I doubt it and to automatically say that about guys who were abused or gay men is a very prejudiced thing to say.
I'll keep an eye open for anyone who automatically suggests that homsosexualists are child abusers and, while I'm about it, I'll also keep an eye open for anyone who *automatically assumes* that someone has suggested that homosexualists are child-abusing paedo-vile nonces too ;-)
I'll keep an eye open for anyone who automatically suggests that homsosexualists are child abusers and, while I'm about it, I'll also keep an eye open for anyone who *automatically assumes* that someone has suggested that homosexualists are child-abusing paedo-vile nonces too ;-)
Stop backtracking :rolleyes: , yes you did suggest it, because you quoted what I said about having gay parents not automatically making you gay and you put this:
Isn't it the case though that a *very high proportion* of those convicted of sexual abuse are themselves abusees ... ?
I, in no way, in my post was talking about Child Sexual abuse. I was talking about Gay Parents being just as good as Straight ones and you brought it up as a point about gay men, for reasons only known to yourself.
Yeah that's why I thought y'all laws were the same as ours, because some British people have said that.
That's unfortunate you don't have freedom of speech, but, at the same time, I would never say anything Racist or Homophobic or Sexist that would require me to get censored in the UK because I'm not that type of person.
I know you wouldn't I do remember having a blazing row with some people from Norway and Sweden over some horrific anti-semitic comments that had been posted on their website. They weren't impressed when I donned my lollerskates after they started yammering about their 'freedom of speech'.
I did not say she was evil, I said she was a homophobe who holds bigoted views. I have no problem with her holding or expressing her views (for the reasons I gave in my earlier post).
For your information the reason why I call her a homophobe is because she has consistently expressed views such as this one:
On lesbians having babies using AID:
She has also made allegations, totally unsubstantiated, that 35% of paedophiles are homosexual men.
I do not see why I should politely refrain from expressing my opinion that she is a homophobe - or is it that only people who hold 'non-pc' views have a right to express them?
IFirstly, don't think that calling someone a homophobe IS being polite.
To get back to the point which I was trying to make in the first place.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion about something whether they are gay or straight. In your world you seem to think that people can only express that view if it meets certain conditions which coincide with your viewpoint.
That means that you are denying people a chance to debate the rights and wrongs of a situation.
And, sending the thought police to knock on someone's door for them having the effrontery to disagree with you is, by anyone's standards, bullying.
Well the white one went though my pockets a little longer than I would have liked, i think he was enjoying it, but its ok he’s properly in jail now where he’s probably got all the homosexual action he needs.
IFirstly, don't think that calling someone a homophobe IS being polite.
To get back to the point which I was trying to make in the first place.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion about something whether they are gay or straight. In your world you seem to think that people can only express that view if it meets certain conditions which coincide with your viewpoint.
That means that you are denying people a chance to debate the rights and wrongs of a situation.
And, sending the thought police to knock on someone's door for them having the effrontery to disagree with you is, by anyone's standards, bullying.
I have repeatedly said that I agree people can hold and express their opinions. I am not denying anyone the right to debate.
I am expressing my right to say that this woman is a homophobe and her views are bigoted. Do I have to just simply sit there and let someone say anything they please (about my life by the way, not hers) and not express my own opinion?
As for being polite - why is calling someone a homophobe impolite? It is my opinion that her statements on a number of issues demonstrate a prejudice in her against people like me but somehow the word 'homophobe' has become a term I can no longer use in case I offend them. Well maybe we should have some new words - I shall now use the word 'naughty' to describe those who feel it ok to judge me, and say I should have lesser rights than they have, and that I am not as good as them.
I have repeatedly said that I agree people can hold and express their opinions. I am not denying anyone the right to debate.
I am expressing my right to say that this woman is a homophobe and her views are bigoted. Do I have to just simply sit there and let someone say anything they please (about my life by the way, not hers) and not express my own opinion?
As for being polite - why is calling someone a homophobe impolite? It is my opinion that her statements on a number of issues demonstrate a prejudice in her against people like me but somehow the word 'homophobe' has become a term I can no longer use in case I offend them. Well maybe we should have some new words - I shall now use the word 'naughty' to describe those who feel it ok to judge me, and say I should have lesser rights than they have, and that I am not as good as them.
Yes YOU have the right to express your views but the police are not knocking on your door for expressing them. She has the right to express her views WITHOUT being harassed by the police.
Do you honestly believe that you will change her views by sending the police after her? Of course you won't. All that will happen is that she and others like her will continue to have those views in private and will pay lip service to more PC opinions in public.
By driving her 'underground' you stifle debate and prevent a resolution of the situation. In this case all that will happen is that Social Services who accept her viewpoint will disqualify Gays from adopting by using other excuses. In a real debate of the pros and cons all of the questions and fears can be discussed in a calm arena where everyone has the right to speak unfettered by fears of thought police and name-calling.
IFirstly, don't think that calling someone a homophobe IS being polite.
To get back to the point which I was trying to make in the first place.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion about something whether they are gay or straight. In your world you seem to think that people can only express that view if it meets certain conditions which coincide with your viewpoint.
That means that you are denying people a chance to debate the rights and wrongs of a situation.
And, sending the thought police to knock on someone's door for them having the effrontery to disagree with you is, by anyone's standards, bullying.
Can you point to any post where Jesaya or I have said that. Both of us have said the police over-reacted and both of us disagree with the views of Lynette Burrows, as she no doubt disagrees with us. What part of that is bullying? Are you saying we're not entitled to our views but she is?
Yes YOU have the right to express your views but the police are not knocking on your door for expressing them. She has the right to express her views WITHOUT being harassed by the police.
Can you explain why you've accused Jesaya and I of being bullies, please?
I've said, so has Jesaya, over and over again that we think the police over-reacted.
I said that sending police to a woman who has expressed her own views about a situation is bullying. Not that you or any other FM is a bully.
No dobut soon you will be saying that people who potentially commit murders are being bullied by being investigated. It is a nonsensical arguement you are putting forward.
If someone is reported for commiting a crime, the police have a duty to investigate that crime. It's that simple.
No dobut soon you will be saying that people who potentially commit murders are being bullied by being investigated. It is a nonsensical arguement you are putting forward.
If someone is reported for commiting a crime, the police have a duty to investigate that crime. It's that simple.
Is it a crime to say that you don't think that gays should adopt? Or is it just not PC?
I think she's allowed to have an opinion and speak about it if she's asked.
Should she have been ashamed of her opinion? Should she have lied?
When we start silencing people and stop listening to any concerns that's when we'll have real problems.
That's completely my point. Silencing people does not change what they believe. Only by expressing their fears and having them removed can people move to different views.
Why does this person believe what she does? Will sending the police to her door change her views? No.
Informed debate of all of the issues without kneejerk reactions from people is the only way forward.
Gay rights have not been achieved by stifling debate.
Is it a crime to say that you don't think that gays should adopt? Or is it just not PC?
You yet again fail to understand. This is INVESTIGATION to see whether a crime has been commited. No one, not one single person on this thread has said that should be a crime. We have said it is ignorant and bigoted, but not a crime. However, no one knows whether a crime has been commited until it has been investigated.
I would say it was criminal to say that kind of thing. After all,thats how Nazi Germany started. We do not want the rise of Nazism in the UK and comments like those spread Nazi politics and ideas. We will be back to the days of Clause 28 if idiots with thoughts like those are allowed to express their heterosexist views.
Being a gay man I welcome the idea of adoption for gay,bi,lesbian and transgendered people. If people read the work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth and other attachment theorists,it would be better known that is not the role of the Mother or Father that is important to a child's socialisation but the love and care a child is given from a principal carer. Its this quality of love and support that helps a child form attachments and bondings later on in life.
Its this quality of love and support that helps a child form attachments and bondings later on in life.
I think the problem lies within the generalisation that a heterosexual couple will be in all circumstances be preferable to homosexual couples. Clearly thats an unfair prejudice. In reality there are probably just as many if not more heterosexual couples that are unsuitable to adopt than homosexual couples. People should be judged on merit, not ridiculous preconceptions.
Being a gay man I welcome the idea of adoption for gay,bi,lesbian and transgendered people. If people read the work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth and other attachment theorists,it would be better known that is not the role of the Mother or Father that is important to a child's socialisation but the love and care a child is given from a principal carer. Its this quality of love and support that helps a child form attachments and bondings later on in life.
Gay men and women have been able to adopt for a long time because agencies and governemtn have known the research around principle carers for a long time. However, what they haven't been able to do is adopt as a couple, only as individuals, and that is the change that simply makes common sense.
Is it a crime to say that you don't think that gays should adopt? Or is it just not PC?
I don't know if you heard the broadcast but she said a hell of a lot more than that, including the remark that gay people were much more likely than straight people to molest children (or words to that effect).
Comments
:rollsmarbles:
I'll keep an eye open for anyone who automatically suggests that homsosexualists are child abusers and, while I'm about it, I'll also keep an eye open for anyone who *automatically assumes* that someone has suggested that homosexualists are child-abusing paedo-vile nonces too ;-)
I'm not the one making claims on a public forum that would be potentially triggering and offensive to survivors of sexual abuse - you are.
What I am asking is for you to back up these claims.
Stop backtracking :rolleyes: , yes you did suggest it, because you quoted what I said about having gay parents not automatically making you gay and you put this:
I, in no way, in my post was talking about Child Sexual abuse. I was talking about Gay Parents being just as good as Straight ones and you brought it up as a point about gay men, for reasons only known to yourself.
I know you wouldn't
IFirstly, don't think that calling someone a homophobe IS being polite.
To get back to the point which I was trying to make in the first place.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion about something whether they are gay or straight. In your world you seem to think that people can only express that view if it meets certain conditions which coincide with your viewpoint.
That means that you are denying people a chance to debate the rights and wrongs of a situation.
And, sending the thought police to knock on someone's door for them having the effrontery to disagree with you is, by anyone's standards, bullying.
Well the white one went though my pockets a little longer than I would have liked, i think he was enjoying it, but its ok he’s properly in jail now where he’s probably got all the homosexual action he needs.
Take care
Faeden
I have repeatedly said that I agree people can hold and express their opinions. I am not denying anyone the right to debate.
I am expressing my right to say that this woman is a homophobe and her views are bigoted. Do I have to just simply sit there and let someone say anything they please (about my life by the way, not hers) and not express my own opinion?
As for being polite - why is calling someone a homophobe impolite? It is my opinion that her statements on a number of issues demonstrate a prejudice in her against people like me but somehow the word 'homophobe' has become a term I can no longer use in case I offend them. Well maybe we should have some new words - I shall now use the word 'naughty' to describe those who feel it ok to judge me, and say I should have lesser rights than they have, and that I am not as good as them.
Yes YOU have the right to express your views but the police are not knocking on your door for expressing them. She has the right to express her views WITHOUT being harassed by the police.
Do you honestly believe that you will change her views by sending the police after her? Of course you won't. All that will happen is that she and others like her will continue to have those views in private and will pay lip service to more PC opinions in public.
By driving her 'underground' you stifle debate and prevent a resolution of the situation. In this case all that will happen is that Social Services who accept her viewpoint will disqualify Gays from adopting by using other excuses. In a real debate of the pros and cons all of the questions and fears can be discussed in a calm arena where everyone has the right to speak unfettered by fears of thought police and name-calling.
If those views are tantamount to incite hatred she does not.
Can you point to any post where Jesaya or I have said that. Both of us have said the police over-reacted and both of us disagree with the views of Lynette Burrows, as she no doubt disagrees with us. What part of that is bullying? Are you saying we're not entitled to our views but she is?
I've said, so has Jesaya, over and over again that we think the police over-reacted.
I said that sending police to a woman who has expressed her own views about a situation is bullying. Not that you or any other FM is a bully.
Should she have been ashamed of her opinion? Should she have lied?
When we start silencing people and stop listening to any concerns that's when we'll have real problems.
No dobut soon you will be saying that people who potentially commit murders are being bullied by being investigated. It is a nonsensical arguement you are putting forward.
If someone is reported for commiting a crime, the police have a duty to investigate that crime. It's that simple.
Is it a crime to say that you don't think that gays should adopt? Or is it just not PC?
That's completely my point. Silencing people does not change what they believe. Only by expressing their fears and having them removed can people move to different views.
Why does this person believe what she does? Will sending the police to her door change her views? No.
Informed debate of all of the issues without kneejerk reactions from people is the only way forward.
Gay rights have not been achieved by stifling debate.
Did they charge her?
You yet again fail to understand. This is INVESTIGATION to see whether a crime has been commited. No one, not one single person on this thread has said that should be a crime. We have said it is ignorant and bigoted, but not a crime. However, no one knows whether a crime has been commited until it has been investigated.
Being a gay man I welcome the idea of adoption for gay,bi,lesbian and transgendered people. If people read the work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth and other attachment theorists,it would be better known that is not the role of the Mother or Father that is important to a child's socialisation but the love and care a child is given from a principal carer. Its this quality of love and support that helps a child form attachments and bondings later on in life.
I think the problem lies within the generalisation that a heterosexual couple will be in all circumstances be preferable to homosexual couples. Clearly thats an unfair prejudice. In reality there are probably just as many if not more heterosexual couples that are unsuitable to adopt than homosexual couples. People should be judged on merit, not ridiculous preconceptions.
Gay men and women have been able to adopt for a long time because agencies and governemtn have known the research around principle carers for a long time. However, what they haven't been able to do is adopt as a couple, only as individuals, and that is the change that simply makes common sense.
Do you think the same about women's rights and ethnic minority people's rights?