DS Forums

 
 

Is Ann homophobic?


Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-12-2010, 20:05
somebody else!!
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,007
Don't know about "morally acceptable", but I wouldn't vote for her in a political election because she is homophobic, misogynist and has bonkers views on what constitutes an ideal family (which run completely counter to anthropological evidence). She therefore doesn't represent my views.

I don't vote for her in Strictly because she's shite at dancing, doesn't try and is altogether belligerent and unappealing.
You Ann lovers irritate me.
somebody else!! is offline  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-12-2010, 20:13
shrew
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,029
... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggghhhhhhhhht. (Boyf did not cook tea - properly... raw sausages.. ew).

erm. Shefair. I was trying to point out that her voting records affect OTHER people, not just those in homosexual relationships. Myself included. Therefore the question remains, "Is she, specifically, homophobic?"

My answer is... "I don't know."

If 'circumstantial' evidence is enough to convict her for some, then so be it, but I will withold reaching an absolute conclusion myself. That is, unless someone posts up something that she's done or said that specifically singles out same-sex relationships or MSM that is unequivocal. Until then my stance is not going to change.

btw - it's not my definition of 'prejudice'... it's the online free dictionary one. I don't plagarise...
shrew is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:26
arddunol
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,636
So every practising Catholic is a homophobe, as are Muslims and various others who don't believe in gay marriage.

Interesting, there are probably many viewers that fall into that camp, but would object to that tag.
Deleted : I decided I really can't be bothered.

Anne has firmly held beliefs on a number of issues, as do many people ;
Holding those beliefs does not make her homophobic or misogynist .
arddunol is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:30
Monkseal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggghhhhhhhhht. (Boyf did not cook tea - properly... raw sausages.. ew).

erm. Shefair. I was trying to point out that her voting records affect OTHER people, not just those in homosexual relationships. Myself included. Therefore the question remains, "Is she, specifically, homophobic?"

My answer is... "I don't know."

If 'circumstantial' evidence is enough to convict her for some, then so be it, but I will withold reaching an absolute conclusion myself. That is, unless someone posts up something that she's done or said that specifically singles out same-sex relationships or MSM that is unequivocal. Until then my stance is not going to change.

btw - it's not my definition of 'prejudice'... it's the online free dictionary one. I don't plagarise...
Not on the legislation regarding Section 28, the Equality Act, and civil partnerships they didn't.

(Oh great, now I've been sucked in)
Monkseal is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:34
Glowbot
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14,002
Ah, I can fogive anyone who shoehorns a Leslie Nielsen reference, may he rest in peace.

And it's reasonable.

So I'm wondering if anyone's actually got evidence of Ann making unambiguously homophobic comments? Or, has she simply occasionally acted in a way which is consistent with homophobia?

Hmmm... that sounds like the OP to me...
Yes, she's said lots of homophobic things, I quoted some earlier. She's done lot's of homophobic things, which is more valid evidence.
In 2000, she said gay lifestyles did not have “equal validity” with heterosexual relationships.
btw, I don't really care if she thinks it's ok to say that because neither do 'unmarried people' gay people can never get married here, hence they don't have equality,
Ann: "I do not back the Civil Partnerships Registration Scheme as it means homosexual marriage in all but name."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz16zLkLTnM

Former Tory MP Ann Widdecombe has attacked a judge’s decision to allow two gay asylum seekers the right to stay in the UK.

Writing in the Daily Express, Ms Widdecombe argued that the decision was “absurd” and that the pair should not have been allowed asylum because neither were facing immediate risk of death or imprisonment.

She wrote that the men, from Iran and Cameroon (where they have the death penalty and imprisonment for gays respectively), “seem to have wanted to come here merely so that they can be overt about their lifestyles”.
Gay lifestyles do not have "equal validity" with heterosexual relationships, shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe has told a Scottish newspaper.
Miss Widdecombe told Scotland on Sunday that homosexual relationships were not equal to the "preferred model" of marriage.

Earlier this week shadow chancellor Michael Portillo called for the Conservatives to accept gays in their ranks.

But in an interview with the paper, Miss Widdecombe said she did not understand what Mr Portillo's "social tolerance" meant.

As long as you have a preferred model then you can't afford things equal validity

Ann Widdecombe, shadow home secretary
"I don't understand this phrase," she said.

"But if that means we are tolerating anti-social behaviour or making all forms of lifestyle equal and not having a preferred model, then we have never been that sort of party and we don't propose to be that sort of party."

However, Miss Widdecombe did attempt to minimise differences between herself and Mr Portillo.

She said their vision of Britain were not "radically different".

"If Michael's vision of Britain was so radically different from mine then I would have a problem," she said.

"But there are differences of emphasis - I would not go back to the days when homosexuality was illegal or when you stamped 'illegitimate' all over a baby's head if it was born out of wedlock, but I do want a preferred model and that is the issue.

"And as long as you have a preferred model then you can't afford things equal validity."
Glowbot is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:36
DavidJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
Not on the legislation regarding Section 28, the Equality Act, and civil partnerships they didn't.

(Oh great, now I've been sucked in)
Resistance is futile
DavidJames is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:40
DavidJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
Yes, she's said lots of homophobic things, I quoted some earlier. She's done lot's of homophobic things, which is more valid evidence.
In 2000, she said gay lifestyles did not have “equal validity” with heterosexual relationships.
btw, I don't really care if she thinks it's ok to say that because neither do 'unmarried people' gay people can never get married here, hence they don't have equality,
Ann: "I do not back the Civil Partnerships Registration Scheme as it means homosexual marriage in all but name."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz16zLkLTnM
Hmmm.... I think she's been quite clever with her words in those quotes. Well, she's a politician.

But to me, the way her words are phrased are just barely on the "ambiguous" side of things. I resent her dismissal of sexuality as a "lifestyle", and her attitude towards asylum seekers is clearly at best incredibly callous, but I'm not sure it's quite proof.

If I want to call a person homophobic, I damn well want to have solid proof to back that up. And so far, it's not - quite - enough for me.
DavidJames is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:45
Glowbot
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14,002
Hmmm.... I think she's been quite clever with her words in those quotes. Well, she's a politician.

But to me, the way her words are phrased are just barely on the "ambiguous" side of things. I resent her dismissal of sexuality as a "lifestyle", and her attitude towards asylum seekers is clearly at best incredibly callous, but I'm not sure it's quite proof.

If I want to call a person homophobic, I damn well want to have solid proof to back that up. And so far, it's not - quite - enough for me.
What would you actually need?
Glowbot is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:51
missfrankiecat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,714
Is anyone who does not support a change in the legal definition of marriage in this country to include unions between two persons of the same gender therefore homophobic? Are those doctors and nurses who opt out of performing abortions for ethical/religious reasons misogynists?
missfrankiecat is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:52
Mistress
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 268
Is anyone who does not support a change in the legal definition of marriage in this country to include unions between two persons of the same gender therefore homophobic?
Yes. They are.
Mistress is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:53
Ignazio
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,110
Is anyone who does not support a change in the legal definition of marriage in this country to include unions between two persons of the same gender therefore homophobic?
Oh yes!
Ignazio is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:54
Monkseal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
I don't really do arguments about whether individuals are "homophobes" or "homophobic", because it's pointless head-shrinking that can never be "proved", as though "a homophobe" is a scientifically provable object and ends nowhere.

It's better to focus IMO on individual acts and opinions. I'd say the belief that marriage as written in law should be preserved for heterosexual couples is a homophobic one. I appreciate that opinions differ, and are probably about to.
Monkseal is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:58
missfrankiecat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,714
Should we therefore be banning the publication of the Bible, Book of Common Prayer, the Koran and all religious texts which define marriage in such homophobic terms and ensuring religious leaders are prevented from teaching, especially in our schools such homophobic views?
missfrankiecat is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 20:58
DavidJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
What would you actually need?
A statement along the lines of "I don't like gays" probably - or something where she stated that "Homosexuality Is Evil".

Something along those lines would convince me, beyond a doubt.
DavidJames is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 21:04
Muggsy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,980
Should we therefore be banning the publication of the Bible, Book of Common Prayer, the Koran and all religious texts which define marriage in such homophobic terms and ensuring religious leaders are prevented from teaching, especially in our schools such homophobic views?
But then we'd be as foolish as those who voted for Clause 28.
Muggsy is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 21:05
shrew
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,029
Not on the legislation regarding Section 28, the Equality Act, and civil partnerships they didn't.

(Oh great, now I've been sucked in)
... fair play, my bad. (soz for the vacuum forces). True, but was the motivation derived from specifically being anti-homosexuality. One could argue that 'She' includes same-sex relationships with all non-religious marriages and so will act against specific regulation irrespective of to whom the legislation was targeting, as long as the affected group(s) were included under her 'umbrella of immorality' (as she sees it).

It seems that she will be adverse to anything that does not fit within her 'preferred model'. As limited, small minded and petty as that is, does it make her specifically homophobic?

Again, there's the compelling argument that she may be privately homophobic, and the lack of specific evidence is due to her training as a politician. Unless I speak to the woman, I repeat... "I don't know," whether or not she's truly homophobic.
shrew is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 02-12-2010, 21:07
DS Forum Support

 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 12,567
This thread has been closed as it has turned far too off-topic for this forum.
DS Forum Support is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
 
Closed Thread




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:46.