Pope attacks Labours 'Equality' Law

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248128/Pope-facing-protests-Britain-attack-Labours-equality-law.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1248110/ANDREW-PIERCE-Why-I-gay-man-agree-Pope--Harriet-Harmans-equality-mania-promotes-intolerance.html


The Pope faces a wave of demonstrations over his planned visit to Britain in the wake of his condemnation of Labour's equality laws. Humanists, gay groups and academics last night joined politicians in criticising the Pontiff 's unprecedented intervention in domestic politics. The row will ramp up fears of angry protests greeting Benedict XVI when he arrives in the UK on a date - yet to be confirmed - later this year.

In a lecture to English Roman Catholic bishops in Rome on Sunday, the Pope described Harriet Harman's Equality Bill as 'unjust', restricting religious freedom and violating 'the natural law' - in other words, Christian teaching. Historians said it was the first direct intervention in British politics by a Pontiff in 300 years. For centuries, Popes have avoided any comments on domestic politics to free British Catholics from the smear that they are loyal to a foreign power.

The National Secular Society yesterday signalled it would organise protests among gay groups, feminists, pro-abortion campaigners and victims of sexual abuse by priests. Its president Terry Sanderson said: 'The taxpayer in this country is going to be hit with a bill of some £20million for the visit of the Pope. 'He has already indicated that he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination.' Prominent gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: 'The Pope's criticism is a coded attack on the legal rights granted to women and gay people.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/03/article-1248128-08227F4F000005DC-257_468x390.jpg



Liberal Democrat equality spokesman Evan Harris said: 'Equality laws protect both Catholics and gay people from unfair discrimination, and in employment we are governed by exactly the same rules as Catholic Italy.' And Labour MEP Stephen Hughes said: 'As a Catholic, I am appalled by the attitude of the Pope. Religious leaders should be trying to eradicate inequality, not perpetuate it.' Benedict XVI's attack came as Miss Harman tries to convince Christian leaders that the Equality Bill will not damage their rights to refuse to hire gay staff or allow followers to disapprove publicly of gay lifestyles.

Benedict XVI said in his lecture that the effect of some equality legislation 'has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance-with their beliefs'. 'In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed,' he said. Miss Harman, in Cadiz for a conference of women's ministers, said: 'We have never insisted on non-discrimination legislation applying to religious jobs . . . however, when it comes to non-religious jobs, those organisations must comply with the law.'Somebody said on this forum the other day (forget username) that vote Labour, get equality. How is it equal for somebody to be hired over someone more qualified (a white, straight man) based on the colour of their skin, sexuality or race? (because thats what will happen, you get people complaining about how their being 'mistreated' hence lengthy court battles and so forth, companies are scared stiff) - I don't find that equal, I find that a disgrace. All these gay groups (why we need gay groups I have no idea, there goes the notion of seeking normality out the window) who have never been elected and don't represent the majority of gay people who just want to get on their lives need to preach gay rights with everything and condemn anything which has an opinion that differs to that of theirs as 'homophobic' really irritates me.

We now have a country which rewards people not by their merit, but by who they are and that is totally wrong. Its all good intentions (well it was), but will just stir up more hatred and anger and make the whole thing worse. If Harman ever becomes Prime Minister then we really are doomed.

Thoughts?

Edited by Catzsy (Forum Moderator): Thread closed as it has decended into arguments that do not add anything further to the thread.

[Technologic]

Religion does nothing but **** things up.

[GommeInc]

It's common sense that someone who is more qualified and equipped for a job should have that job based on those principles and nothing else. All this crap about getting women or certain people in to do jobs for the sake of equality is stupid, irrational and a waste of time. So that's dismissed.

Gay Equality Groups will exist for a very long time, because there are still barriers put infront of homosexuals which they find unjust. It will always happen, it's to knock prejudice walls down that exist or the odd error or misjudgement, for example a fight happening in a club where a gay man doesn't get justice for homophobic slurs, when the straight man is just given a slap on the wrist. Women still have groups for example over work hours and pay, and some men have groups where they want the right to have their children other than the women/ex-wife etc after a divorce or disagreement. Same goes for moderate drinkers and drug users, or workers who are let off or warned for what they believe in (wearing the crucifix for example).

The Pope doesn't live in modern day society, he has no reason to meddle. We have computers and Google, he has the Bible and God.

The Pope is just going to give the silent majority of Christians and other religions a bad name, when no-one particularly cares about him or his institution.

[Technologic]

It's common sense that someone who is more qualified and equipped for a job should have that job based on those principles and nothing else. All this crap about getting women or certain people in to do jobs for the sake of equality is stupid, irrational and a waste of time. So that's dismissed.

Gay Equality Groups will exist for a very long time, because there are still barriers put infront of homosexuals which they find unjust. It will always happen, it's to knock prejudice walls down that exist or the odd error or misjudgement, for example a fight happening in a club where a gay man doesn't get justice for homophobic slurs, when the straight man is just given a slap on the wrist. Women still have groups for example over work hours and pay, and some men have groups where they want the right to have their children other than the women/ex-wife etc after a divorce or disagreement. Same goes for moderate drinkers and drug users, or workers who are let off or warned for what they believe in (wearing the crucifix for example).

The Pope doesn't live in modern day society, he has no reason to meddle. We have computers and Google, he has the Bible and God.

The Pope is just going to give the silent majority of Christians and other religions a bad name, when no-one particularly cares about him or his institution.

And i tell you what, searching "homosexuality" on google is a hell of a lot more fun than searching it in the bible. :p

[GommeInc]

And i tell you what, searching "homosexuality" on google is a hell of a lot more fun than searching it in the bible. :p
There's a strong belief now that the mention of homosexuals in the Bible actually refers to rent boys, and it does kinda make sense :P

[ifuseekamy]

Harriet Harman is one of those politicians who wants to produce statistics rather than results. As long as people leave school with straight As and workplaces have black transexual muslims as the majority it's all good.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gay Equality Groups will exist for a very long time, because there are still barriers put infront of homosexuals which they find unjust. It will always happen, it's to knock prejudice walls down that exist or the odd error or misjudgement, for example a fight happening in a club where a gay man doesn't get justice for homophobic slurs, when the straight man is just given a slap on the wrist. Women still have groups for example over work hours and pay, and some men have groups where they want the right to have their children other than the women/ex-wife etc after a divorce or disagreement. Same goes for moderate drinkers and drug users, or workers who are let off or warned for what they believe in (wearing the crucifix for example).

Nobody elected these militant groups, they are not accountable to anyone. These groups are nothing more than to flaunt it in everyones face, militant homosexuality just turns people against homosexuality in general. Some people don't agree with homosexuality and believe its wrong, their opinion and they are fully entitled to it.

[dbgtz]

To what gommeinc said, being homophobic is no different to insulting someone normally (as an offense if you get my drift). There's always going to be people who don't like their choice of life, they should just go away and get on with their own.

Anyway religion has no power in our society, in a way extremist acts encourage us to be like "why should we listen to you?". Anyway the pope is dead, what's the point on him visiting anymore. In terms of religion I don't get why there is a pope? Yes a man must wear robes and tell people stuff like I supposedly did even though half of the bible was ripped off of willy wonka (sorry if that insults someone but I don't see how this exists and it's funny how it changes in conjunction to the time where over religions remain strong in pretty much all aspects).

Finally it could be worse, he could say gays should be killed or tortured for the wrong choice of life.

[GommeInc]

Nobody elected these militant groups, they are not accountable to anyone. These groups are nothing more than to flaunt it in everyones face, militant homosexuality just turns people against homosexuality in general. Some people don't agree with homosexuality and believe its wrong, their opinion and they are fully entitled to it.
Why do they need to be elected? They're clearly wanted if they've formed a group, and the majority of groups are not malicious. The group that's against the impression that all homosexuals are walking talking STDs (and so should not give blood/organs) are a peaceful group. And anti-feminist groups and feminist groups are (mostly) peaceful. If people have a problem, they put forward their objections. It's pretty narrow-minded of you to assume every single group needs to be elected, especially when you suggest that, for example, homosexual groups are malicious and are the reason for homophobia, when alot of these hgroups are against discrimination for things like homophobic remarks by an individual are let off lightly - hardly malicious or not needed, if you have no interest then you don't pay much attention :/

I think you've muddled up the word "group", believing that a group follows the same principals as Islam4UK and therefore assume all 'anti-' groups are malicious and useless, and not needed. Heck, suggesting this suggests that we must be happy with our current rules or governments. So yeah, no need for Labour to step down. We only need one party according to your logic, kinda shows seeing as you love the Daily Mail :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why do they need to be elected? They're clearly wanted if they've formed a group, and the majority of groups are not malicious. The group that's against the impression that all homosexuals are walking talking STDs (and so should not give blood/organs) are a peaceful group. And anti-feminist groups and feminist groups are (mostly) peaceful. If people have a problem, they put forward their objections. It's pretty narrow-minded of you to assume every single group needs to be elected, especially when you suggest that, for example, homosexual groups are malicious and are the reason for homophobia, when alot of these hgroups are against discrimination for things like homophobic remarks by an individual are let off lightly :/

These groups do not represent me, people do not need to belong to a Gay Group or have gay views simply because they are homosexual. These groups have heavy influence on the government and the modern-day Conservative Party;- nobody asked me if they represent me but it seems they are instantly to be the representation of homosexuals. They are militant and turn people against homosexuals, these groups who organise what I find poor taste parades to flaunt their sexuality in the face of others - that turns people against homosexuals, like it or not.


I think you've muddled up the word "group", believing that a group follows the same principals as Islam4UK and therefore assume all 'anti-' groups are malicious and useless, and not needed. Heck, suggesting this suggests that we must be happy with our current rules or governments. So yeah, no need for Labour to step down. We only need one party according to your logic :/

UKIP are an anti-EU group so I really don't know where you have got this idea from, theres no point/logic you are making here. It is very simple, these groups do not represent the majority and have far too much power over government. If homosexuality is to be accepted, people need to stop thinking of themselves as homosexuals and think of themselves as individuals.

[GommeInc]

These groups do not represent me, people do not need to belong to a Gay Group or have gay views simply because they are homosexual. These groups have heavy influence on the government and the modern-day Conservative Party;- nobody asked me if they represent me but it seems they are instantly to be the representation of homosexuals. They are militant and turn people against homosexuals, these groups who organise what I find poor taste parades to flaunt their sexuality in the face of others - that turns people against homosexuals, like it or not.



UKIP are an anti-EU group so I really don't know where you have got this idea from, theres no point/logic you are making here. It is very simple, these groups do not represent the majority and have far too much power over government. If homosexuality is to be accepted, people need to stop thinking of themselves as homosexuals and think of themselves as individuals.
They're not meant to represent just you, they're to represent their chosen causes - homosexuality, feminism, world peace etc. Not everyone agrees that going to war with Iraq was a bad idea, and judging by your logic, they should not exist because they do not represent everyone (failed logic and impossible, as to share the thoughts and beliefs of everyone is a reason a group should not exist) and should be elected, when they're just a group, not a party - parties and groups are two very different things as a group tends to follow one belief while a party has different ideas, beliefs and causes put forward to represent certain people with the goal to be elected as the main party :/ A group just exists to make aware of such causes, not run the country.

And again, you assume that all members of gay right movements are pro-gay pride which is a pretty unproductive parade which lost its meaning years ago and is just a glorified street party (though very good for local economies).

You seem transfixed on the idea that groups influence every decision the government make, when the purpose is awareness, not control. Not all groups are malicious, yet you suggest all groups are :/ I can see why people are a little tished off using these forums, you do like a good irrational moan :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

They're not meant to represent just you, they're to represent their chosen causes - homosexuality, feminism, world peace etc. Not everyone agrees that going to war with Iraq was a bad idea, and judging by your logic, they should not exist because they do not represent everyone (failed logic and impossible, as to share the thoughts and beliefs of everyone is a reason a group should not exist) and should be elected, when they're just a group, not a party - parties and groups are two very different things as a group tends to follow one belief while a party has different ideas, beliefs and causes put forward to represent certain people with the goal to be elected as the main party :/ A group just exists to make aware of such causes, not run the country.

The way this government panders to the minority in a sense means they run the country, they have far too big a influence on government policy and the government and the Conservative Party seem to be falling head over heels to pander to whatever the minority wants regardless of the majority.

Do David Cameron & Gordon Brown realise what fake clowns they appear to everyone when they appear in Attitude and so forth?


And again, you assume that all members of gay right movements are pro-gay pride which is a pretty unproductive parade which lost its meaning years ago and is just a glorified street party (though very good for local economies).

Oh course not, but parades seem to be a big part of it. These groups seem determined to flaunt their sexuality in everybodys face, that leads to extremism and hatred.


You seem transfixed on the idea that groups influence every decision the government make, when the purpose is awareness, not control. Not all groups are malicious, yet you suggest all groups are :/ I can see why people are a little tished off using these forums, you do like a good irrational moan :P

These groups do influence the decisions the government makes, and many of these groups have militant characteristics. I am sick to death of hearing gay groups, womens rights groups moaning about things such as 'lack of gays/women in highly paid jobs' - I detest political correctness and thats just another tangaent of it. They can air their opinions, i'm fine with that. But when a government starts putting these groups (such as the unelected Muslim Council of Great Britain) at the forefront of policy it breeds nothing but hatred for minorities because people get ticked off by it constantly being rubbed in their face.

Resorting to personal insults now to win your point over? - out of all the people I wouldn't expect it from you, but hey just shows peoples true colours I guess when they can't have their own way.

[Catzsy]

I have to say this makes me laugh. Doesn't anybody realise that gay clergy
have been in churches for decades. They have just not been able to say it publicy so what's the difference? I really think the Vatican should be more careful who they employ in other areas given their disastrous track record of
harbouring pedophiles who have ruined hundreds of chiuldrens' lives.

[Black_Apalachi]

I have to say this makes me laugh. Doesn't anybody realise that gay clergy
have been in churches for decades. They have just not been able to say it publicy so what's the difference? I really think the Vatican should be more careful who they employ in other areas given their disastrous track record of
harbouring pedophiles who have ruined hundreds of chiuldrens' lives.

The priest at our church is soooo gay!

[FlyingJesus]

It's common sense that someone who is more qualified and equipped for a job should have that job based on those principles and nothing else. All this crap about getting women or certain people in to do jobs for the sake of equality is stupid, irrational and a waste of time. So that's dismissed.

The Pope doesn't live in modern day society, he has no reason to meddle. We have computers and Google, he has the Bible and God.

Not quite sure why you attack the Pope when you essentially seem to be agreeing with what he's saying lol. Right done with you :P onto the main issue.


Equality for the sake of equality is a bad thing - people should be judged on their merits and offered opportunities that suit them rather than allowing people to get employment just because they happen to have been born black or female. Let's go through each of these ridiculous points:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/03/article-1248128-08227F4F000005DC-257_468x390.jpg

Employment: kinda covered that above, but seems to make little sense in their wording. It's always been "legal" to employ a woman over a man or a black over a white if their qualifications match, so this change suggests that the legality means they cannot any longer employ the man/caucasian in this scenario, which is disgusting if true. If not, it bears very little implications and is just clever wording to make people happy about something that's already true. In the case of the church it does pose a problem I guess, as regardless of your own personal views on the clergy simple respect for their beliefs ought to show why they're worried - for them this law appears to be trying to force them to break their own holy laws.

Pay: I don't really care. If there's a difference in pay then let there be, most companies are private anyway so they're absolutely entitled to pay anyone whatever they feel like.

Deprivation: Another ridiculous law that won't mean anything. That is, the only way I can see it working is by excessive taxation, which won't be popular for anyone at all.

Age discrimination: I believe age discrimination is appropriate in emergency cases in hospitals, so I'm against this one. My grandmother is in hospital right now but I understand that she's in her 80s and if it came down to some far-fetched scenario where doctors can literally only save her or a young person then it's preferable to go for the one with a (hopefully) long life ahead of them. Equality gone too far again here.

Breastfeeding: Don't really care, I'm guessing it's quite easy just to not look.

Private member's clubs: A terrible idea frankly. They are private and as such should be allowed their own rules and regulations based on whatever they feel like basing them on. Men's clubs are a great thing in many communities and I'm sure women-only places are great for them too wherever they exist, and I don't think these institutions should be tampered with. It'll be interesting to see if they force this onto the Freemasons who (aside from some non-regulation groups who are not considered as Freemasons by the UGLE) do not allow women to join.

Disabilities: I have never seen or heard of anyone, disabled or not, being thrown out of a restaurant for eating messily. Extreme poor conduct is not the same thing, as some people do intentionally make trouble, but this one looks like just another stupid addition noted to make sure everyone gets mentioned. I disagree with the part about landlords having to make disabled access available in all homes though - it's simply not feasible in a lot of places and will put a lot more strain on the already weak housing market if people have to consider all of this before buying property.

[Richie]

most priests are gay, their the ones ******* little boys.... religion fails imo

[Wig44.]

most priests are gay, their the ones ******* little boys.... religion fails imo

Erm, what? You're pretty ignorant. That's a massive generalisation, and way to go to stereotype.

[Richie]

Erm, what? You're pretty ignorant. That's a massive generalisation, and way to go to stereotype.

ino ima ignorant person wot can I say.

[GommeInc]

The way this government panders to the minority in a sense means they run the country, they have far too big a influence on government policy and the government and the Conservative Party seem to be falling head over heels to pander to whatever the minority wants regardless of the majority.
Groups will always exist, that's my point. You went on some boring un-needed rant about how they run the country, when that's not necessarily a bad thing anyway :/ Infact, groups like this have changed the way we deal with certain events that the government paste over quite alot :/ You say unelected like they directly run the country, when they do not and that every group has an agenda to run the country, when they do not. Intervention from a third party isn't a necessary bad, look at how the media has shown the government up for being money hungry and useless when tackling problems and intervention from the public. Mums (usually) and family members who have made groups in protest of the war show the government up as being unaware with what happens in the war zone is another example of a group which shows no malice towards the country, infact alot of people agree with them saying the lack of supplies and poor treatment is appauling. Again, you narrow-mindedly focus on malicious groups, and assume all intervention groups are malicious, when this. is. not. the. case. and seems to be absent minded Daily Mail babble, where any minority should not exist, and that apparently Stephen Gately died because he was gay (mega lols towards the Mail for that shocker).


Oh course not, but parades seem to be a big part of it. These groups seem determined to flaunt their sexuality in everybodys face, that leads to extremism and hatred.
And it's the absent minded, dimwitted Daily Mail and other daft newspapers and small minded people who seem to believe that ALL members of any minority are the same. Just because Gay Pride, one of the countries most random events (not useless, just random) is a bit flamboyant, it's assumed that every homosexual is apparently a floppy handed, pompous person who loves rubbing and slapping their sexuality into the faces of others, when this is not true. It's amazing how many homosexuals are against the commercialisation of homosexuality, though the bigger picture actually shows Gay Pride doing more good than bad in an economic sense, just not very useful in a social sense for any small-minded people who experience it and assume the event has all to do with the way the people act. Another example of prejudice is with Indian nationals all own Indian Take-Aways and Mercedes, and have poor attitudes towards British nationals are other examples of mindless "Daily Mail" babble where the bad immediately over-takes the good, when it's a minority within a minority causing the problems.


These groups do influence the decisions the government makes, and many of these groups have militant characteristics. I am sick to death of hearing gay groups, womens rights groups moaning about things such as 'lack of gays/women in highly paid jobs' - I detest political correctness and thats just another tangaent of it. They can air their opinions, i'm fine with that. But when a government starts putting these groups (such as the unelected Muslim Council of Great Britain) at the forefront of policy it breeds nothing but hatred for minorities because people get ticked off by it constantly being rubbed in their face.
Again, more mindless babble about something I really do not care about as I do not disagree, when I made it quite clear in my first post that these groups will always exist and are not "always" malicious. Again, you rant about how they are when I don't care, the non-malicious ones are the ones that have the agenda to show the government what is wrong with hope to fix it. It's not constantly rubbed in your face, unless you purposely read the Daily Mail for your daily "hate" fix, that's when it is rubbed in your face because you're purposely looking to have it rubbed into your face :/

[-:Undertaker:-]

Groups will always exist, that's my point. You went on some boring un-needed rant about how they run the country, when that's not necessarily a bad thing anyway :/

Of course they will always exist, and my point has never been and is still not (although you seem determined to make it out) that groups should not exist. I am simply saying that these groups have far too much influence on government and have militant traits to them. As a muslim woman on the news once said, who are the Muslim Council of Great Britain? - she never elected them, she never appointed them to advise the government on her behalf so why on earth are the government falling head over heels to cater to what the MCOGB wants?


Infact, groups like this have changed the way we deal with certain events that the government paste over quite alot :/ You say unelected like they directly run the country, when they do not and that every group has an agenda to run the country, when they do not. Intervention from a third party isn't a necessary bad, look at how the media has shown the government up for being money hungry and useless when tackling problems and intervention from the public. Mums (usually) and family members who have made groups in protest of the war show the government up as being unaware with what happens in the war zone is another example of a group which shows no malice towards the country, infact alot of people agree with them saying the lack of supplies and poor treatment is appauling. Again, you narrow-mindedly focus on malicious groups, and assume all intervention groups are malicious, when this. is. not. the. case. and seems to be absent minded Daily Mail babble, where any minority should not exist, and that apparently Stephen Gately died because he was gay (mega lols towards the Mail for that shocker).

Thats all very well, so why is this government so eager to cater for its minority groups but not groups such as the Stop the War coalition who have quite mainstream support. There shouldn't even be a group for something like lack of military equipment because that should be there, no questions asked.

On the Daily Mail, Jan Moir did not say that and as far as I can remember I read it myself. There was nothing remotely homophobic about that article and she clearly stated (from what I remember) that dying in the same hotel room while your boyfriend and another man have sex isn't the greatest way to die. - I totally agree with that, not a nice death is it. She did not say all homosexuals should die or that Steph Gately deserved to die because he was gay, so do not make that up.


And it's the absent minded, dimwitted Daily Mail and other daft newspapers and small minded people who seem to believe that ALL members of any minority are the same. Just because Gay Pride, one of the countries most random events (not useless, just random) is a bit flamboyant, it's assumed that every homosexual is apparently a floppy handed, pompous person who loves rubbing and slapping their sexuality into the faces of others, when this is not true. It's amazing how many homosexuals are against the commercialisation of homosexuality, though the bigger picture actually shows Gay Pride doing more good than bad in an economic sense, just not very useful in a social sense for any small-minded people who experience it and assume the event has all to do with the way the people act. Another example of prejudice is with Indian nationals all own Indian Take-Aways and Mercedes, and have poor attitudes towards British nationals are other examples of mindless "Daily Mail" babble where the bad immediately over-takes the good, when it's a minority within a minority causing the problems.

I read the Daily Mail and I also read its website comments from its reader. I can tell you right now that the paper and its readers are not against homosexuality and do not think that all gays are into pride marches and so forth. Any genuine homophobic comments on the Daily Mail website always have a few hundred red arrows or so. As usual you have ran (like others) out of anything worthwhile to say to me, but go on to attack the Daily Mail.

On the Indian nationals, what on earth are you on about. The Daily Mail has never attacked Indian Nationals and you know fully well that the assumption that all Indians own a takeaway is a sterotype. Sterotypes will always be around. Do you now see yourself as some left wing student determined to 'break down barriers' aka PC talk.

Sterotypes will always be around, yet again you are trying to link something totally not true to the Daily Mail. The vast majority of the British people do not believe in sterotypes anyway, so again, do not treat the people like they are so stupid they they cannot make up their own minds and follow the Daily Mail for what to do next (especially when the Mail hasn't even done the things you are accusing it of!).


Again, more mindless babble about something I really do not care about as I do not disagree, when I made it quite clear in my first post that these groups will always exist and are not "always" malicious. Again, you rant about how they are when I don't care, the non-malicious ones are the ones that have the agenda to show the government what is wrong with hope to fix it. It's not constantly rubbed in your face, unless you purposely read the Daily Mail for your daily "hate" fix, that's when it is rubbed in your face because you're purposely looking to have it rubbed into your face.

I have made it clear throughout this discussion that I have never said groups will not exist and I don't believe groups should be banned anyway. I have also made it quite clear that I agree with these groups right to speak, but I do not agree with militant groups advising the government on policy and the government listening to these groups as though they represent the minority, when they do not.

On the Daily Mail, again ran out of things to say so you have a go at the paper. The Daily Mail is the second/third best selling paper in this country and the vast majority of the British people are not stupid, therefore the Mail is not what you are making it out to be and neither is the Daily Express which also follows similar storylines.

Extreme equality creates extreme hatred, and thats what these papers are saying and thats what happens. I agree with them and so do a lot of other people (judging by sales figures when compared to left-wing papers such as the Guardian) so do not try and claim that opinions like mine against militant-in-your-face homosexuality are those of the Mail which I have chosen to believe.

You have twisted nearly everything I have said in this discussion, and as shown by your attack on the Mail (on which the stuff you have said isn't true anyway) you have ran out of things to say.

[GommeInc]

Of course they will always exist, and my point has never been and is still not (although you seem determined to make it out) that groups should not exist. I am simply saying that these groups have far too much influence on government and have militant traits to them. As a muslim woman on the news once said, who are the Muslim Council of Great Britain? - she never elected them, she never appointed them to advise the government on her behalf so why on earth are the government falling head over heels to cater to what the MCOGB wants?



Thats all very well, so why is this government so eager to cater for its minority groups but not groups such as the Stop the War coalition who have quite mainstream support. There shouldn't even be a group for something like lack of military equipment because that should be there, no questions asked.

[quote=Undertaker]On the Daily Mail, Jan Moir did not say that and as far as I can remember I read it myself. There was nothing remotely homophobic about that article and she clearly stated (from what I remember) that dying in the same hotel room while your boyfriend and another man have sex isn't the greatest way to die. - I totally agree with that, not a nice death is it. She did not say all homosexuals should die or that Steph Gately deserved to die because he was gay, so do not make that up.

"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael."

Pointless and unnecessary to the article, and suggests it's an omen upon him for being gay. Especially as it comes after "His mother still insists he died of natural causes". She's either a crap writer for putting that pointless little bit in the article, or prejudice towards homosexuals.

Following on from this:

"Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened."

Again, she suggests that gay couples cannot be happy and that's it's likely they died just because they were gay. Why make references to other homosexuals who died? It's pointless. Again, she's either a crap writer or a closet homophobe.

Following on:

"As a gay rights champion, I am sure he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine."

Still very dodgy and tongue in cheek, adding these comments. SHe suggests that the gay lifestyle killed him, rather than anything else. She seems to be jabbing him with the "You're gay lol" stick :/ And then the clincher:

"For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see."

She makes references only to the "gay scene" rather than a glamourous celebrity status scene. Again, she's either a crap writer for only writing about the gay lifestyle and suggesting he died because he was gay (or the lifestyle killed him), or she's a homophobic twit.


I read the Daily Mail and I also read its website comments from its reader. I can tell you right now that the paper and its readers are not against homosexuality and do not think that all gays are into pride marches and so forth. Any genuine homophobic comments on the Daily Mail website always have a few hundred red arrows or so. As usual you have ran (like others) out of anything worthwhile to say to me, but go on to attack the Daily Mail.
Actually, it's kinda obvious you're deluded dear, and just presume you're smart and know what you are talking about, and you tread softly around the arguments and just assume "hey, I've replied back so I must be right" when quite alot of the time you're wrong.


On the Indian nationals, what on earth are you on about. The Daily Mail has never attacked Indian Nationals and you know fully well that the assumption that all Indians own a takeaway is a sterotype. Sterotypes will always be around. Do you now see yourself as some left wing student determined to 'break down barriers' aka PC talk.

Sterotypes will always be around, yet again you are trying to link something totally not true to the Daily Mail. The vast majority of the British people do not believe in sterotypes anyway, so again, do not treat the people like they are so stupid they they cannot make up their own minds and follow the Daily Mail for what to do next (especially when the Mail hasn't even done the things you are accusing it of!).
No, but I bet because you assume so you think it must be true :rolleyes:



I have made it clear throughout this discussion that I have never said groups will not exist and I don't believe groups should be banned anyway. I have also made it quite clear that I agree with these groups right to speak, but I do not agree with militant groups advising the government on policy and the government listening to these groups as though they represent the minority, when they do not.
No you haven't, you do your typical "hate everything and moan about it all" routine. You've not said you support these groups, infact you've generalised saying they militant and aren't voted for, when they do not need to be. Blame the government for being soft on them, not the groups :/ You're either generalising, or just plain negative :/

"Nobody elected these militant groups, they are not accountable to anyone." - Undertaker

"These groups are nothing more than to flaunt it in everyones face, militant homosexuality just turns people against homosexuality in general." - Undertaker

"These groups do influence the decisions the government makes, and many of these groups have militant characteristics." - Undertaker

"They can air their opinions, i'm fine with that. But when a government starts putting these groups (such as the unelected Muslim Council of Great Britain) at the forefront of policy it breeds nothing but hatred for minorities because people get ticked off by it constantly being rubbed in their face." - Undertaker

(Blame the government, not the groups. Duh).


On the Daily Mail, again ran out of things to say so you have a go at the paper. The Daily Mail is the second/third best selling paper in this country and the vast majority of the British people are not stupid, therefore the Mail is not what you are making it out to be and neither is the Daily Express which also follows similar storylines.
Again, you assume because you reply to something, you're immediately correct and no other post is worthy. You're verging on "trolling", where it becomes pointless talking to you because you prefer needless arguments and tackless discussions. All I said were these groups are useful, yet you blast and rant and rave about petty things :P You're also famous for putting words into people mouths. Apparently I agree that extreme equality is a good thing. Where I said this I don't know. Again, you're needlessly ranting :/

So yeah, the Daily Mail is a badly written paper with article writers that have come out of school or college, rather than university with a proper experience or qualitifications. Jan Moirs is one of the stupid writers who mixes up her sentences.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-511171/Maternity-units-turn-away-British-mums-immigrants-baby-boom-costs-NHS-350m.html

^ That's a lol worthy article. It's so generalised and petty, and untrue in most cases :/ Mid-wifery has slowly declined for years, but the Mail might as well blame immigrants :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.Not homophobic.


Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.
Not homophobic.


Pointless and unnecessary to the article, and suggests it's an omen upon him for being gay. Especially as it comes after "His mother still insists he died of natural causes". She's either a crap writer for putting that pointless little bit in the article, or prejudice towards homosexuals.

While I don't think she is, she has a right to say that if thats her opinion - can you live with an opinion that is not the same as yours or would you like to see it banned?


"Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened."

Again, she suggests that gay couples cannot be happy and that's it's likely they died just because they were gay. Why make references to other homosexuals who died? It's pointless. Again, she's either a crap writer or a closet homophobe.Actually I think its quite clear that she is doing what most journalists do and is hyping up the story, there is nothing homophobic in that quote.


Following on:

"As a gay rights champion, I am sure he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine."

Still very dodgy and tongue in cheek, adding these comments. SHe suggests that the gay lifestyle killed him, rather than anything else. She seems to be jabbing him with the "You're gay lol" stick :/ And then the clincher:Oh course, but she isn't suggesting the gay lifestyle killed him. His lifestyle as shown by his death was not good at all, and if Jan Moir does really think that homosexuality is not a good lifestyle I couldn't care less, its her opinion and I fully respect that.


"For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see."

She makes references only to the "gay scene" rather than a glamourous celebrity status scene. Again, she's either a crap writer for only writing about the gay lifestyle and suggesting he died because he was gay (or the lifestyle killed him), or she's a homophobic twit.I see nothing there suggesting he died because he was gay, she is suggesting he died because of his lifestyle and as she is against civil partnerships she is including that in what she is writing. Rather simple journalism. I don't agree with civil partnerships either and don't agree that Stephen Gatelys death was at all respectable, am I now homophobic?


Actually, it's kinda obvious you're deluded dear, and just presume you're smart and know what you are talking about, and you tread softly around the arguments and just assume "hey, I've replied back so I must be right" when quite alot of the time you're wrong.That all you have to say? - so despite me actually telling you about the Daily Mail and the fact that the vast majority of its readers are not homophobic, all you have left to say is I am deluded. Of course you think I am wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion - what on earth has that got to do with anything we have said? - again, you resort to personal attacks to debate your cause.


No, but I bet because you assume so you think it must be true :rolleyes:So do you or do you not agree that sterotypes will always exist and that in most sterotypes, theres not homophobia or racism involved?


No you haven't, you do your typical "hate everything and moan about it all" routine. You've not said you support these groups, infact you've generalised saying they militant and aren't voted for, when they do not need to be. Blame the government for being soft on them, not the groups :/ You're either generalising, or just plain negative :/

"Nobody elected these militant groups, they are not accountable to anyone." - UndertakerI do blame the government, and as I disagree with these groups I also make my case against them also. Again, being negative. Well i'm sorry if I don't agree with civil partnerships, i'm sorry if I don't agree with Harmans equality bill, i'm sorry if I don't agree with gay pride marches - just none of these do any good for the very thing they sought to cater for.


"These groups are nothing more than to flaunt it in everyones face, militant homosexuality just turns people against homosexuality in general." - Undertaker

"These groups do influence the decisions the government makes, and many of these groups have militant characteristics." - Undertaker

"They can air their opinions, i'm fine with that. But when a government starts putting these groups (such as the unelected Muslim Council of Great Britain) at the forefront of policy it breeds nothing but hatred for minorities because people get ticked off by it constantly being rubbed in their face." - Undertaker

(Blame the government, not the groups. Duh).I blame both, duh.

I blame the government for jumping when these groups say jump and I blame the groups for exploiting their power to introduce laws such as this which are what I find complete politically correct trash. I also, as I have said time and time again, do not agree with these groups. So I disagree with the government and the groups, are you now going to call me negative because I disagree with both?


Again, you assume because you reply to something, you're immediately correct and no other post is worthy. You're verging on "trolling", where it becomes pointless talking to you because you prefer needless arguments and tackless discussions. All I said were these groups are useful, yet you blast and rant and rave about petty things :P You're also famous for putting words into people mouths. Apparently I agree that extreme equality is a good thing. Where I said this I don't know. Again, you're needlessly ranting :/Again, you have ran out of anything worthwhile to say and continue the personal attacks rather than replying properly to what I have said on the Daily Mail. Where is your reply to what I have said on the Daily Mail Gomme? - I can find no proper reply to what I have said in defence of the paper to your attack on it, and now because you have little left to say back to me you now attack me personally.


So yeah, the Daily Mail is a badly written paper with article writers that have come out of school or college, rather than university with a proper experience or qualitifications. Jan Moirs is one of the stupid writers who mixes up her sentences.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-511171/Maternity-units-turn-away-British-mums-immigrants-baby-boom-costs-NHS-350m.html

^ That's a lol worthy article. It's so generalised and petty, and untrue in most cases :/ Mid-wifery has slowly declined for years, but the Mail might as well blame immigrants :rolleyes:Again, attacking the Mail rather than debating what we have been debating because I have shown with previous posts that most of the stuff you accused me of saying, I didn't. On this article, whether or not you know (well you obviously dont) the Mail has been calling for a while for an end to mixed-sex wards and a return to the old style midwife, with a matron on each ward.

On the immigrants, the sad truth is that minorities are being put before the majority in this country now. As only highlighted by this very thread which was created to show what a absolute loon Harriet Harman is with her bill which would force people to hire based on the colour of their skin, their sexuality or their race.

No No No.

[GommeInc]

Not homophobic.

Not homophobic.

Actually I think its quite clear that she is doing what most journalists do and is hyping up the story, there is nothing homophobic in that quote.

Oh course, but she isn't suggesting the gay lifestyle killed him. His lifestyle as shown by his death was not good at all, and if Jan Moir does really think that homosexuality is not a good lifestyle I couldn't care less, its her opinion and I fully respect that.
She's pretty stupid and dimwitted then. And seeing your comments, I think it can be summed up she's a lousy article writer, for referring to irrelevant pieces of information like other homosexuals who have died randomly without any knowledge on how or why. It does seem rather homophobic she only refers to other homosexuals, rather than drug abuse and/or wild lifestyles. But as you seem to agree, she's just a lousy article writer.


I see nothing there suggesting he died because he was gay, she is suggesting he died because of his lifestyle and as she is against civil partnerships she is including that in what she is writing. Rather simple journalism. I don't agree with civil partnerships either and don't agree that Stephen Gatelys death was at all respectable, am I now homophobic?
All of which irrelevant to the article she wrote, she's not an expert in medical health and the fact she's against civil partnerships is probably why she comes off as irrationally homophobic, only referring to other homosexuals who have died (even though none of them died the same - this is pointless and shows lack of investigative journalism = she is a bad article writer). And no, you're not homophobic, what a stupid thing to say and again, irrelevant to the point.


That all you have to say? - so despite me actually telling you about the Daily Mail and the fact that the vast majority of its readers are not homophobic, all you have left to say is I am deluded. Of course you think I am wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion - what on earth has that got to do with anything we have said? - again, you resort to personal attacks to debate your cause.
No, because you seem to think I was actually interested in these needless discussions. You troll, you do it in every thread related to any sort of politics or agenda :/ Again, you make no claims to back yourself up and again tread around what has been said.


So do you or do you not agree that sterotypes will always exist and that in most sterotypes, theres not homophobia or racism involved?
Again, you show your natural talent of planting words in the mouths of those around you. Stereotypes and groups will always exist, I was never against this. Come up with something original and meaningful :rolleyes:


I do blame the government, and as I disagree with these groups I also make my case against them also. Again, being negative. Well i'm sorry if I don't agree with civil partnerships, i'm sorry if I don't agree with Harmans equality bill, i'm sorry if I don't agree with gay pride marches - just none of these do any good for the very thing they sought to cater for.
All of this is irrelevant to what has been said. I never said I agree with this, but you like to troll and this quote is proof you're fishing for a come back :/


I blame both, duh.

I blame the government for jumping when these groups say jump and I blame the groups for exploiting their power to introduce laws such as this which are what I find complete politically correct trash. I also, as I have said time and time again, do not agree with these groups. So I disagree with the government and the groups, are you now going to call me negative because I disagree with both?
What powers? They have no powers. Move along dear, you're slurring your speech. Also, this is why you troll:

"I have made it clear throughout this discussion that I have never said groups will not exist and I don't believe groups should be banned anyway."

"I also, as I have said time and time again, do not agree with these groups."

Which is it, do you agree with groups or do you not agree? Trolls just change their arguments to annoy the other side. This is why people dislike you posting in these forums ;) Also, I said these groups will always exist. Full Stop. Yet you seem to love ranting and raving about them, even though I made no references at the start. So please, do stop trolling to create needless arguments. My original point is still valid, but as we all know, you just love to rant and rave needlessly :/


On the immigrants, the sad truth is that minorities are being put before the majority in this country now. As only highlighted by this very thread which was created to show what a absolute loon Harriet Harman is with her bill which would force people to hire based on the colour of their skin, their sexuality or their race.

Lol, if you say so :rolleyes: The sad truth is that there is no evidence and this is needless generalisation, posted by the Daily Mail no doubt. Minorities don't get any special treatment above the "majorities" (whoever they are), I can walk into a clinic and be seen with as much chance as a minority :/ So yeah, bull crap again. And that doesn't realte to this at all, Harriet Harman is suggesting pointless equality in the workplace (something we agreed on, but you love to troll so you commenting on it in such a negative way it comes off as disagreeing and malice). Workplace and being seen to in a workplace are two different things...

[-:Undertaker:-]

She's pretty stupid and dimwitted then. And seeing your comments, I think it can be summed up she's a lousy article writer, for referring to irrelevant pieces of information like other homosexuals who have died randomly without any knowledge on how or why. It does seem rather homophobic she only refers to other homosexuals, rather than drug abuse and/or wild lifestyles. But as you seem to agree, she's just a lousy article writer.Kevin McGee hung himself and was on drugs, not to mention the antics of George Michael - both lead poor lifestyles and since both are homosexual and the death of Stephen Gately involved homosexuality, its relevant to the news story. If she is putting a case together for a stance against civil partnerships, then she will obviously use the example of 2 partnerships which turned into a train wreck.


All of which irrelevant to the article she wrote, she's not an expert in medical health and the fact she's against civil partnerships is probably why she comes off as irrationally homophobic, only referring to other homosexuals who have died (even though none of them died the same - this is pointless and shows lack of investigative journalism = she is a bad article writer). And no, you're not homophobic, what a stupid thing to say and again, irrelevant to the point.Of course shes not a medical expert, and as far as I know she has never claimed she is one. On against civil partnerships, how is being against civil partnerships homophobic? - it isn't. As I said in the previous reply, both McGee and Michael have lead poor lifestyles and both have recently been in the news - relevent like it or not because did Gately not die while his boyfriend and another man were having sex in the other room while he was laying dead on his bed?

Not a nice way to go.


No, because you seem to think I was actually interested in these needless discussions. You troll, you do it in every thread related to any sort of politics or agenda :/ Again, you make no claims to back yourself up and again tread around what has been said.I have backed up what I said, I replied to everything you said and it was actually you who ducked out of replying back to me about sterotypes and the Daily Mail on Indian nationals etc. I haven't ducked out of anything and i'll continue debating my point without having to revert to attacking a national newspaper/yourself.


Again, you show your natural talent of planting words in the mouths of those around you. Stereotypes and groups will always exist, I was never against this. Come up with something original and meaningful :rolleyes:It was you who mentioned Indian nationals, I said that was a sterotype as is the sterotype that all gays are camp and all muslims are strict, as is the sterotype that all Indians run a cornershop. You brought it up and I said very clearly that the majority of the British people know these things are sterotypes, so do you or do you not agree that sterotypes have little racism/homophobia involved?

Twisting words? - you mean like you said at one point in the discussion "Groups will always exist, that's my point." - As I stated earlier, I never said they should not exist.


All of this is irrelevant to what has been said. I never said I agree with this, but you like to troll and this quote is proof you're fishing for a come back :/You said I should blame the government, and I just did and I also explained why I also blame these groups and why I disagree with them. Do not twist what I am saying.


What powers? They have no powers. Move along dear, you're slurring your speech. Also, this is why you troll:

"I have made it clear throughout this discussion that I have never said groups will not exist and I don't believe groups should be banned anyway."

"I also, as I have said time and time again, do not agree with these groups."

Which is it, do you agree with groups or do you not agree? Trolls just change their arguments to annoy the other side. This is why people dislike you posting in these forums ;) Also, I said these groups will always exist. Full Stop. Yet you seem to love ranting and raving about them, even though I made no references at the start. So please, do stop trolling to create needless arguments. My original point is still valid, but as we all know, you just love to rant and rave needlessly :/I never said they do have formal powers, they, as a group, have powers and influence because this government gives them it. Their influence and word rubs off on this government as seen by this equality bill. On which is it; I don't agree with the opinions/stance of these groups, but as I have made quite clear; I respect their right to form and organise. It is very simple and you know fully well what my stance is, talk about trolling. :rolleyes:

Again, personal attacks.


Lol, if you say so :rolleyes: The sad truth is that there is no evidence and this is needless generalisation, posted by the Daily Mail no doubt. Minorities don't get any special treatment above the majorities, I can walk into a clinic and be seen with as much chance with a minority :/ So yeah, bull crap again. And that doesn't realte to this at all, Harriet Harman is suggesting pointless equality in the workplace (something we agreed on, but you love to troll so you commenting on it in such a negative way it comes off as disagreeing and malice). Workplace and being seen to in a workplace are two different things...This very thread says so, the bill Harman is pushing through puts people ahead in the workplace & jobs based on sexuality/colour/gender rather than for merit. That is wrong. Of course you can, just like I could go to ASDA and be served just the same as any minority - I don't see your point because it has little/nothing to do with what I am saying. This bill just proves how this government prefers to base things on colour, sexuality or gender rather than merit. Infact, its even proved futher by David Cameron wanting 'woman-only' candidate shortlists - so no Gomme, its not bull crap, its happening.

I haven't started any debate here, it was you who chose to go off on one by attacking both me and the Daily Mail. My opinion and side of the discussion has stayed the same throughout this thread, whereas you have gone from one story to the next from attacking me, to attacking sterotypes on Indian nationals to attacking Jan Moirs article on Stephen Gately to attacking another Daily Mail article.

[GommeInc]

Kevin McGee hung himself and was on drugs, not to mention the antics of George Michael - both lead poor lifestyles and since both are homosexual and the death of Stephen Gately involved homosexuality, its relevant to the news story. If she is putting a case together for a stance against civil partnerships, then she will obviously use the example of 2 partnerships which turned into a train wreck.
No-one knows how Stephen Gately died, he did not hang himself and the lifestyle wasn't even that wild. He only smoked cannabis that night and was not drugged up to the eyeballs with all kinds of drugs :/ He wasn't even acting wild or had a long-term lifestyle the likes seen with George Michael. Again, both examples are irrelevant to the article. And again, this article is not about her dimwitted view on civil partnerships, it's about the death of a singer. So yeah, badly written article based on her prejudice, glad you agree on that FINALLY ;)

She is known to be a bit lousy as an article writer, and this is one fine example.


Of course shes not a medical expert, and as far as I know she has never claimed she is one. On against civil partnerships, how is being against civil partnerships homophobic? - it isn't. As I said in the previous reply, both McGee and Michael have lead poor lifestyles and both have recently been in the news - relevent like it or not because did Gately not die while his boyfriend and another man were having sex in the other room while he was laying dead on his bed?

Not a nice way to go.
It comes off as homphobic, seeing how what she said was irrelevant. She seems more focused on that fact he was gay, rather than the fact he died through unknown circumstances. It's pretty clear in the article, she makes little to no reference to medical history or any sort of illnesses and diseases, and when she does she links to gay lifestyles and suggests he couldn't of been ill, just had a rough gay lifestyle, even though it's quite a popular generic lifestyle that straight stars do anyway. The fact she doesn't refer to the lifestyle as a whole again, comes off as homophobic because she just targets gay, rather than the lifestyle in general. Also, a good article writer gets the facts straight and again, she doesn't know what she is talking about and comes off as a crap article writer using no references to any sort of medical expertise. You seem to not disagree.

The silly cow obviously did something wrong, seeing as the article kept changing the moment it was published. I beleive the original article was alot worse than this. Read the comments written underneath, she's a "lazy journalist". She doesn't investigate at all. She sits behind her own "bigotry", too lazy to establish that healthy young men and women can drop dead, or die in their sleep. She's just too lazy to bother acknowledging this, and attack the lifestyle anyway. The only thing bad about the lifestyle she posted was the fact he smoked cannabis, which couldn't of done any damage or be the cause, then she goes to attack the fact his husband was sleeping with another man, which makes no sense seeing as that couldn't of killed him. So yeah, the article title is irrelevant, her information is bile and the article is so badly written. I'd be amazed she's still a journalist after that flopped article or "joke". You'd think the article was from Onion News, the way it was so badly written.


I have backed up what I said, I replied to everything you said and it was actually you who ducked out of replying back to me about sterotypes and the Daily Mail on Indian nationals etc. I haven't ducked out of anything and i'll continue debating my point without having to revert to attacking a national newspaper/yourself.
They're irrelevant to what I said at the beginning, but you like to troll so yeah :/


It was you who mentioned Indian nationals, I said that was a sterotype as is the sterotype that all gays are camp and all muslims are strict, as is the sterotype that all Indians run a cornershop. You brought it up and I said very clearly that the majority of the British people know these things are sterotypes, so do you or do you not agree that sterotypes have little racism/homophobia involved?
^ Troll post.


Twisting words? - you mean like you said at one point in the discussion "Groups will always exist, that's my point." - As I stated earlier, I never said they should not exist.
So why moan? ;) Again, you do this all the time in these forums. It's why people don't really like to post when you're around posting these threads, because you just come back with aload of bile and people get bored of it, you just like to go on a sub-rant about who knows what even when you agree :/


You said I should blame the government, and I just did and I also explained why I also blame these groups and why I disagree with them. Do not twist what I am saying.
Only after I commented on it. At the beginning you were against groups and made no reference of support, and suggested the government is powerless against these groups. Again, a needless post :/


I never said they do have formal powers, they, as a group, have powers and influence because this government gives them it. Their influence and word rubs off on this government as seen by this equality bill. On which is it; I don't agree with the opinions/stance of these groups, but as I have made quite clear; I respect their right to form and organise. It is very simple and you know fully well what my stance is, talk about trolling. :rolleyes:
First sentence makes no sense. They have no formal powers yet the government gives them powers? That's formal powers... Informal powers is when the governments give them powers yet the government do not want them to have it nor have control. Again, this slurrs with the rest of bile you post earlier that the government shouldn't listen to them, yet they do. Again, this is irrelevant to my first post, yet you trolled it up to a big thing :/


Again, personal attacks.
Aww, poor bwaby.


This very thread says so, the bill Harman is pushing through puts people ahead in the workplace & jobs based on sexuality/colour/gender rather than for merit. That is wrong. Of course you can, just like I could go to ASDA and be served just the same as any minority - I don't see your point because it has little/nothing to do with what I am saying. This bill just proves how this government prefers to base things on colour, sexuality or gender rather than merit. Infact, its even proved futher by David Cameron wanting 'woman-only' candidate shortlists - so no Gomme, its not bull crap, its happening.
And I disagreed with, when? Again, you're trolling or causing needless arguments... :rolleyes:


I haven't started any debate here, it was you who chose to go off on one by attacking both me and the Daily Mail. My opinion and side of the discussion has stayed the same throughout this thread, whereas you have gone from one story to the next from attacking me, to attacking sterotypes on Indian nationals to attacking Jan Moirs article on Stephen Gately to attacking another Daily Mail article.
You started this needless debate when you posted this:


Nobody elected these militant groups, they are not accountable to anyone. These groups are nothing more than to flaunt it in everyones face, militant homosexuality just turns people against homosexuality in general. Some people don't agree with homosexuality and believe its wrong, their opinion and they are fully entitled to it.
It had very little to do with what I said. I just said groups will always exist, and used the example of gay rights groups or groups that revolve in justice in the gay world. But as you love your daily moan fix, you went on a pointless debate :/

[myke]

The world be so much better without guidelines which state what is "normal" in a person and what is not. Dear oh dear... the world is an interesting place.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No-one knows how Stephen Gately died, he did not hang himself and the lifestyle wasn't even that wild. He only smoked cannabis that night and was not drugged up to the eyeballs with all kinds of drugs :/ He wasn't even acting wild or had a long-term lifestyle the likes seen with George Michael. Again, both examples are irrelevant to the article. And again, this article is not about her dimwitted view on civil partnerships, it's about the death of a singer. So yeah, badly written article based on her prejudice, glad you agree on that FINALLY ;)

Smoking cannabis and being found dead while your boyfriend is with another man in the neighbouring room isn't wild?. On the civil partnerships, as shown again you cant seem to accept that somebody else has a view which isn't 100% pro-homosexuality. I don't support civil partnership, does that mean me and most of the people I know are also dimwitted on the basis that we disagree with you?


It comes off as homphobic, seeing how what she said was irrelevant. She seems more focused on that fact he was gay, rather than the fact he died through unknown circumstances. It's pretty clear in the article, she makes little to no reference to medical history or any sort of illnesses and diseases, and when she does she links to gay lifestyles and suggests he couldn't of been ill, just had a rough gay lifestyle, even though it's quite a popular generic lifestyle that straight stars do anyway. The fact she doesn't refer to the lifestyle as a whole again, comes off as homophobic because she just targets gay, rather than the lifestyle in general. Also, a good article writer gets the facts straight and again, she doesn't know what she is talking about and comes off as a crap article writer using no references to any sort of medical expertise. You seem to not disagree.

Oh my god are you for real? - shes clearly stated that the death was dodgy and the so-called 'homophobic' bits you picked out weren't even homophobic at all and considering that, you only found around 4 of them. On the medical side, of course and thats because she is a journalist and not a doctor or medical officer, nor did she ever claim to be one.


The silly cow obvious did something wrong, seeing as the article kept changing the moment it was published. I beleive the original article was alot worse than this.

If I see the article then I can make my judgement, but whatever would come out it wouldn't seem to matter as you appear to take the slightest bit of 'anti-gay' slant as homophobia.


They're irrelevant to what I said at the beginning, but you like to troll so yeah :/

Its not irrelevant at all, you claimed I do not back up my arguments are troll, yet it is you who accuses me of something/the Daily Mail and then withdraws and accuses me of trolling!


^ Troll post.

No trolling, yet again you brought up the Indian nationals and now have nothing to say on the fact that that outlook is a sterotype.


So why moan? ;) Again, you do this all the time in these forums. It's why people don't really like to post when you're around posting these threads, because you just come back with aload of bile and people get bored of it, you just like to go on a sub-rant about who knows what even when you agree :/

No reply to that directly Gomme instead of going off on one about my style of debate/discussion, reply directly to what I said there and I even quoted what you said to make it clear that without a doubt you said that. Reply to it.

Again getting personal in a discussion, often people get personal when they have nothing viable left to say.. I wonder.


Only after I commented on it. At the beginning you were against groups and made no reference of support, and suggested the government is powerless against these groups. Again, a needless post :/

I am against these groups as I made pretty clear, I never said I am against groups in general and its obvious you have only made it out like that to back up what you are saying (which changes everytime you post). I have made it clear to you what my opinion is and it hasn't changed throughout this entire thread yet you are determined to twist my words and when I confront you, you go off on one about how I troll. :S


First sentence makes no sense. They have no formal powers yet the government gives them powers? That's formal powers... Informal powers is when the governments give them powers yet the government do not want them to have it nor have control. Again, this slurrs with the rest of bile you post earlier that the government shouldn't listen to them, yet they do. Again, this is irrelevant to my first post, yet you trolled it up to a big thing :/

That is not formal powers, something in government with formal powers would be something with an offical role, these groups do not have an offical role in government and they only wield influence because this government is too stupid to realise that these groups represent a very small minority within a minority. As shown again, I never said they have formal powers yet you are trying to make it as though I said that. Influence and formal powers are totally different things, these groups have influence, not formal powers - get it?


Aww, poor bwaby.

As I said earlier, it really shows up when somebody turns to personal slander because they have ran out of credible things to say so instead of attacking my points of debate, they start attacking myself.


And I disagreed with, when? Again, you're trolling or causing needless arguments... :rolleyes:

You started this needless debate when you posted this:

It had very little to do with what I said. I just said groups will always exist, and used the example of gay rights groups or groups that revolve in justice in the gay world. But as you love your daily moan fix, you went on a pointless debate :/

It is my opinion that these groups have too much influence over government and many have militant views and outlooks. You are obviously hooked on the equality bandwagon and cannot stand another view that is different to that of your own (myself and Jan Moir on civil partnerships) so you attack not my argument, but myself.

[GommeInc]

Smoking cannabis and being found dead while your boyfriend is with another man in the neighbouring room isn't wild?. On the civil partnerships, as shown again you cant seem to accept that somebody else has a view which isn't 100% pro-homosexuality. I don't support civil partnership, does that mean me and most of the people I know are also dimwitted on the basis that we disagree with you?
Again, this is irrelevant to the post -.-' He obviously consented to it, seeing as the article says:

"After a night of clubbing, Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta with 25-year-old Georgi Dochev was not what was on the cards.

Cowles and Dochev went to the bedroom together while Stephen remained alone in the living room."

He smoked cannabis... A non-lethal and very mild drug compared to what else is out there. Hardly a "wild" lifestyle :rolleyes: Besides, this is all irelevant seeing as he died of natural causes, what he had is a result of a heart condition. So not only is she pretty much lying through her teeth (or fingers), she is just speculating, which is pretty vulgar anyway, especially in the manner written...

The article is not about civil partnerships, it's about his death and her dumb-founded outlook on it. It's not the fact she's against civil partnerships, it's the fact she clearly wrote a terrible article coming off as homophobic. Get that to sink in ;)


Oh my god are you for real? - shes clearly stated that the death was dodgy and the so-called 'homophobic' bits you picked out weren't even homophobic at all and considering that, you only found around 4 of them. On the medical side, of course and thats because she is a journalist and not a doctor or medical officer, nor did she ever claim to be one.
MY GOD YOU ARE SLOW! SHE'S A JOURNALIST, SHE'S MEANT TO DO RESEARCH. Get that to sink in, damn it. She clearly did no research, and clearly it must of come off as homophobic seeing as loads of people agree on this, more disagree with article than agree with it, and it's there's more reason it was a bad article the fact the silly moo wrote another article "apologising", the fact it was worse because the obviously lied throughout is beyond you and her. The bits I posted were and are considered homophobic, as she seems to be attacking the gay lifestyle, and she only refers to homosexuals who have died (just died, not actually any deaths similar to it). The fact she doesn't believe the medical conclusion that he had an underlying heart condition is also beyond her (and you, it seems). She did no research, period.


If I see the article then I can make my judgement, but whatever would come out it wouldn't seem to matter as you appear to take the slightest bit of 'anti-gay' slant as homophobia.
You've clearly read the article, and ahve done. So this is either a troll post, or you're "playing dumb."


Its not irrelevant at all, you claimed I do not back up my arguments are troll, yet it is you who accuses me of something/the Daily Mail and then withdraws and accuses me of trolling!
You don't back them up, you use opinion. Your deluded mind assumes you are always right, you come off like this in most threads. You do not back up arguments, you made that clear in that thread months ago about the soldier who died in Afghanistan and his mother received a "poorly" written letter from Gordon Brown. You claimed Gordon Brown/Tony Blair are vile for sending young men to war, with the soliders not knowing what they are in for. The fact that the soldier joined mid-way through the Afghan war blew straight of your head, and you immediately shut up the moment you found out you were wrong, and that he knew full well what he was in for.


No trolling, yet again you brought up the Indian nationals and now have nothing to say on the fact that that outlook is a sterotype.
It is a stereotype, clever girl. I never said it wasn't :/ Again, fishing for a pointless argument (trolling).


No reply to that directly Gomme instead of going off on one about my style of debate/discussion, reply directly to what I said there and I even quoted what you said to make it clear that without a doubt you said that. Reply to it.
Reply to what? That groups will always exist? I made that comment ages ago. Why should I reply to my own comment? Again, pointless and needless trolling. I said these groups will always exist, you agreed (half way through the argument, which shows you can't write arguments very well) and agree that they are not always bad. Where's the argument? You seem to just want to make an argument out of an agreement.


Again getting personal in a discussion, often people get personal when they have nothing viable left to say.. I wonder.
Because you don't read facts, you are a troll. It's only getting personal because ignorant people are incredibly irritating, especially when they clearly post to cause needless arguments :rolleyes:


I am against these groups as I made pretty clear, I never said I am against groups in general and its obvious you have only made it out like that to back up what you are saying (which changes everytime you post). I have made it clear to you what my opinion is and it hasn't changed throughout this entire thread yet you are determined to twist my words and when I confront you, you go off on one about how I troll. :S
You said:

"Nobody elected these militant groups, they are not accountable to anyone. These groups are nothing more than to flaunt it in everyones face, militant homosexuality just turns people against homosexuality in general. Some people don't agree with homosexuality and believe its wrong, their opinion and they are fully entitled to it."

No where does it say that you agree with them, you immediately generalise and come off as disagreeing with groups in general, because they are "militant and not elected". Not my fault you have troubles forming an argument and can't stick by it. But as you've come to agree they are good, you continue to argue over what is effectively nothing. Pointless, like you debating tactics of "I am right, anyone else with the same opinion might as well be criticised."


That is not formal powers, something in government with formal powers would be something with an offical role, these groups do not have an offical role in government and they only wield influence because this government is too stupid to realise that these groups represent a very small minority within a minority. As shown again, I never said they have formal powers yet you are trying to make it as though I said that. Influence and formal powers are totally different things, these groups have influence, not formal powers - get it?
Oh my God you can't read -.- I agreed, yet your poorly written argument structure suggested otheriwse. You originally said that these "unelected groups" have power over the government (power assumed to be formal, seeing as you also suggest they control the government). Next you say they don't. Which is it? Again, pointless discussing this with you, because you'd just assume you wrote it like that and disregard it :rolleyes:


As I said earlier, it really shows up when somebody turns to personal slander because they have ran out of credible things to say so instead of attacking my points of debate, they start attacking myself.
Only because you're very irritating to talk to, alot of mebers agree with this judging by how you react in the Feedback forums :rolleyes: You come off as rude and belittling, assuming your opinion is greater than anyone elses, even though they may agree. It causes pointless disagreement over the fact both parties agree... :/


It is my opinion that these groups have too much influence over government and many have militant views and outlooks. You are obviously hooked on the equality bandwagon and cannot stand another view that is different to that of your own (myself and Jan Moir on civil partnerships) so you attack not my argument, but myself.
I don't want extreme-equality *Removed*l, read my original post and I clearly said:

"It's common sense that someone who is more qualified and equipped for a job should have that job based on those principles and nothing else. All this crap about getting women or certain people in to do jobs for the sake of equality is stupid, irrational and a waste of time. So that's dismissed."

This is why personal attacks come in, because you Do. Not. Read.

And again, Jan Moir was NOT talking about Civil Partnerships, her article is about the death of a celebrity. She makes little relation to civil partnerships, she just blasts gay lifestyles in general and then does this incredibly unconvincing "it's a sad day for same-sex marriages" at the end of the article, the fact she seems to be blasting homosexuals and their lifestyle in general goes straight over your head, and her mush of a brain. It's amazing you seem to be for the article, even though the majority are opposed to it because it really is just blasting homosexuals as it makes no relation to any other lifestyle. She's a bigot, an idiot and you can tell why she's hated :rolleyes:

Edited by Catzsy(Forum Moderator): Please do not rude to others. Thanks