Too many homosexuals in our parliament

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 2:05 pm

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

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 8:02 pm

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

The figure is quoted by to anti homosexuals, who offer no evidence for their claim.

So again you are not even able to back up their claim

by Tommy Monk Sun May 04, 2014 8:30 pm

I'm quoting their claim.

It's easy to name the openly gay MPs, and I have named some already and shown links to wide homosexuality in one of the parliament bars.

Please tell us how I can name the secretly gay MPs?

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 8:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm quoting their claim.

It's easy to name the openly gay MPs, and I have named some already and shown links to wide homosexuality in one of the parliament bars.

Please tell us how I can name the secretly gay MPs?

So you don't know whether they are "too many" or not given you can't name "them".

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 8:50 pm

lovedust wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I'm quoting their claim.

It's easy to name the openly gay MPs, and I have named some already and shown links to wide homosexuality in one of the parliament bars.

Please tell us how I can name the secretly gay MPs?

So you don't know whether they are "too many" or not given you can't name "them".

Good grief Lovey, what are we going to do, there are all these 'straight' people who are MPS, pushing a 'straight' agenda!!!!!!! Life as we know it is going to end.

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 8:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm quoting their claim.

It's easy to name the openly gay MPs, and I have named some already and shown links to wide homosexuality in one of the parliament bars.

Please tell us how I can name the secretly gay MPs?

So you cannot name a 100 and going off the back of a claim from two known anti-homosexuals who themselves cannot back their claim.

Did you just see that pig fly past Matti

lol!

by Eilzel Sun May 04, 2014 9:14 pm

Sassy wrote:
lovedust wrote:

So you don't know whether they are "too many" or not given you can't name "them".

Good grief Lovey, what are we going to do, there are all these 'straight' people who are MPS, pushing a 'straight' agenda!!!!!!! Life as we know it is going to end.

Very good point Sass- but Twonky will miss that obviously in his typically nonsensical non-argument Wink

by Tommy Monk Sun May 04, 2014 9:17 pm

The OP claims about 100, that is about 1 in 6.
I have named a few already, and I could name a load more.
Do you know how many there actually are?
If not, how can you be so sure the claim of 100 is wrong?

by Tommy Monk Sun May 04, 2014 9:21 pm

Funny thing is, it is you lefties who complain about there being too many whites, too many men, too old, not enough blacks/asians or women.

You claim it is important to have a parliament that reflects the electorate more accurately.

But then when it is pointed out too many gays, all of a sudde all that is important is they are the best person for the job.

You can't have it anti ways!

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 9:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The OP claims about 100, that is about 1 in 6.
I have named a few already, and I could name a load more.
Do you know how many there actually are?
If not, how can you be so sure the claim of 100 is wrong?

One doesn't really need to "disprove" a claim that's completely unsubstantiated to begin with.

by Tommy Monk Sun May 04, 2014 9:34 pm

Two people in the OP say it is true, can you prove it is not?

Should be easy if it is so unsubstantiated....?

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 9:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Two people in the OP say it is true, can you prove it is not?

Should be easy if it is so unsubstantiated....?

By that logic you may well be secretly homosexual yourself, given you can't disprove it?

I mean, who cares that my claim of your homosexuality is completely unsubstantiated. No smoke without fire, right?

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 9:48 pm

lovedust wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Two people in the OP say it is true, can you prove it is not?

Should be easy if it is so unsubstantiated....?

By that logic you may well be secretly homosexual yourself, given you can't disprove it?

I mean, who cares that my claim of your homosexuality is completely unsubstantiated. No smoke without fire, right?

Definitely, and in this case there is a LOT of smoke!

by Tommy Monk Sun May 04, 2014 11:30 pm

Back to the old leftie logic and the same trick tried earlier to try to silence debate when losing the argument....!

Sassy was moaning earlier that there are too many public school boys in parliament, does that mean she is a public school boy????

Yet still nobody has answered the question...

The lefties are regularly vocal against parliament being unreflective of the electorate saying too many old, white, men, public school types, old Etonians etc. Saying need more young, black/asians, women etc.

The argument that maybe the best people are already doing the job and it doesn't matter age/gender/race/education background etc is dismissed when they are in pursuit of their agenda.

But when it is pointed out that there are a huge number of gays in parliament, perhaps as many as 1 in 6 as claimed in the OP, and the more accurate reflection of the public would mean only about 4-7 in total should be there, the lefties change their argument 180 degrees and start bleating about how this doesn't matter and it's more important that the best people are doing the job!!!!!

I am showing up the hypocrisy of the left, plus the obvious concern that if such an overly large group exists, it will also undoubtedly be having an overly large influence on policy and votes, pursuing their own personal agenda and not properly voicing the opinion of the electorate they are there to represent.

It seems the lefties are happy with an unreflective parliament and potential abuse of democracy after all!!!!!

But of course only if it fits in with their 'progressive' agenda.....!!!

Laughing

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 11:41 pm

And loads more smoke, followed by a sly smile, that fire must be raging.

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 11:50 pm

I'm not wanting to silence you tom. You went quiet for a couple hours - glad you're back.

Now - you reason there must be some truth in the unsubstantiated c laim made in the OP, because noone's disproved it.

By the same logic, I can pluck the completely unsubstantiated claim that you're gay out of the air, and by your logic that claim must be right, since it's impossible to disprove.

Is that correct?

by Tommy Monk Mon May 05, 2014 1:30 am

No, I reason there might be some truth in the claim because it was stated by two politicians and then made it into a news report.

Than since exploring the topic further and the implications, we have established that there definately is an over representation of gays in parliament, although the exact number is unknown.

And the lefties flip flop about on the wider ranging implications about minority groups having 'equal' representation in parliament so as to be reflective of the voting public, which then goes out the window when it is one of their preferred special groups being the ones over represented.

When they argue against too many old/white/men/public school types etc, and it is said that background doesn't matter but more important the best person is doing the job, they don't want to have any of it.

Democracy is championed and equal representation is the only way......

Until it is pointed out that one of their preferred groups is hugely over represented, then all of a sudden, we have in immediate U turn, not only is this strongly denied, but we also hear the previously dismissed argument that background does not matter, but it's more important that the best person is doing the job!!!!!!!!

If that is not a glaring example of leftie hypocrisy, earlier in the thread, while arguing that background doesn't matter Blah Blah etc, Sassy was still saying there were too many ex public school types!!!!!!

Who incidentally are also the ones who are most likely to be the gays!!!!!!!

Unbelievable!!!!!

You couldn't make it up!!!!!

Laughing

So what is it to be lefties?

Is it equal representation?

Or are some groups more equal than others....?????

by Guest Mon May 05, 2014 3:38 am

I'm a homo i didn't tell ya all when i was defense minister though.

by Guest Mon May 05, 2014 5:27 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

No, I reason there might be some truth in the claim because it was stated by two politicians and then made it into a news report.

Than since exploring the topic further and the implications, we have established that there definately is an over representation of gays in parliament, although the exact number is unknown.

And the lefties flip flop about on the wider ranging implications about minority groups having 'equal' representation in parliament so as to be reflective of the voting public, which then goes out the window when it is one of their preferred special groups being the ones over represented.

When they argue against too many old/white/men/public school types etc, and it is said that background doesn't matter but more important the best person is doing the job, they don't want to have any of it.

Democracy is championed and equal representation is the only way......

Until it is pointed out that one of their preferred groups is hugely over represented, then all of a sudden, we have in immediate U turn, not only is this strongly denied, but we also hear the previously dismissed argument that background does not matter, but it's more important that the best person is doing the job!!!!!!!!

If that is not a glaring example of leftie hypocrisy, earlier in the thread, while arguing that background doesn't matter Blah Blah etc, Sassy was still saying there were too many ex public school types!!!!!!

Who incidentally are also the ones who are most likely to be the gays!!!!!!!

Unbelievable!!!!!

You couldn't make it up!!!!!

So what is it to be lefties?

Is it equal representation?

Or are some groups more equal than others....?????

1) Dr Gaspar is a euro parliamentary candidate. S he's never worked in the Commons so can only speculate there are "hundreds" of closeted gays amongst 650 MPs
2) She admits her view is speculation when she says her claim is how things "seem"
3) Neither you nor she are in a position to claim we've "established" there's an "over-representation" of gays in the HoC if neither of you can produce an objective statistic as to how many gay MPs exist.

by Eilzel Mon May 05, 2014 8:56 am

lovedust wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

No, I reason there might be some truth in the claim because it was stated by two politicians and then made it into a news report.

Than since exploring the topic further and the implications, we have established that there definately is an over representation of gays in parliament, although the exact number is unknown.

And the lefties flip flop about on the wider ranging implications about minority groups having 'equal' representation in parliament so as to be reflective of the voting public, which then goes out the window when it is one of their preferred special groups being the ones over represented.

When they argue against too many old/white/men/public school types etc, and it is said that background doesn't matter but more important the best person is doing the job, they don't want to have any of it.

Democracy is championed and equal representation is the only way......

Until it is pointed out that one of their preferred groups is hugely over represented, then all of a sudden, we have in immediate U turn, not only is this strongly denied, but we also hear the previously dismissed argument that background does not matter, but it's more important that the best person is doing the job!!!!!!!!

If that is not a glaring example of leftie hypocrisy, earlier in the thread, while arguing that background doesn't matter Blah Blah etc, Sassy was still saying there were too many ex public school types!!!!!!

Who incidentally are also the ones who are most likely to be the gays!!!!!!!

Unbelievable!!!!!

You couldn't make it up!!!!!

So what is it to be lefties?

Is it equal representation?

Or are some groups more equal than others....?????

1) Dr Gaspar is a euro parliamentary candidate. S he's never worked in the Commons so can only speculate there are "hundreds" of closeted gays amongst 650 MPs
2) She admits her view is speculation when she says her claim is how things "seem"
3) Neither you nor she are in a position to claim we've "established" there's an "over-representation" of gays in the HoC if neither of you can produce an objective statistic as to how many gay MPs exist.

Well said LD Smile

That the OP says 'hundreds' is also plural and implies at least 200 being gay really; this is total rubbish from the English Democrats- who make no mention of how they would approach this situation either.

It is a total non issue- these men and women got voted because they were felt to be the best person for the job (or at least represented the right party in a particular area). And have done nothing but the same as other politicians in parliaments- oh and of course may have helped get through a very few equality measures while there.

by harrymuffin Mon May 05, 2014 9:06 am

"Them"? Why do people insist on talking about Gay people like they're from Mars?

Straight, Gay, Bi-sexual. We're all the same. Straight people don't have to have a "talk" with parents to come out as being straight. You are who you are.

I don't understand this. People love who they love. Accept it.

by Irn Bru Mon May 05, 2014 9:14 am

harrymuffin wrote:"Them"? Why do people insist on talking about Gay people like they're from Mars?

Straight, Gay, Bi-sexual. We're all the same. Straight people don't have to have a "talk" with parents to come out as being straight. You are who you are.

I don't understand this. People love who they love. Accept it.

Summed up perfectly Harry in just a few words as well.

by harrymuffin Mon May 05, 2014 11:30 am

Irn Bru wrote:
harrymuffin wrote:"Them"? Why do people insist on talking about Gay people like they're from Mars?

Straight, Gay, Bi-sexual. We're all the same. Straight people don't have to have a "talk" with parents to come out as being straight. You are who you are.

I don't understand this. People love who they love. Accept it.

Summed up perfectly Harry in just a few words as well.

Not much more that can be said Irn, but I thank you.

by Tommy Monk Mon May 05, 2014 2:29 pm

It was not only Gasper who said it......

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.

If you are going to compliant about too many old/white/men/ex public school etc, and justify this by saying that parliament needs to be reflective of the electorate and that over representation of certain groups might abuse democratic process by following their own agenda, then surely the same has to apply to ALL!

I have already named more than 1%, and I can easily name a load more.

While in total there should only be about 6 maximum!

So what is it to be lefties?

Does parliament have to be reflective of electorate or not?

Why so difficult to answer the question????

by veya_victaous Tue May 06, 2014 5:34 am

I was looking at Memes and this needs to go somewhere

Too many homosexuals in our parliament - Page 4 Gayc

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 7:21 am

Tommy Monk wrote:It was not only Gasper who said it......

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.

If you are going to compliant about too many old/white/men/ex public school etc, and justify this by saying that parliament needs to be reflective of the electorate and that over representation of certain groups might abuse democratic process by following their own agenda, then surely the same has to apply to ALL!

I have already named more than 1%, and I can easily name a load more.

While in total there should only be about 6 maximum!

So what is it to be lefties?

Does parliament have to be reflective of electorate or not?

Why so difficult to answer the question????

The number of the population is 'probably' 1%; most would put the number much higher, upto 5%. But we cannot know. And we don't know how many gay MPs there are, simple as that; but you cannot assert there are 100s (that is plural by the way, not about 100, 100s) without any evidence; the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. Since if someone doesn't tell you otherwise then chances are (almost 100%) that someone is straight.

Parliament reflects the will of the electorate, simple as that. Would you prefer parliament was elected some other way?

by David Tue May 06, 2014 8:10 am

Well said Mr E. I think twonker is trying to wind up very hard cough cough

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 9:19 am

David wrote:Well said Mr E. I think twonker is trying to wind up very hard cough cough

I think so too haha; if he had any good points to make it might even have worked Wink

by Tommy Monk Tue May 06, 2014 1:21 pm

Still no answer to the question.

Just moving the goal posts in trying to claim gays make up 5% of population to try to make the over representation a bit more excusable.

The exact number of gays in parliament is unknown, but it is much larger amount than what would be reflective of The electorate which is probably less than 1%.

I have named more than 6 already that would equate to 1%, and I could name a few more too.

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 1:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Still no answer to the question.

Just moving the goal posts in trying to claim gays make up 5% of population to try to make the over representation a bit more excusable.

The exact number of gays in parliament is unknown, but it is much larger amount than what would be reflective of The electorate which is probably less than 1%.

I have named more than 6 already that would equate to 1%, and I could name a few more too.

Sure you could; but over 100?

'The exact amount is unknown'
'probably less than 1%'

Let's face it you are playing with guesses and are really clueless; so this whole thing is really just a waste of time.

Even if it was 100, it wouldn't matter; since it has made no difference to the running of the country whatsoever.

by Tommy Monk Tue May 06, 2014 1:51 pm

The question is about parliament being reflective of The electorate.

ON one hand they say that there are too many whites, men, ex public school etc, and more blacks, asians women are needed to be fair and reflective of electorate,

Then when it is pointed out too many gays, they are quite happy with the over representation.

You can't have it anti ways!

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 1:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The question is about parliament being reflective of The electorate.

ON one hand they say that there are too many whites, men, ex public school etc, and more blacks, asians women are needed to be fair and reflective of electorate,

Then when it is pointed out too many gays, they are quite happy with the over representation.

You can't have it anti ways!

'anti ways'?

As I said; even if there are more gay people than is reflective then that can only be a sign of how far we've come; there was a time being gay would have prevented you becoming an elected MP.

The same concerns with women and ethnic minorities are raised because of the possibility that people from those groups are 'held back'. The only reason representation is raised therefore is due to the possible problem that would be a lack of equal opportunities. If that clearly wasn't a problem, then the issue would not be raised.

Anyway 'anti ways'?

by Tommy Monk Tue May 06, 2014 2:56 pm

Predictive text, 'both ways'.

So you are unhappy about a group being over represented when it is whites or men or ex public schools but happy for an over representation when it is one of your preferred special groups?

What about the argument that parliament needs to be reflective of The electorate?

Can't you see the hypocrisy?

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 3:13 pm

I have never claimed to be unhappy parliament is unreflective of the population; you assumed that.

I have said the concerns of some are based on the possibility that the lack of representation is due to ethic groups and women being held back- which is different if you actually learned to read.

by Tommy Monk Tue May 06, 2014 3:22 pm

But you are arguing that there should be more of certain types of people and less of others.

The argument that background is irrelevant and its more important that the best people are doing the job is dismissed while pursuing the more of some less of others agenda, justified by saying that parliament needs to be more reflective of The electorate.

Then when it is pointed out one of your favourite groups is actually over represented, You start bleating that background is not important but it's about the best person doing the job.

That my friend, is rank hypocrisy!

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 3:27 pm

If you don't want homosexual MPs then don't vote for homosexual MPs.

by Tommy Monk Tue May 06, 2014 3:33 pm

Bit difficult when there are So many selected to stand by their partys and in safe seats.

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 4:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:But you are arguing that there should be more of certain types of people and less of others.

The argument that background is irrelevant and its more important that the best people are doing the job is dismissed while pursuing the more of some less of others agenda, justified by saying that parliament needs to be more reflective of The electorate.

Then when it is pointed out one of your favourite groups is actually over represented, You start bleating that background is not important but it's about the best person doing the job.

That my friend, is rank hypocrisy!

No, that isn't what I've said; read again.

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 4:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Bit difficult when there are So many selected to stand by their partys and in safe seats.

Wow you just keeping making up more and more don't you Laughing

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 4:49 pm

Samhraí wrote:If you don't want homosexual MPs then don't vote for homosexual MPs.

Exactly, nail on the head

by Tommy Monk Tue May 06, 2014 4:53 pm

How do lib lab con candidates get to stand for election then?

They are selected by their patys.

What bit of that is made up?

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 4:55 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:But you are arguing that there should be more of certain types of people and less of others.

The argument that background is irrelevant and its more important that the best people are doing the job is dismissed while pursuing the more of some less of others agenda, justified by saying that parliament needs to be more reflective of The electorate.

Then when it is pointed out one of your favourite groups is actually over represented, You start bleating that background is not important but it's about the best person doing the job.

That my friend, is rank hypocrisy!

No, that isn't what I've said; read again.

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 4:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:How do lib lab con candidates get to stand for election then?

They are selected by their patys.

What bit of that is made up?

Irrelevant, as is their anything that states what sexuality they have to be that is within the law?

Nope

Again people vote for who they want, something you keep ignoring and what shows you even more even if we are to believe your comical claim to how many are homosexual as MP's it certainly shows the general public do not have an issue whether they are homosexual or not as it does not matter what sexuality they are are.

by Tommy Monk Tue May 06, 2014 5:13 pm

Sorry les, I mean you lefties.

And if you support the view that parliament should be reflective of The electorate, and whites men, public school types etc should be reduced because they are over represented, then surely ANY group who are over represented should be equally addressed?

Is interesting that parliament has passed much of the pro gay agenda in recent years and there is a considerable over representation of gays in parliament.

Coincidence?

Maybe not....!

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 5:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry les, I mean you lefties.

And if you support the view that parliament should be reflective of The electorate, and whites men, public school types etc should be reduced because they are over represented, then surely ANY group who are over represented should be equally addressed?

Is interesting that parliament has passed much of the pro gay agenda in recent years and there is a considerable over representation of gays in parliament.

Coincidence?

Maybe not....!

He is a liberal showing again how woeful you are on Politics, which is ironic as UKIP claim to be a libertarian party which is comical, you and others with low intellect call anyone who disagrees with you as left, is hilarious to say the least, when being left of far right is just right, liberal or left.
Again many straight people would need to vote for equality, of which there has been no policy that gives homosexuals anything other than equality, unless you can provide any?
The saddest part about your arguments Matti is that you would be best suited living in the 11th century

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 5:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry les, I mean you lefties.

And if you support the view that parliament should be reflective of The electorate, and whites men, public school types etc should be reduced because they are over represented, then surely ANY group who are over represented should be equally addressed?

Is interesting that parliament has passed much of the pro gay agenda in recent years and there is a considerable over representation of gays in parliament.

Coincidence?

Maybe not....!

Define recent.

And pro-gay reforms have been occurring for decades in Europe, the USA, South America, Australia, Canada etc- do all of these countries have an 'aggressive gay' number of politicians? And why is it aggressive to back equal rights?

You cannot completely police the face of parliament. I don't care for parliament being forcibly reflective of the population; if it is fine, if it isn't, no matter. The concern is the possible difficulty for women or ethnic minorities getting selected as candidates and likewise privileged position of former public school boys.

by Tommy Monk Tue May 06, 2014 5:46 pm

So there you are les, still advocating more blacks, asians women, and less public school types.

Why does it matter if they are already the best people doing the job?

Answer usually is that the parliament needs to be more reflective of The electorate and there is a danger that the over represented group of ex public school types, will have too large a voice and will be looking after their own interests and the interests of their chums businesses.

So why when it is pointed out that gays are an over represented group, and the same applies that there is a danger that they have too large a voice and may be looking after their own interests, you lefties then try to argue that background is not important and it's all about having the best person for the job?

You can't have it both ways!

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 5:52 pm

So funny this debate, as Matti is arguing off the back of something has not even proven yet let alone understand that people do not vote for an MP based on sexuality.
Women are under represented, based clearly where in society they have and still are within jobs especially, discriminated against reaching the top, thus there is valid view points why they would be stated as under represented. I mean surely Matti can show countless discrimination against men, to back a view why more men should be or the fact we have more men in Parliament?
He cannot even show any view to show anything that is wrong with giving homosexuals equality in the first place. He is arguing we should not have equality for them based on prejudiced views

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 6:01 pm

No matti, that isn't what I said; read again.

by Tommy Monk Tue May 06, 2014 6:09 pm

"The concern is the possible difficulty for women or ethnic minorities getting selected as candidates and likewise privileged position of former public school boys."

Translates to - more blacks, asians, women, less whites, men, public school types.

Why?

If the best people are already doing the job, why try to change it?

by Eilzel Tue May 06, 2014 6:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:"The concern is the possible difficulty for women or ethnic minorities getting selected as candidates and likewise privileged position of former public school boys."

Translates to - more blacks, asians, women, less whites, men, public school types.

Why?

If the best people are already doing the job, why try to change it?

No it doesn't translate to that at all. This is where you fail at understanding. The concern is that the lack of representation of those groups is due to prejudice in the selection process which makes it easier for some than others. If that isn't the case there isn't a problem. No one is (or should be) advocating selecting candidates through positive discrimination, that would be wrong, but the fear is that discrimination is exactly what is happening to the benefit of public school boys and men more generally.

What I said doesn't translate to what you say it does; you just fail at understanding basic points.