Ann Widdecombe

First topic message reminder :

http://news.sky.com/story/ann-widdecombe-science-may-produce-an-answer-to-homosexuality-11733559

Not just ugly, but impossibly stupid, homophobic, racist, has become a right wing extremist and appears as mad as a bag of frogs.
I wonder whether she spread for Nigel?
It's clear to see why he recruited her.
I cannot understand why she is so anti gay, when no bloke in his right mind would want to impale her.

Syl wrote:
It's hardly an argument Jules.
This thread wasn't about AIDS or celebrities, you brought both into the debate.
I have as much idea as you do which celebs died of AIDS or are presently suffering from HIV infections passed on through sexual contact.
Like I said, things like this have always been and are still covered up, and in any case, apart from the people involved, is it anyone else's business?

My only reason for bringing up the subject was to highlight how a celeb   impoverished british & american journalists by suing them and winning, when in fact he knew they were speaking the truth. HE was the one who was lying. 


To keep this ultrasimple, I still think that if a celeb sues for 'defamation' at being labelled gay ……., then some decades later he suddenly drops dead from AIDS, people will put 2 & 2 together. His male lovers died of the same virus too.


The things you said were true, Syl, but they were not relevant enough to challenge my argument. 


Anyway thankfully today's gay people can hold their heads up proudly.

I think this statement you made deserved to be challenged and debunked Jules,

"But back in the 80's it was mostly gay men who died of it."

That may have been the popular view that was publicised, but there was already an epidemic of straight men and women dying of AIDS in Africa  pre 80's.

"The 1970s – The first AIDS epidemic
It was in Kinshasa in the 1970s that the first epidemic of HIV/AIDS is believed to have occurred. The emerging epidemic in the Congolese capital was signalled by a surge in opportunistic infections, such as cryptococcal meningitis, Kaposi’s sarcoma, tuberculosis and specific forms of pneumonia.
It is speculated that HIV was brought to the city by an infected individual who travelled from Cameroon by river down into the Congo. On arrival in Kinshasa, the virus entered a wide urban sexual network and spread quickly. The world’s first heterosexually-spread HIV epidemic had begun."

https://www.blackhistorymonth.org.uk/article/section/real-stories/the-history-of-aids-in-africa/

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Obviously you didn't read my post on the FIRST page.

Well what is funniest here, is Eizel has said throughout basically exactly the same as me.
I would say then  the problem here, is how you are with me and not anything else.
It shows you never bothered to listen to me properly

If you had read my first posts I said more or less what you have been saying throughout the thread, and I say it without talking down to people.
I have never agreed with what she was saying, I simply disagreed with the interpretation some were putting on her words.
I said at the beginning....

"If she has said homosexual acts are wrong (but that's not what was said in the piece quoted) she is obviously homophobic.
Is she a died in the wool Christian? that seems to be the mantra some still follow."

In the piece quoted she is definatately misguided but not homophobic.

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Well what is funniest here, is Eizel has said throughout basically exactly the same as me.
I would say then  the problem here, is how you are with me and not anything else.
It shows you never bothered to listen to me properly

If you had read my first posts I said more or less what you have been saying throughout the thread, and I say it without talking down to people.
I have never agreed with what she was saying, I simply disagreed with the interpretation some were putting on her words.
I said at the beginning....

"If she has said homosexual acts are wrong (but that's not what was said in the piece quoted) she is obviously homophobic.
Is she a died in the wool Christian? that seems to be the mantra some still follow."

In the piece quoted she is definatately misguided but not homophobic.

|

You claimed she was not being homophobic throughout
Eilzel and I have been saying she is and made reasoned arguments as to why
You agree when he points this out and as seen hold a petty grudge with me, as you hate to admit to being wrong with me
That is the problem here with you
Frankly I dont care anymore, I just think its funny
She is emphatically homophobic, as she thinks homosexuality is a sin. Just because she is a Christian, when others do not hold a stance its a sin, does not mean she is not homophobic. The very belief's that cast homosexuality as a sin is homophobic. Its as simple as that. Its their belief driving this homophobia
You talk down to people all the time Syl, its why I have absolutely zero respect for you and your girlie group

Although she supported the UK's partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, Widdecombe has consistently opposed LGBT rights while in Parliament, saying in 1999 that "I do not think that [homosexuality] can be promoted as an equally valid lifestyle to [heterosexual] marriage, but I would say the same about irregular heterosexual arrangements."[13] She has consistently argued against an equal age of consent for same-sex relationships – first in 1994 (voting against the 1994 Act, which would have reduced the age of consent for some male-male sexual activity in the UK from 21 to 18), and secondly in 1998 (arguing against a further reduction from 18 to 16, which later occurred in 2000);[26][27] On the latter point, she wrote in The Mail on Sunday that "one of the sundry horrors for which this Government is likely to be remembered will be that it gave its imprimatur to sodomy at 16", adding that if the age of consent was equalised, "there will be no protection for the vulnerable and confused against the predatory attentions of older men".[27] She later said in 2000: "I do not believe that issues of equality should override the imperatives of protecting the young."[28]

In 2003, Widdecombe proposed an amendment opposing repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act, which banned the "promotion of homosexuality" by local governments. Out of the 17 parliamentary votes considered by the Public Whip website to concern equal rights for homosexuals, Widdecombe took the opposing position in 15 cases, not being present at the other two votes.[29]

Widdecombe has also expressed her opposition to same-sex marriage, introduced by David Cameron's government in 2014, again claiming that "the state must have a preferred model" and "a union that is generally open to procreation".[30] In 2012, Widdecombe voiced support in the Daily Express for the practise of conversion therapy, which claims to change the orientation of gay men and women.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Widdecombe#LGBT_rights

And Syl thinks this is someone not homophobic

Ann Widdecombe has been criticised for promoting the idea that gay people can be made straight.

Writing in her Daily Express column on Wednesday, the former senior Conservative MP said: "Anybody can get help for anything from psychotherapists in this country except apparently gays who do not want to be gay".

Widdecombe was defending Lesley Pilkington, a counselor who has been found guilty of professional misconduct by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) after she agreed to help try and convert a gay patient to heterosexuality.

The patient was in fact an undercover reporter.

"A man who wants to be a woman will receive not only the necessary operations but also a huge amount of psychological support and counselling," Widdecombe said.

"Yet the unhappy homosexual should, according to gay activists, be denied any chance whatever to investigate any possibility of seeing if he can be helped to become heterosexual."

Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of gay rights campaign group Stonewall, said people would be "deeply distressed" by Widdecombe's defence of the "murky world of so-called conversion therapy".

"This voodoo theology hurts people who’ve been bullied into believing that they should be ashamed of being gay. It’s founded on pure prejudice, so it seems an odd way for Miss Widdecombe to promote Christianity’s message of love and respect for all," he said.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/02/anne-widdecome-defends-gay-conversion-therapy_n_1249697.html

As I keep saying its people like Ann and others that are not accepting of homosexuals that are causing a problem for some homosexuals not feeling accepted into society and then off this questioning their homosexuality. The cure for this, is for Ann and others to stop being bigoted and accepting of others.

Its as simple as that. As what drives her and others vierws for conversions, is they see homosexuality as some how wrong.

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

If you had read my first posts I said more or less what you have been saying throughout the thread, and I say it without talking down to people.
I have never agreed with what she was saying, I simply disagreed with the interpretation some were putting on her words.
I said at the beginning....

"If she has said homosexual acts are wrong (but that's not what was said in the piece quoted) she is obviously homophobic.
Is she a died in the wool Christian? that seems to be the mantra some still follow."

In the piece quoted she is definatately misguided but not homophobic.

|

You claimed she was not being homophobic throughout
Eilzel and I have been saying she is and made reasoned arguments as to why
You agree when he points this out and as seen hold a petty grudge with me, as you hate to admit to being wrong with me
That is the problem here with you
Frankly I dont care anymore, I just think its funny
She is emphatically homophobic, as she thinks homosexuality is a sin. Just because she is a Christian, when others do not hold a stance its a sin, does not mean she is not homophobic. The very belief's that cast homosexuality as a sin is homophobic. Its as simple as that. Its their belief driving this homophobia
You talk down to people all the time Syl, its why I have absolutely zero respect for you and your girlie group

Eizel pointed out other things she has done and said throughout her career and I agreed that they were indeed homophobic.
I dont believe she was homophobic when she was talking about future scientific possibilities, I said she was dotty, naïve and misguided....but imo her remarks ON THAT SUBJECT AT THAT TIME were not homophobic.

Over and out.

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:
|

You claimed she was not being homophobic throughout
Eilzel and I have been saying she is and made reasoned arguments as to why
You agree when he points this out and as seen hold a petty grudge with me, as you hate to admit to being wrong with me
That is the problem here with you
Frankly I dont care anymore, I just think its funny
She is emphatically homophobic, as she thinks homosexuality is a sin. Just because she is a Christian, when others do not hold a stance its a sin, does not mean she is not homophobic. The very belief's that cast homosexuality as a sin is homophobic. Its as simple as that. Its their belief driving this homophobia
You talk down to people all the time Syl, its why I have absolutely zero respect for you and your girlie group

Eizel pointed out other things she has done and said throughout her career and I agreed that they were indeed homophobic.
I dont believe she was homophobic when she was talking about future scientific possibilities, I said she was dotty, naïve and misguided....but imo her remarks ON THAT SUBJECT AT THAT TIME were not homophobic.

Over and out.

Beggars belief and it shows you fail to understand the motivations on why she would hold such a belief
Really it does not matter what you think on this, as you are being so closeminded ignoring the fact she is very anti-homosexual.
Ignoring the fact she is promoting such a view, not even understanding its her and her beliefs and others, that is causing said problem in the first place, because they dont accept homosexuals.

So her remarks, were fueled by her anti-homosexual view. As why else would someone believe that homosexuality requires being cured?
There is only one reason, a dislike of homosexuality itself. The fact she does not look at her being the root cause of this problem, shows she is being dishonest about this and trying to look like she actually cares, is easily torn apart. By understanding her motivations.
The reality is Syl,. you are being utterly naive here, sadly. As again the only reason some homosexuals feel this way, is because they have been shunned by their closet families, society, or even attemtping to be part of a religious group. Its others pushing them to feel they can only be accepted, if they are hetrosexual. Hence the motive is being anti-homosexual, because if they truely cared, they would see that the real sure to this problem, is acceptance

For fuck sake

So you are saying then that no one is allowed to find something unacceptable anymore for whatever reason. Everyone has to think the same, because something is lawful in general but not to an individual's beliefs and that they should be vilified at every opportunity, even if they only express their opinion but do nothing to actively encourage harm to anyone else. Its a bit totalitarian isn't it?
How do you know a gay person has never or will never want to be straight even though they are accepted that way?

If a gay person came out and said he wished he was straight, he wanted a family, from being a child he had dreamed of  living the life of a family man, with a wife and 2.4 kids.....and not because of outside pressure but because he hated the fact he was attracted to men not women, and because of this he could never fulfil his dream....would that make him homophobic?

Vintage wrote:So you are saying then that no one is allowed to find something unacceptable anymore for whatever reason. Everyone has to think the same, because something is lawful in general but not to an individual's beliefs and that they should be vilified at every opportunity, even if they only express their opinion but do nothing to actively encourage harm to anyone else. Its a bit totalitarian isn't it?
How do you know a gay person has never or will never want to be straight even though they are accepted that way?

Where did I claim the above highlighted?

I never did and she is allowed to express her views, just as I and others are easily able to unravel their true meaning behind them and actually show what is the root cause of the actual problem. The very people calling for a cure to homosexuality. Them being non-accpeting of homosexual people and again based on dogmatic religious beliefs. What we do know is the very people looking to promote conversion therapy are al people who are anti-gay

So she can believe what she likes, but when she promotes a view, that could very well effect the well being of people, then that is an issue that needs to be challenged. Sorry, but saying people cannot be condemned for their beliefs, is like saying the view of slavery should not be condemn. The view of fgm belief should not be condemn.

So how is that totalitarian? Nobody is stopping them having said beliefs. So you are conflating something which is not even happening. It seems, to me, you think she should be protected from people condemning her for her beliefs.

Sorry, but no belief what so ever, should be afforded any protection from condemnation and ridicule. As otherwise what you are saying is people have to respect bad and poor ideas. So are you going to respect the belief of FGM Vintage and not condemn someone that back such views?

The last point really is ridiculous, asking me to know whether someone feels they want to change, based off you not knowing yourself, that has nothing to do with feeling ostracised and not accepted by society. You are basically asking me, to find evidence for your claim.

That is simple absurd and if there was such cases, they would be documented. The reality is, we know through actual history what has caused this problem and its down to non-acceptence, a view, that to be part of a religious group then their homosexuality is wrong to the group.

So I ask you again, why would someone feel they need to change who they are, when accepted by society?

You can apply this to many things actually

Syl wrote:If a gay person came out and said he wished he was straight, he wanted a family, from being a child he had dreamed of  living the life of a family man, with a wife and 2.4 kids.....and not because of outside pressure but because he hated the fact he was attracted to men not women, and because of this he could never fulfil his dream....would that make him homophobic?

Why would he wish he was straight?
A gay man can have children and there is nothing stopping him having children.
So if he is not attracted to women, why would he want to have a female wife?
It shows your view makes absolutelky no sense and shows you have no comprehension of attractiion.
I mean seriously, why would someone want to mary a woman, when they know they attracted to men and never be attracted to that woman, sexually or phsycically and can still get married and have kids?
What I find really disgusting with this view point is some think that gay people cannot have families themselves, as if this is a barrier to then why some would convert. Its complete idiocy at its best and not thought out
What I am seeing here is hetrosexual people trying to say and understand the mind of a homosexual
So lets reverse this. Does anyone know anyone that wants to convert from hetrosexuality to being gay?

Do you know why I asked the last question?
As there is no view to make any hetrosexual person feel uncomfortable in who they are. To the view, that they would want to be gay. It simple does not exist. Poeple are either hetrosexual, gay or bisexual. So the view to cure homosexuals is a one sided argument and made by people who do not apply the same logic the other way round. Hence it shows they fail to understand what is driving some homosexuals to think they need to be cured. Its families, societies and religions itself at the core, of how these people do not feel accepted.

In view of his apparent confusion over the correct use of adjectives, adverbs, singular and plural, I am persuaded that dear old Phildidge is none other than............Aleksandr the Meerkat. Simples!

I don't feel its absurd, we don't know, its probably unlikely I agree but we can't close down the possibility it would be discriminatory.
Of course we challenge actions or encouragement of the things society deems to be wrong but I don't see any advocatating of actions against homosexuals in what Ann has said, speculation only.
Anyone can have a different view and express it, even about homosexuality and people can disagree  and we are free to challenge the view but unless someone is suggesting action against individuals whether violence or discrimination maybe they should be left to their own devices.
Ann isn't the only person to have voted against all the laws and repeal
I'm sure. I just don't happen to like the bullying that happens if someone dares to question or comment on almost anything these days from homosexuality to immigration to cultural misappropriation.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:In view of his apparent confusion over the correct use of adjectives, adverbs, singular and plural, I am persuaded that dear old Phildidge is none other than............Aleksandr the Meerkat. Simples!  

Thanks, but are you actually going to answer any of my points?
You are normally better than petty insults

Vintage wrote:I don't feel its absurd, we don't know, its probably unlikely I agree but we can't close down the possibility it would be discriminatory.
Of course we challenge actions or encouragement of the things society deems to be wrong but I don't see any advocatating of actions against homosexuals in what Ann has said, speculation only.
Anyone can have a different view and express it, even about homosexuality and people can disagree  and we are free to challenge the view but unless someone is suggesting action against individuals whether violence or discrimination maybe they should be left to their own devices.
Ann isn't the only person to have voted against all the laws and repeal
I'm sure. I just don't happen to like the bullying that happens if someone dares to question or comment on almost anything these days from homosexuality to immigration to cultural misappropriation.

But was she doing this from a two way sided position on this with a view that people either equally feel uncomfortable in their sexuality?

The simple answer is no. Its based only on homosexuals and not hetrosexuals. We know she already holds a view that deems homosexuality a sin and thus thinks homosexuality is wrong. We also know that she fails to see what is driving some homosexuals to feel this way, as they are not accepted.

As seen, we do not see any view to cure people from being hetrosexual, only homosexual. We see with gender dysphoria, a view of both sexes, feeling they are trapped in the wrong body. We dont see a view of hetrosexuals believing they should be gay.

Are you seriously now suggesting bullying? What bullying has happened? If she recives hate, that is wrong, but a small minded number of idiots, is not represntative of how people have rightly condemned her views

phildidge wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:In view of his apparent confusion over the correct use of adjectives, adverbs, singular and plural, I am persuaded that dear old Phildidge is none other than............Aleksandr the Meerkat. Simples!  

Thanks, but are you actually going to answer any of my points?
You are normally better than petty insults

Insults? You don't really do humour, do you? One might have thought that the little emoticon thingy gave a small clue.

And why should I mention any of your points? I'm not involved in your interrogations of either Syl or Vintage, both of whom are perfectly capable of (a) answering for themselves and (b) dealing effectively with your posts.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Thanks, but are you actually going to answer any of my points?
You are normally better than petty insults

Insults? You don't really do humour, do you? One might have thought that the little emoticon thingy gave a small clue.

And why should I mention any of your points? I'm not involved in your interrogations of either Syl or Vintage, both of whom are perfectly capable of (a) answering for themselves and (b) dealing effectively with your posts.

Wow, so you only jumped into actually take the piss out of me and now when i actually ask you to engage in debate, you act even further like a toddler. I have no problem with you using me as humour. What I would rather is you actually debate the points. Whenj there is a serious debate going on. What you are doing is deflecting the debate and holding a bias towards Vintage and Syl.

For you to claim interrogating, is really childish and shows you hold a bias and some really antiquated sexist stance that they cannot stand up for themselves. As why jump in to this in the first place to distract from the debate with humour and wrongly cast me as if I am interrogating?

Sorry, I easily ridicule bullshit when I see it. Your fake chivalry, is not going to work here

I wasn't just referring to Ann as being bullied but people in general who may make a remark, make a suggestion or question and unwittingly get a s**t storm down on their head by the enraged offended. Even getting sued these days. The bakers, John Cleese who was practically called senile among other things because of what he called a very old friend and had done so for all their working lives, a friend who apparently has a better sense of humour than most people these days.

Oh and i will add just for Fred, I think both vintage and syl are very intelligence and capable of standing their own courner in debates. I certainly dont respect syl as a person, in how she acts. Just as she does not of me, but have always respect vintage. I will however always take on both their views and do not dislike either person.

So Fred, i would rather you engage in the debate and offer your views and not try to poorly make out I am as if comparable to an inquisition, through a view of interrogations. Even more when I have been pressed to answer points myself. All it shows is the poor biased view you hold between posters. I have never claimed either Syl or Vintage are interrogating me.

I am often rightly condemned for being an arse, but frankly, you are being one yourself here

Vintage wrote:I don't feel its absurd, we don't know, its probably unlikely I agree but we can't close down the possibility it would be discriminatory.
Of course we challenge actions or encouragement of the things society deems to be wrong but I don't see any advocatating of actions against homosexuals in what Ann has said, speculation only.
Anyone can have a different view and express it, even about homosexuality and people can disagree  and we are free to challenge the view but unless someone is suggesting action against individuals whether violence or discrimination maybe they should be left to their own devices.
Ann isn't the only person to have voted against all the laws and repeal
I'm sure. I just don't happen to like the bullying that happens if someone dares to question or comment on almost anything these days from homosexuality to immigration to cultural misappropriation.

can't really argue with that one vin

my dad is very 'homophobic'. he is totally baffled by it and thinks it's all gross. i've often said, ''how does two blokes or two women loving each other affect YOUR life in any way?''. he can't answer that but still thinks it's all gross anyway and no amount of logic or compassionate argument is going to ever change his mind on that one to be sure.

i agree that old fashioned views, ignorance etc does not in any way equal hatred or a wish for harm on anyone.

let folk just have their own views, whatever they are

Vintage wrote:I wasn't just referring to Ann as being bullied but people in general who may make a remark, make a suggestion or question and unwittingly get a s**t storm down on their head by the enraged offended. Even getting sued these days.  The bakers, John Cleese who was practically called senile among other things  because of what he called a very old friend and had done so for all their working lives, a friend who apparently has a better sense of humour than most people these days.

This is not just a case of being offended though is it Vintage?

This actually effects the lives of homosexuals, who are pushed into believeing they are not accepted by society. To the view, they then end up beliving, they are some how wrong to be who they are, simple gay.

Any abuse is always wrong, but is not said views to want to convert only homosexuals, also abuse?

You are trying to distort away from the points of the debate. I think any hate towards ann is wrong, but she has no protection and never should have for being condemned for said poor views. Which are only ever directed by her beliefs. I mean would you ever back a MP women and Muslim making poor beliefs, defending FGM? The answer is no and you would join me in condemning them.

Its up to people what they believe, but when they are politicians, their views are positions are open to criticism and ridicule.

This is not even a case like John Cleese where his words have been taken out of context. There is a clear context on what she believes here and again. She holds no view to look to cure hetrosexuality.

gelico wrote:

Vintage wrote:I don't feel its absurd, we don't know, its probably unlikely I agree but we can't close down the possibility it would be discriminatory.
Of course we challenge actions or encouragement of the things society deems to be wrong but I don't see any advocatating of actions against homosexuals in what Ann has said, speculation only.
Anyone can have a different view and express it, even about homosexuality and people can disagree  and we are free to challenge the view but unless someone is suggesting action against individuals whether violence or discrimination maybe they should be left to their own devices.
Ann isn't the only person to have voted against all the laws and repeal
I'm sure. I just don't happen to like the bullying that happens if someone dares to question or comment on almost anything these days from homosexuality to immigration to cultural misappropriation.

can't really argue with that one vin

my dad is very 'homophobic'.  he is totally baffled by it and thinks it's all gross.  i've often said, ''how does two blokes or two women loving each other affect YOUR life in any way?''.  he can't answer that but still thinks it's all gross anyway and no amount of logic or compassionate argument is going to ever change his mind on that one to be sure.

i agree that old fashioned views, ignorance etc does not in any way equal hatred or a wish for harm on anyone.

let folk just have their own views, whatever they are

But who is stopping them gelico?

Nobody

My mother is also the same, yet if they are outspoken on this, it works both ways, to be outspoken on their views

So nobody is stopping their views, but this is different. This is expressing a view to back to convert only homosexuals to being hetrosexual. You are not seeing the same person advocate converting hetrosexuals to homosexuals, are you based on the same position?
The reason?
Because nobody is made to feel wrong being hetrosexual

To be fair Ann is not just against 'homosexual' situations but also against some situations of heterosexuals, she has a faith and sticks to her principals.
It is very difficult for some usually older generations and those of faith to come to terms with it all.

phildidge wrote:Oh and i will add just for Fred, I think both vintage and syl are very intelligence and capable of standing their own courner in debates. I certainly dont respect syl as a person, in how she acts. Just as she does not of me, but have always respect vintage. I will however always take on both their views and do not dislike either person.

So Fred, i would rather you engage in the debate and offer your views and not try to poorly make out I am as if comparable to an inquisition, through a view of interrogations. Even more when I have been pressed to answer points myself. All it shows is the poor biased view you hold between posters. I have never claimed either Syl or Vintage are interrogating me.

I am often rightly condemned for being an arse, but frankly, you are being one yourself here

Did you have a lower frontal lobectomy during your recent absence, perchance? I ask only because that is where the ability to appreciate humour is located according to some research results that I read recently.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

phildidge wrote:Oh and i will add just for Fred, I think both vintage and syl are very intelligence and capable of standing their own courner in debates. I certainly dont respect syl as a person, in how she acts. Just as she does not of me, but have always respect vintage. I will however always take on both their views and do not dislike either person.

So Fred, i would rather you engage in the debate and offer your views and not try to poorly make out I am as if comparable to an inquisition, through a view of interrogations. Even more when I have been pressed to answer points myself. All it shows is the poor biased view you hold between posters. I have never claimed either Syl or Vintage are interrogating me.

I am often rightly condemned for being an arse, but frankly, you are being one yourself here

Did you have a lower frontal lobectomy during your recent absence, perchance? I ask only because that is where the ability to appreciate humour is located according to some research results that I read recently.

I dont appreacite your bias bullshit distractions. Happy to appreacite humour and actually waiting to see this. Unless you think i have to be a drone and find what you find funny?
How is claiming i am interrogating two intelligent posters, humour?

Stop the bullshit Fred, its not working

Vintage wrote:To be fair Ann is not just against 'homosexual' situations but also against some situations of heterosexuals, she has a faith and sticks to her principals.
It is very difficult for some usually older generations and those of faith to come to terms with it all.

That makes very little difference, as her faith is homophobic
Islam is 1400years old, is that now an excuse for the views of ISIS?
They also stick to their prciniples on this
So I am sorry, the really poor argument based on age simple does not cut it. What is even more insulting to people like Ann, is saying that people based on later age are not open to change. Its basically excusing poor beliefs.
Age should never be an excuse for why people cannot change, sorry Vintage, that is a poor excuse

Gelico, your father finds it hard to come to terms with something he's probably been conditioned to believe is wrong all his life, it's seriously hard to change views in some people, as long as he doesn't go out of his way to insult or hurt someone, I don't think its such a huge problem.
Laws can be changed overnight as it were but many people take a lot longer if at all to change their views. I know a few elderly people (don't know how old your dad is) who are completely flummoxed by homosexuality and by some heterosexuals behaviour as well, some of course are well aware and either just accept or are totally opposed. Time is the factor I suppose one day people will be astonished that there was any difference seen in various kinds of relationships.
Sorry waffling now I'll shut up.

Interrogating? That's a bit arrogant don't you think? Are you channelling Herr Flick?

I don't think Ann goes around beheading people Didge.

Vintage wrote:Gelico, your father finds it hard to come to terms with something he's probably been conditioned to believe is wrong all his life, it's seriously hard to change views in some people, as long as he doesn't go out of his way to insult or hurt someone, I don't think its such a huge problem.
Laws can be changed overnight as it were but many people take a lot longer if at all to change their views. I know a few elderly people (don't know how old your dad is) who are completely flummoxed by homosexuality and by some heterosexuals behaviour as well, some of course are well aware and either just accept or are totally opposed. Time is the factor I suppose one day people will be astonished that there was any difference seen in various kinds of relationships.
Sorry waffling now I'll shut up.  

But is that not saying and provioding an excuse for people who hold extremist beliefs Vintage?
When they have been conditioned something is wrong. That they then think its okay to enslave and rape young girls based on religious beliefs?

The only thing that matters here is the well being of people and a view to convert people simple because of them being homosexual. Based on religious beliefs thinking homosexual is wrong. Is not based on reason or the well being of people. Its based on the individuals belief aqnd not the person who is homosexual.

Two people in love and are homosexual does not effect anyone. The view to think some want to change only stems from people who oppose them being who they are, based on poor religious beliefs. So I am sorry, I dont hold the view that beecause someone has been indoctrinated, this excuses their poor beliefs, when it does effect the well being of others. Its like age is being excused to actually allow bigotry. I am sorry, but that is wrong

It took many years to help many young German children who were indoctrinated with hate, to help them see what they believed was wrong. In fact its one of the few areas where the Soviets were actually kind. They were hateful and abusive to many german women, but they actually cared for young german children and even refrained from killing those armed. This never excuses what they did and what trhe nazis did in this war that abused the human rights of people

So I am sorry, saying people being conditioned growing up and that they are unwilling to change, based on age, is utterly the worst excuse. Its saying, that there is actually a mental health issue with age and that people cannot make sound decisions as older.

People need to stop making poor excuses here. If people hold views, that is up to them, nobody is stopping them, but to come oyt with what I have seen here to exuse this, is appalling. The view to convert only homosexuals, comes only from a posotion of dislike of homosexuals. I will never be afraid of offending my mother, when she spouts discriminating views against homosexuals. By saying she is being hateful by doing so. As respect works both ways and she is not in any way showing respect to people based on them being gay

Vintage wrote:Interrogating? That's a bit arrogant don't you think? Are you channelling Herr Flick?

Maybe you should ask Fred that, as it was his view

Vintage wrote:I don't think Ann goes around beheading people Didge.

Well give it a hundred years or more in the past I bet she would have.

Now she tries the next best thing. How to claim its still wrong and cure what she sees as something that needs to be cured.

Vintage wrote:Gelico, your father finds it hard to come to terms with something he's probably been conditioned to believe is wrong all his life, it's seriously hard to change views in some people, as long as he doesn't go out of his way to insult or hurt someone, I don't think its such a huge problem.
Laws can be changed overnight as it were but many people take a lot longer if at all to change their views. I know a few elderly people (don't know how old your dad is) who are completely flummoxed by homosexuality and by some heterosexuals behaviour as well, some of course are well aware and either just accept or are totally opposed. Time is the factor I suppose one day people will be astonished that there was any difference seen in various kinds of relationships.
Sorry waffling now I'll shut up.  

I think you summed it up very well.

My sister is a lesbian. My grandmother “accepted “ it but wasn’t happy about it. But she kept her opinions to herself although my sister knew. She never stopped loving my sister though and grew to love her partner (now wife). Both she and my grandfather were religious. After she died my sister got married(4 Times thanks to California changing their laws) and my grandfather happy came to the wedding. He changed his views and saw that what was important was love. Interestingly my father who is a born again Christian was much more accepting and easy going when my sister came out than my mother who is much more liberal in all things. She really struggled with it. Strange isn’t it?

Have a good day people. I’m off to Library world x

Cass wrote:

Vintage wrote:Gelico, your father finds it hard to come to terms with something he's probably been conditioned to believe is wrong all his life, it's seriously hard to change views in some people, as long as he doesn't go out of his way to insult or hurt someone, I don't think its such a huge problem.
Laws can be changed overnight as it were but many people take a lot longer if at all to change their views. I know a few elderly people (don't know how old your dad is) who are completely flummoxed by homosexuality and by some heterosexuals behaviour as well, some of course are well aware and either just accept or are totally opposed. Time is the factor I suppose one day people will be astonished that there was any difference seen in various kinds of relationships.
Sorry waffling now I'll shut up.  

I think you summed it up very well.

My sister is a lesbian. My grandmother “accepted “ it but wasn’t happy about it. But she kept her opinions to herself although my sister knew. She never stopped loving my sister though and grew to love her partner (now wife). Both she and my grandfather were religious. After she died my sister got married(4 Times thanks to California changing their laws) and my grandfather happy came to the wedding. He changed his views and saw that what was important was love. Interestingly my father who is a born again Christian was much more accepting and easy going when my sister came out than my mother who is much more liberal in all things. She really struggled with it. Strange isn’t it?

Have a good day people. I’m off to Library world x

Which shows people can and do change. But playing off how people in the past thought, is still not an excuse to promote a view to change the sexuality of a homosexual. You are going off how some family have felt. Of which I have seen in my family and I have zero sympathy for any who continue to hold poor views. Some of which are IRA supporters. So I am sorry, poor views helpd by people are not an excuse based on age or how peoplw were brought up. I was brought up with this hateful religious crap and changed. Just as anyone else can do so and i am happy that the grandfather did. Though to me, for people to excuse this as from how they were brought up is basically making excuses for bigotry on age.

Sorry me lady, I dont have an ounce of sympathy. I have seen the very hate passed down by generations and its never going to cut with me

An individual expressing her dislike of something is totally different to a group like Isis or rape gangs or brainwashing thousands.
If people have views that we find desire to demonise them distasteful if they aren't actively discriminating or hurting another person I don't get them, if you end up forcing people to accept what is unacceptable to them individually isn't that just like brainwashing entire generations.

If Anne Widdecombe had said homosexuality is a sin (and I am talking about her remarks that are in the news now, not what she has or has not said in the past)  of course there would be no question that her words were homophobic.
She didn't say that, her comments were that in the future maybe science could help people who are unhappy, confused and dissatisfied with their sexuality.
No matter how ridiculous that may be, those remarks do not smack of homophobia to me.

What is more telling about society and how it seems to be back peddling, is the quest to stop free speech. Another theatre has cancelled her appearance, jumping on the band waggon to shut her down.
It would be more understandable if she had planned to talk about her opinions on sexuality, but she hadn't.

What is also questionable is WHY people are suddenly up in arms about comments she made seven years ago....wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that the BREXIT party did very well thank you in the recent elections?

phildidge wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Did you have a lower frontal lobectomy during your recent absence, perchance? I ask only because that is where the ability to appreciate humour is located according to some research results that I read recently.

I dont appreacite your bias bullshit distractions. Happy to appreacite humour and actually waiting to see this. Unless you think i have to be a drone and find what you find funny?
How is claiming i am interrogating two intelligent posters, humour?

Stop the bullshit Fred, its not working

I'll take that as a"yes", then......

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:If a gay person came out and said he wished he was straight, he wanted a family, from being a child he had dreamed of  living the life of a family man, with a wife and 2.4 kids.....and not because of outside pressure but because he hated the fact he was attracted to men not women, and because of this he could never fulfil his dream....would that make him homophobic?

Why would he wish he was straight?
A gay man can have children and there is nothing stopping him having children.
So if he is not attracted to women, why would he want to have a female wife?
It shows your view makes absolutelky no sense and shows you have no comprehension of attraction.
I mean seriously, why would someone want to mary a woman, when they know they attracted to men and never be attracted to that woman, sexually or phsycically and can still get married and have kids?
What I find really disgusting with this view point is some think that gay people cannot have families themselves, as if this is a barrier to then why some would convert. Its complete idiocy at its best and not thought out
What I am seeing here is hetrosexual people trying to say and understand the mind of a homosexual
So lets reverse this. Does anyone know anyone that wants to convert from hetrosexuality to being gay?

You say the most ridiculous things sometimes.  

Vintage wrote:An individual expressing her dislike of something is totally different to a group like Isis or rape gangs or brainwashing thousands.
If people have views that we find desire to demonise them distasteful if they aren't actively discriminating or hurting another person I don't get them, if you end up forcing people to accept what is unacceptable to them individually isn't that just like brainwashing entire generations.  

Really?
Where do you think dislike leads to?
Have you not seen of late even trump supporters being attacked?
To then say that a view to convert people who are homosexual and not a view to convert hetrosexual is not discriminating. Then I am sorry Vintage. You have lost the moral ethical argument here, Because in every single era of history where people have argued against something that effects the well being of people. It has always led to violence and persecution against people. That is what you fail to grasp.

I mean do you really think Hitler openly spouting dislike against jews, did not then lead to the extermination of 6 million Jews?

I will repeat again. Nobody is against people having views. This is however someone who is now an MEP,. who thinks, its best to find a cure one day for homosexuals. This is actually going to effect people who are homosexual.

If you think views held by people dont lead to the perscuetion of people, then you are utterly naive Vintage. When people hold and form a consensus in a society, then it does become very dangereoeus.

You miss the point yet again. She has every right to hold her views, bhut what you seem to fail to grasp, is people have every right to condemn her views

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Why would he wish he was straight?
A gay man can have children and there is nothing stopping him having children.
So if he is not attracted to women, why would he want to have a female wife?
It shows your view makes absolutelky no sense and shows you have no comprehension of attraction.
I mean seriously, why would someone want to mary a woman, when they know they attracted to men and never be attracted to that woman, sexually or phsycically and can still get married and have kids?
What I find really disgusting with this view point is some think that gay people cannot have families themselves, as if this is a barrier to then why some would convert. Its complete idiocy at its best and not thought out
What I am seeing here is hetrosexual people trying to say and understand the mind of a homosexual
So lets reverse this. Does anyone know anyone that wants to convert from hetrosexuality to being gay?

You say the most ridiculous things sometimes.  

Okay, what do you think ridiculous about the above?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I dont appreacite your bias bullshit distractions. Happy to appreacite humour and actually waiting to see this. Unless you think i have to be a drone and find what you find funny?
How is claiming i am interrogating two intelligent posters, humour?

Stop the bullshit Fred, its not working

I'll take that as a"yes", then......

Maybe its an age thing, I simple dont find you funny.

Even more so when you try to worm your way out of the bullshit claims to saying I interrogated two posters.

That was super infalted bullshit if ever I saw it

That is not funny, its pure playgroud tactics

Think about it Didge, there is me...married for decades, still in love, loved and attracted to the same man, lived a full life before that, mixing and LISTENING to people in every walk of life talking about their own lives.

As opposed to thinking the height of sexual attraction and fulfilment is giving total strangers a free porn show on top of the  local double decker.. and appearing to drink alone regularly then post absolute shite on a forum as the best way to get fulfilment.

Does that answer your question, or shall we get back to NOT talking personally about posters?

Oh do grow up, you can't make people accept everything all the time, unless you are advocating brainwashing and 1984 tactics.
Anyway by the way you are desperately bringing up all kinds of unrelated diversions you've got nothing more to say, you've lost the argument.
I certainly don't come here to be interrogated by anyone, you are getting lost in your ego again, I'm off to wipe up some culinary delights, back later.

Posts are now getting crossed and once more Didge has managed to piss several people off.....same old same old.

Vintage wrote:Oh do grow up, you can't make people accept everything all the time, unless you are advocating brainwashing and 1984 tactics.
Anyway by the way you are desperately bringing up all kinds of unrelated diversions you've got nothing more to say, you've lost the argument.
I certainly don't come here to be interrogated by anyone, you are getting lost in your ego again, I'm off to wipe up some culinary delights, back later.

Grow up?

Not once did I advocate brainwashing people. I have seen how that does happen, with hate, when it comes to the Nazi's and Communism

Are you going to cvlaim to me next, those that still believe in these hateful beliefs and murdered people based on age, that I should give them consideration?

I never was personalwith you Vintage and now you are being with me and you ask me to grow up

wow

Syl wrote:Think about it Didge, there is me...married for decades, still in love, loved and attracted to the same man, lived a full life before that, mixing and LISTENING to people in every walk of life talking about their own  lives.

As opposed to thinking the height of sexual attraction and fulfilment is giving total strangers a free porn show on top of the  local double decker.. and appearing to drink alone regularly then post absolute shite on a forum as the best way to get fulfilment.

Does that answer your question, or shall we get back to NOT talking personally about posters?

Not really, as you have never been a homosexual and had people think you need to be cured

Your love and effection with your husband does not effect anyone else does it?

The view of some people to think they can cure only homosexuals, does effect people

So I dont think you are listening at all here

Seems to me, Vintage and Fred think that questioning peoples views is now changed to a form of something wrong and seen as interrogating. Which I only see as a piss poor excuse to deflect when someone has made a really piss por argument and become emotional and i would know this being as I have become more emotional than many on debates

Soory Vintage when you go down that road, to attack me, when no such view was made on you, then you have conceeded the debate as you have allowed emotions to get the better of you. End of story, I am shocked you posted that, as you are not normally like that. Hey ho

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:Think about it Didge, there is me...married for decades, still in love, loved and attracted to the same man, lived a full life before that, mixing and LISTENING to people in every walk of life talking about their own  lives.

As opposed to thinking the height of sexual attraction and fulfilment is giving total strangers a free porn show on top of the  local double decker.. and appearing to drink alone regularly then post absolute shite on a forum as the best way to get fulfilment.

Does that answer your question, or shall we get back to NOT talking personally about posters?

Not really, as you have never been a homosexual and had people think you need to be cured

Your love and effection with your husband does not effect anyone else does it?

The view of some people to think they can cure only homosexuals, does effect people

So I dont think you are listening at all here

YOU are not listening, but then you never do.
Everyone who has loved knows exactly what attraction means on account of they have experienced it.
You throw in the most ridiculous personal comments everytime you debate when people dont agree with you....if you dont want a few home truths back.... dont do it.

You talk as if every homosexual feels the same about their sexuality.
I should imagine they have as many hang ups as the average straight person.
I am straight, but I dont presume I could speak for every straight woman...that would be ridiculous...right?
Whether you are gay/straight or God knows what, you can only speak for yourself.