Too many homosexuals in our parliament

First topic message reminder :


English Democrats back 'too many gay MPs' comments candidate


A candidate for the European elections has said there are "far too many" gay people in Parliament.
Julia Gasper, of the English Democrats, said there seemed to be "hundreds of them, all in important positions and giving each other favours".
The candidate, from Oxfordshire, and is standing in South East England, called this a "violation of democracy".
The party backed Dr Gasper, saying she was expressing a personal opinion but was "factually correct".
English Democrats spokesman and fellow European election candidate Steve Uncles said she held a traditional and Christian view.
'Corruption'He said: "I don't think people should be persecuted for their sexuality in any way but I think what we want is a certain amount of subtleness about things and a certain amount of discreteness."
Dr Gasper, from Headington, was formerly a parliamentary candidate for the UK Independence Party.
She wrote a paper accusing Gay History Month organisers of exaggerating the level of persecution of gay people in the Holocaust. She said their message was: "Move over, Anne Frank, we are the real victims."
Last month Dr Gasper wrote on her blog: "Thank goodness we still have some newspapers that are prepared to expose the rot inside our Parliament and the extent of the corruption. There are far too many homosexuals in Parliament."
She added: "They are only 1.5% of the population, a proportion that justifies about 10 MPs in total, yet there seem to be hundreds of them, all in important positions and giving each other favours. That is a violation of democracy."
Commenting on the resignation of the chief executive of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, who was criticised for his views on same-sex marriage, she wrote: "Homo fascism is a threat to fundamental human rights."
Mr Uncles told BBC Radio 4's PM: "That is Julia Gasper's personal opinion and actually she's factually correct - as a proportion the amount of people who identify themselves as gay is probably less than 1% of the population."
There was a greater proportion of homosexuals in the House of Commons, he added.
There should be equal rights for all, Mr Uncles argued, not special rights for minorities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27242561

The difference is Twonky is that concerns about lack of female and black representation are often linked with people from those groups being held back on the grounds of their race or gender; so the comparison is not there to be made. If anything it is sign of how much progress has been made in the area of gay equality that a person can be elected an MP where in the past sexuality may have been played against them.

Once again, a person being gay is just one aspect of that person as is not the defining part of that person, so is irrelevant to them being an MP. There is no collective agenda, since gay people are not a collective mind- so stop prattling on about aggressive agendas of people who love certain people and get a life.

Eilzel wrote:The difference is Twonky is that concerns about lack of female and black representation are often linked with people from those groups being held back on the grounds of their race or gender; so the comparison is not there to be made. If anything it is sign of how much progress has been made in the area of gay equality that a person can be elected an MO where in the past sexuality may have been played against them.

Once again, a person being gay is just one aspect of that person as is not the defining part of that person, so is irrelevant to them being an MP. There is no collective agenda, since gay people are not a collective mond- so stop prattling on about aggressive agendas of people who love certain people and get a life.

Hi Les, nicely put x

feelthelove wrote:

Eilzel wrote:The difference is Twonky is that concerns about lack of female and black representation are often linked with people from those groups being held back on the grounds of their race or gender; so the comparison is not there to be made. If anything it is sign of how much progress has been made in the area of gay equality that a person can be elected an MO where in the past sexuality may have been played against them.

Once again, a person being gay is just one aspect of that person as is not the defining part of that person, so is irrelevant to them being an MP. There is no collective agenda, since gay people are not a collective mond- so stop prattling on about aggressive agendas of people who love certain people and get a life.

Hi Les, nicely put x

Thanks FtL x

Hey, this reminded me of this brilliant Two Ronnies sketch:

BigAndy9 wrote:Hey, this reminded me of this brilliant Two Ronnies sketch:

Enough to make you want to be arrested hey Andy???!

Tommy Monk wrote:You lefties are all in favour of quotas and targets, quick to say too many white men, not enough black/asian etc, not enough women, how we need ud have parliament being a more accurate reflection of the people it represents.



So why is it ok for the gay group to be So hugely over represented when it is so unreflective of the voting public?




More hypocrisy from the left.....!

Where is your evidence gay people are over-represented in Parliament?

People vote for who has been selected to stand, and it seems that there are too many homosexuals being selected, so maybe there should start being no gay short lists to try to bring parliament into being more reflective of the electorate.
And yes it does matter when things like gay marriage and the rest of the pro gay agenda is being pushed through by a house that has a disproportionate amount of gays.
Sassy was moaning earlier about too many public school types in there because they were pushing through stuff for the benefit of other public school types.
So what is the difference here?

No difference Tommy, most MP's will allways vote for something that directly affects THEM.

Lovedust, read the OP, and further down I PUT some links to a handful of articles about gay MPs, and I can think of a few more too!
But the number is much higher.
While maybe only 0.5-1% of population might be gay. That equates to about 4-7 who should be MPs.
If you lefties on one hand say that you need more women this and more blacks and asians that, but when it is pointed out the over representation of gays in parliament, your tune then changes to 'it doesn't matter, it's all just about the best person for the job'.
Hypocrisy!

"IT seems there are too many homosexuals being selected..."

Where is your evidence "too many homosexuals" are being selected?

So Nicko, you are agreeing that the massive number of gay MPs will be having a disproportionate large voice when gay issues are being voted on, and will be voting in their own interests?

Lovedust, the overwhelming majority of MPs are either lib lab or con, they can't stand in an election unless they have been selected by the party.




This reminds me when Harriet harmam was equalitgdp minister and was banging on about how there should be all women short lists to boost the numbers of women to reflect the electorate. Then when this was going to be applied to her husband jack droney's seat, she suddenly became against the idea....!


The hypocrisy of the left!

Tommy Monk wrote:So Nicko, you are agreeing that the massive number of gay MPs will be having a disproportionate large voice when gay issues are being voted on, and will be voting in their own interests?

2 points.

1. There is still a vastly larger number of straight MPs and most of them also vote in support of gay equality issues; oh, and aside from Marriage, what exactly have the 'aggressive homosexual MPs' actually done to 'push their agenda'? Be specific.

2. What you should actually be interested in, is if the number of overall candidates is proportional or not; otherwise you are being enormously anti-democratic.

Tommy Monk wrote:So Nicko, you are agreeing that the massive number of gay MPs will be having a disproportionate large voice when gay issues are being voted on, and will be voting in their own interests?

And apart from Marriage, what else has been part of the 'aggressive homosexual agenda' in the last 4 years?

Lot more gays involved going back longer than 4 years.

Tommy Monk wrote:Lot more gays involved going back longer than 4 years.

Yes; but surely you aren't saying that NOW this 'aggressive agenda' still continues are you? Since you are talking about gay MPs in parliament NOW.

If it does; WHERE?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not talking shit here.

Gay MPs is not a new thing, openly gay however is a different thing.


Look at the path of homosexuality going from illegal to legal then progressively launched up status to civil partnership to now gay marriage, with the increasing pressure continuing on churches, with the help of all the gay vicars and clergy making it more and more likely,, next it'll be demands for children through adoption as we are already seeing.


Don't you think that an overly large number of gays in parliament have been pushing these things for years?

Tommy Monk wrote:Gay MPs is not a new thing, openly gay however is a different thing.


Look at the path of homosexuality going from illegal to legal then progressively launched up status to civil partnership to now gay marriage, with the increasing pressure continuing on churches, with the help of all the gay vicars and clergy making it more and more likely,, next it'll be demands for children through adoption as we are already seeing.


Don't you think that an overly large number of gays in parliament have been pushing these things for years?

What i found disturbing, after watching recent programs on TV about adoption, it would seem that they only place kids with gay parents as a last resort.   

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Lot more gays involved going back longer than 4 years.

Yes; but surely you aren't saying that NOW this 'aggressive agenda' still continues are you? Since you are talking about gay MPs in parliament NOW.

If it does; WHERE?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not talking shit here.

Benefit?

I think we know the answer to that mate

  

Catman wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Gay MPs is not a new thing, openly gay however is a different thing.
Look at the path of homosexuality going from illegal to legal then progressively launched up status to civil partnership to now gay marriage, with the increasing pressure continuing on churches, with the help of all the gay vicars and clergy making it more and more likely,, next it'll be demands for children through adoption as we are already seeing.
Don't you think that an overly large number of gays in parliament have been pushing these things for years?

What i found disturbing, after watching recent programs on TV about adoption, it would seem that they only place kids with gay parents as a last resort.   

What I find disturbing is that children would ever be placed with gays at all!


Purposefully denying a child of a mother and a father, and placing it in an unnatural environment, where is the equality for the child?

Or consideration for the potential damage that may result from being forced into such mixed up environments?

You ignore the many gay parent families that get by just fine matti; get over it and get a life you miserable old fart.

And none of those things you mentioned are an 'aggressive agend' but a relatively small few issues which achieved nothing more than equality.

You seem to have an awfully depressing problem with people loving the people they love; you miserable, bitter old fart.

Eilzel wrote:You ignore the many gay parent families that get by just fine matti; get over it and get a life you miserable old fart.
And none of those things you mentioned are an 'aggressive agend' but a relatively small few issues which achieved nothing more than equality.
You seem to have an awfully depressing problem with people loving the people they love; you miserable, bitter old fart.

Sounds like you're agreeing with me, admitting the influence suggested, but now trying to rebrand the process of aggressive pro gay agenda to just achieving equality.....!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:You ignore the many gay parent families that get by just fine matti; get over it and get a life you miserable old fart.
And none of those things you mentioned are an 'aggressive agend' but a relatively small few issues which achieved nothing more than equality.
You seem to have an awfully depressing problem with people loving the people they love; you miserable, bitter old fart.

Sounds like you're agreeing with me, admitting the influence suggested, but now trying to rebrand the process of aggressive pro gay agenda to just achieving equality.....!

Are you a gay who is still in the closet Tommy? You seem obsessed and unable to get away from the subject, rather indicative of someone trying to repress his inner feelings.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:You ignore the many gay parent families that get by just fine matti; get over it and get a life you miserable old fart.
And none of those things you mentioned are an 'aggressive agend' but a relatively small few issues which achieved nothing more than equality.
You seem to have an awfully depressing problem with people loving the people they love; you miserable, bitter old fart.

Sounds like you're agreeing with me, admitting the influence suggested, but now trying to rebrand the process of aggressive pro gay agenda to just achieving equality.....!

Because the things you suggested are not aggressive at all; unless you are more of a bitter 'I've got a shit life so I want to shit on everyone else's' no life bastard than I had you down as. How can wanting to get married and be considered equal be aggresive- in anybody's book.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



Sounds like you're agreeing with me, admitting the influence suggested, but now trying to rebrand the process of aggressive pro gay agenda to just achieving equality.....!

Because the things you suggested are not aggressive at all; unless you are more of a bitter 'I've got a shit life so I want to shit on everyone else's' no life bastard than I had you down as. How can wanting to get married and be considered equal be aggresive- in anybody's book.

Oh I think he is!

Not at all Sassy, can't even be bothered with the old 'you don't like gays so you must be a gay' bullshit...!
The subject is always political, with emphasis on showing up leftie hypocrisy!!!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Gay MPs is not a new thing, openly gay however is a different thing.


Look at the path of homosexuality going from illegal to legal then progressively launched up status to civil partnership to now gay marriage, with the increasing pressure continuing on churches, with the help of all the gay vicars and clergy making it more and more likely,, next it'll be demands for children through adoption as we are already seeing.


Don't you think that an overly large number of gays in parliament have been pushing these things for years?

So you're happy enough with gay MP's after all, provided they stay in the closet?

Tommy Monk wrote:Not at all Sassy, can't even be bothered with the old 'you don't like gays so you must be a gay' bullshit...!
The subject is always political, with emphasis on showing up leftie hypocrisy!!!!!

More like, if you have an obsession with gays, there must be an underlying reason for it.   

And Les, the OP suggested an over representation of gays in parliament, this was denied/excused by the lefties.
The leftie argument for more women/blacks/asians/muslems etc needed in parliament because too many old white men etc, and how parliament needs to more accurately reflect the demographic of the electorate is regularly trumpeted and heard loud and clear.
Then they try to bring in 'positive discrimination' to socially engineer or gerrymander the numbers in their chosen groups, the chosen ones will then be elevated under a system of racial/sexual/religious profiling, and the ones chosen to be eliminated will also be purely for the same reasons.
All in the name of equality mind....!
The argument that it is more important to have the best people in there doing the job, and it's discrimination against certain groups fell on deaf ears....
Then when it is pointed out that there are too many gays in parliament and vastly over represented compared to electorate, and that they create a too large voice for their own agenda, and need to be reduced to balance parliament to more accurately reflect the electorate, we hear the lefties start bleating that the sexuality is not important, but it's about having the best person to do the job!!!!!!!!
What a turn around!!!!!
Sheer hypocrisy!!!!!!
Different rules for different people, all in the name of 'equality' mind!!!!!!
Unbelievable!!!
And Les, you started off denying the massive over representation of homosexuals in parliament.
Then you denied the disproportionate influence they would have had in determining policy and votes.
Then you seem to admit that this happened, but it wasn't an aggressive pro gay agenda, but just achieved equality.
Regardless of what the majority of electorate want!
Unbelievable!!!!!

lovedust wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Gay MPs is not a new thing, openly gay however is a different thing.
Look at the path of homosexuality going from illegal to legal then progressively launched up status to civil partnership to now gay marriage, with the increasing pressure continuing on churches, with the help of all the gay vicars and clergy making it more and more likely,, next it'll be demands for children through adoption as we are already seeing.
Don't you think that an overly large number of gays in parliament have been pushing these things for years?

So you're happy enough with gay MP's after all, provided they stay in the closet?

The points I'm raising centre on the existence of the hugely disproportioate number of gay MPs, not on whether they are openly gay or not.


But as a side argument, aren't secretly gay MPs being deliberately misleading, living a lie, and therefore inherently untrustworthy enough to warrant holding a position of trust and honesty???????

lovedust wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Gay MPs is not a new thing, openly gay however is a different thing.


Look at the path of homosexuality going from illegal to legal then progressively launched up status to civil partnership to now gay marriage, with the increasing pressure continuing on churches, with the help of all the gay vicars and clergy making it more and more likely,, next it'll be demands for children through adoption as we are already seeing.


Don't you think that an overly large number of gays in parliament have been pushing these things for years?

So you're happy enough with gay MP's after all, provided they stay in the closet?

So you think they're being underhanded if they stay in the closet and "aggressive" if they come out?

No, I think that they are over represented in parliament, have been for a long time, always with a collective pro gay agenda, in sufficient numbers to unduly influence policy and votes, with an undemocratically large collective voice pursuing their own pro gay agenda which is unrepresentative of the views of and unreflective of the public/electorate at large.


This is a blatant abuse of democracy and parliamentary process.



MPs are supposed to be voicing the views of the electorate, not pursuing their own personal agenda.


I think they have always done this aggressively, although some are more devious by pretending they are not gay at all, and therefore untrustworthy by definition, but both unfit to hold their positions.

So what is MP's are voicing the views of the electorate by backing equal rights for homosexuals matti?

What abuse, people vote on who they like, not sexuality, that is what is so great about Great Brrtain

Tommy Monk wrote:And Les, the OP suggested an over representation of gays in parliament, this was denied/excused by the lefties.
The leftie argument for more women/blacks/asians/muslems etc needed in parliament because too many old white men etc, and how parliament needs to more accurately reflect the demographic of the electorate is regularly trumpeted and heard loud and clear.
Then they try to bring in 'positive discrimination' to socially engineer or gerrymander the numbers in their chosen groups, the chosen ones will then be elevated under a system of racial/sexual/religious profiling, and the ones chosen to be eliminated will also be purely for the same reasons.
All in the name of equality mind....!
The argument that it is more important to have the best people in there doing the job, and it's discrimination against certain groups fell on deaf ears....
Then when it is pointed out that there are too many gays in parliament and vastly over represented compared to electorate, and that they create a too large voice for their own agenda, and need to be reduced to balance parliament to more accurately reflect the electorate, we hear the lefties start bleating that the sexuality is not important, but it's about having the best person to do the job!!!!!!!!
What a turn around!!!!!
Sheer hypocrisy!!!!!!
Different rules for different people, all in the name of 'equality' mind!!!!!!
Unbelievable!!!
And Les, you started off denying the massive over representation of homosexuals in parliament.
Then you denied the disproportionate influence they would have had in determining policy and votes.
Then you seem to admit that this happened, but it wasn't an aggressive pro gay agenda, but just achieved equality.
Regardless of what the majority of electorate want!
Unbelievable!!!!!

1. As I said; the concerns with women and black MPs is that they were being deliberately held back and so preventing a representative number being in parliament- that is why such concerns are always raised- gay MPs are now simply able to work in spite of there being a time they would have probably lost a seat on such grounds; you fail to acknowledge this.

2. I never started off denying over representation at all; I immediately stated in this thread that if there are a disproportionate number of gay MPs then that is a result of the voting public and a result of democratic choice- by the 95%+ of the non-gay voting public   

3. Again there has been no 'aggressive' pro-gay agenda. There has certainly be a few changes which have simply lead to gay people being treated equally- you have been unable to substantiate how this is 'aggressive' especially considering the thousands of bills etc passed through the commons in the past 14 years of which a small handful have had anything to do with gay equality- a heck of a commitment for those gay MPs who 'apparently' according to your paranoid anti-gay little brain, they are only there for one reason (you'd forgive us for thinking it is YOU with an unhealthy, even perverted obsession with peoples sexuality).

4. Speaking for the majority of the electorate again Twonky? In case you didn't notice gay rights have massive support from the majority these days- just relics like you fretting over being left behind, unbelievable!!!  (you see what I did there, used exclamation marks to reflect my incredulity- so effective right?)   

And as has been pointed out TM, legislation such as gay marriage was passed with strong support from the parliamentary straight majority. So even if you managed to limit gay MPs to 6% or whatever percentage of the public is gay, legislation supportive of equal rights for gays would probably be passed just as before?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Well said Tess! This is exactly my point; it has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps parliament is also disproportionately male; Oxbridge educated; Etonian etc etc.

It makes no difference whatsoever.

.

I disagree here.
I don't care about people's sexuality,it has nothing to do with their ability to be an MP.

However I think it DOES matter that there are not enough women MP'S and certainly the fact the MP's are all boarding school upper class is doing this country a dis service.We need more MP's from a working class background to represent the community more accurately.

Totally agree fluffy.

As to the OP, what a load of men's bollocks   

I think you will find that it is mostly those public school boys who are the gays.....




And the OP claims that there are maybe about 1 in 6 in parliament who are gay, compared to maybe 1 in 200 in the general public.



Quite a difference don't you think?



And doesn't it also follow that this hugely over represented group will be using their position, influence on other MPs too as well as their own vote?



We have the lefties saying too many white too many men, not enough women/blacks/asians etc because parliament should reflect the electorate, but when it is pointed out too many gays they start saying that all that matters is the best person to do the job, other factors suddenly not important, and making parliament reflective of the electorate no longer matters.



Hypocrites!

No that doesn't follow at all; you are delusional in your paranoia; it's quite hilarious actually haha

Tommy Monk wrote:I think you will find that it is mostly those public school boys who are the gays.....




And the OP claims that there are maybe about 1 in 6 in parliament who are gay, compared to maybe 1 in 200 in the general public.



Quite a difference don't you think?



And doesn't it also follow that this hugely over represented group will be using their position, influence on other MPs too as well as their own vote?



We have the lefties saying too many white too many men, not enough women/blacks/asians etc because parliament should reflect the electorate, but when it is pointed out too many gays they start saying that all that matters is the best person to do the job, other factors suddenly not important, and making parliament reflective of the electorate no longer matters.



Hypocrites!

One in 200??? Probably more like 1 in 20, maybe more!

Sorry Ben do you know how percentages and basic maths work?


0.5% = 1 in 200.

1%= 1 in 100

100 out of 650 MPs = about 1 in 6





And les, so it's alright to say too many whites, too many men, too many public school, and doesn't reflect the electorate and their groups have too much influence and look after their own interests etc?


But when the same logic is applied to too many gays you have a problem, and it's suddenly about the best person to do the job?????







The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...!!!!

The difference has been explained multiple times; it is not my fault you are unable to comprehend that.

I am still waiting for the evidence 100 have come out to say they are gay?

There is no difference except homosexuals are one of the preferred groups of the left...!



There are many openly gay and many others who aren't dodge!



As I said, it would be of interest to know the exact figure, but the 100 figure has been quoted by 2 different people in OP.

Tommy Monk wrote:There is no difference except homosexuals are one of the preferred groups of the left...!



There are many openly gay and many others who aren't dodge!



As I said, it would be of interest to know the exact figure, but the 100 figure has been quoted by 2 different people in OP.

There is not 100 hundred gay MPs FGS.

And the difference is there you just don't want to see it.

The 100 is quoted in the OP by two different people.




And the only difference is that some are more equal than others....!

Tommy Monk wrote:The 100 is quoted in the OP by two different people.




And the only difference is that some are more equal than others....!

That is called hearsay

Name them which you must be able to do if so many are homosexual?

Take your time

How do I name the ones who are secretly gay?

Tommy Monk wrote:The 100 is quoted in the OP by two different people.




And the only difference is that some are more equal than others....!

What a load of rubbish.   

Tommy Monk wrote:How do I name the ones who are secretly gay?

So basically you are guessing, hilarious.

So you have no evidence even for your absurd claim, let alone every other factor pointed out to you that you have ignored.

The 100 figure is quoted by two different people in OP.