iran they wouldn’t be the first to offer to drive the crane? Bigots the lot of them.
This is to you a Gay.
Look at when the ‘phobic’ statements started to appear on this thread, and by who.
I think you’ll find it’s the heterophobic comments that created the desire to punish you lot.
But I already know none of you ‘lot’ so far have wanted to look clearly at what was being written and respond to that.
It’s more of a truthphobia you ‘lot’ seem to have.
To A Gay.
Where have I said anything homophobic?
“BBC hears how over 600,000 ignored on gay marriage.”
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/bbc-hears-how-over-600000-ignored-on-gay-marriage/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+christianinstitute+%28The+Christian+Institute%29
Only at the bBC:
Disney’s Frozen and the ‘gay agenda’
Is there a lesbian subtext to the Disney movie Frozen?
FFS, bBC.
A fascinating article into the bizarre behaviour of right wing Christian fundamentalists.
They see gay themes were none exist. Bit like other nutcases I can think of who are are convinced that the BBC is running a gay islamic conspiracy trying to turn Tooting Bec into a new Caliphate.
FFS.
What you mean like this leader of Muslims in..Birmingham.
Mosque leader tells Channel 4 News: ‘It is not possible to be both gay and a Muslim’
Funny enough he’s the same Islamic leader who silenced the bBC over an interview with a gay Muslim. You were saying?
Note how our visiting trolls from the “BBC-is grand, Labour 4Eva” never seem to answer us when he ask how Islam is to be squared with homosexuality.
All we get is creaking gates and tumbleweed as well as the chance to watch bearded chap sucking on a cheroot with angry eyes.
Never an answer…just abuse of anybody who dares to ask how you can make a liberal Russian dolly that contains both Choudhury AND Tatchell.
The BBC and its dangleberries have had plenty time now to give us an answer…we`ll not be getting one though.
If only Lee Rigby had been gay, they might have given a damn….
I don’t think they can be squared. Same with Christianity. Both are quite clear on homosexuality. Attitudes have changed in the last 2,000 years though.
Gays are not hung from cranes in any ‘Christian’ country I know.
Then there’s the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Mods, can I suggest you delete this thread? I don’t think anyone is coming out of it very well.
Maybe once happily married some of the gay men in our town will stay at home watching the BBC rather than frequent public toilets.
Only two points to make. The word ‘bigot’ seems to be catching on as a liberal favourite buzzword despite the unlamented last PM using to to devasting non effect. Try not to use it just to silence contrary views. It is childish.
Secondly marriage has been re defined. It used to mean one thing now it means another. This is clear to even the most stupid amongst us.
How we as individuals feel about is our affair but that it has been redefined is undeniable.
It seems to me that the supporters of gay marriage would like to deny this fact and also prevent anyone pointing it out.
Why I do not know but it is a trifle disturbing.
Inside most of us is a totalitarian struggling to get out.
The irony, a not out Gay MP (Tory) is forced to step down by revelations from a leftwing Newspaper on this day of all days because they out him for being Gay and having a rent boy for a boyfriend.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say the Labour party and their friends are playing a very dirty game before next years elections.
Strange how the bBC don’t mention the paper by name
(Sunday Mirror)
Agree with Scott on this one and abuse was thrown his way for no reason.
Can you imagine when muslims a la Choudary start picketing a gay wedding? All these lefties won’t know which side to go on!
Well thanks for that weekend BBC. Our news was dominated by “50 Shades of Gay” which, no doubt, the entire population enjoyed.