DS Forums

 
 

Is Ann homophobic?


Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-12-2010, 17:23
-Sid-
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 28,896
Homophobe
Noun
1. Fear of sameness or men
2. Opposition to homosexuals and/or homosexuality

I think they both apply to BoD.
Yes, I think the definition of the term 'homophobic' has evolved over time, as words often do.

It's a lot more encompassing now.
-Sid- is offline  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-12-2010, 17:24
DavidJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
I think we do privately don't we? Even if AW was the most accomplished dancer in the competition, I would not vote for her because of the sort of person she is. I don't think many people ignore personality and solely consider the dancing.
Absolutely - and to my mind, this question becomes especially relevant here, for two reasons:
- The personal views of an ex-politician are more integral to that contestant's "personality" than the personal views of (say) a footballer.
- The "personality factor" with Ann is clearly precisely why people are voting for. Unless people think that her dancing is what people are voting for...
DavidJames is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:24
Mistress
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 268
Yes - there's some clear evidence that she has acted in ways which are consistent with homophobia. That doesn't mean she is, it just means her actions are consistent with such a view.
Ann's voting record and public pronouncements on the subject are consistent with pretty much every definition of homophobia. She is homophobic, even if her some of her best friends are gay.
Mistress is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:26
DavidJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
As I said. Not ANOTHER AW thread! The stuff on this one has been said already on many others. It is getting rather boring. :yawn:
Would you prefer a "Wonderful Widdy" thread to be prominent instead?

Because, at the moment, those seem to be your only options.
DavidJames is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:27
peeve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,751
Ann Widdecombe can huff and puff and hold views that are distasteful, but we can choose to ignore her/laugh at her/moan about her, without it making a damn bit of difference to our lives. As she is no longer a politician, she is no longer in a position to influence the law of the land and, to be fair, she has not used her position on Strictly to promulgate her views.

She may well be homophobic, or she may just be narrowly interpreting the Bible, as do many right-wing evangelical Christians. This may not be relevant, but I was sent this by an American friend of mine a while back and it made me laugh:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
peeve is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:29
Tommo781
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,726
Would you prefer a "Wonderful Widdy" thread to be prominent instead?

Because, at the moment, those seem to be your only options.
You'll have to put a few more words round that. It doesn't make any sense. What I am saying is that there are numerous AW threads already. Whatever anyone wants to say (pro or anti AW) fits into an existing thread. There is no need to start another.
Tommo781 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:30
DavidJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
You'll have to put a few more words round that. It doesn't make any sense. What I am saying is that there are numerous AW threads already. Whatever anyone wants to say (pro or anti AW) fits into an existing thread. There is no need to start another.
I completely agree with you on that one.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a proliferation of pro-Ann threads at the moment. I can't imagine why.

So I'm simply trying to restore some balance here.
DavidJames is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:33
kperdnusse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: God's own country
Posts: 263
I completely agree with you on that one.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a proliferation of pro-Ann threads at the moment. I can't imagine why.

So I'm simply trying to restore some balance here.
The trolls have lost their goats, clearly, and are in need of other entertainment.
kperdnusse is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:34
Tommo781
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,726
Unfortunately, there seems to be a proliferation of pro-Ann threads at the moment.
No there aren't. The majority are anti.
Tommo781 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:36
TerryM22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 17,987
Yes - there's some clear evidence that she has acted in ways which are consistent with homophobia. That doesn't mean she is, it just means her actions are consistent with such a view.

So I guess, to balance this, I wonder, is there any evidence that she is not homophobic?
There are some that might say your words are quite revealing, being almost the same as those used by The 9th Marquess of Queensbury.
TerryM22 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:37
soulmate61
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073

What I am saying is that there are numerous AW threads already. Whatever anyone wants to say (pro or anti AW) fits into an existing thread. There is no need to start another.
You have missed a subtle point:

Originally Posted by DavidJames
Ah, but this isn't any old AW thread.

This is a DavidJames AW thread.
Not only that, but there is rarity value in this thread materialising after he returned from his second flounce.
No, third flounce.
soulmate61 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:38
dottigirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: A posher part of SW London.
Posts: 640
May I also propose that AW is a hypocrite?

She said at the beginning that she wasn't interested in the 'journey', she wanted to learn "TO DANCE!" (said very vociferously).

As pointed out by KH (?), she did start by learning some steps, now she just isn't bothered and focuses on the clowning around.

That smacks of hypocrisy to me. The ones on the 'journey' that she so derided are actually LEARNING TO DANCE more than her, despite her earlier pronouncement.

She may well be homophobic, or she may just be narrowly interpreting the Bible, as do many right-wing evangelical Christians. This may not be relevant, but I was sent this by an American friend of mine a while back and it made me laugh:

Dear Dr. Laura...
That always make me laugh too. Shows bible-bashers to be the hypocrites I always thought they were.
dottigirl is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:40
MrIncredible
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 4,638
Of course she is. The woman is a bigot.
MrIncredible is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:42
DavidJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
Not only that, but there is rarity value in this thread materialising after he returned from his second flounce.
No, third flounce.
No-one flounces like me, I'll have you know. I've refined it to an art form.
DavidJames is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:45
KitKat21
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pasha's dressing room
Posts: 4,404

Is the Pope a Catholic?
KitKat21 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:45
jinx2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 430
Surely she has her right to opinions the same as everyone else.
She has a right to have an opinion on homosexuality and female Bishops and someone else has the right to an opposing view.
As for her political views, she was elected to become an M.P. in 1987 and was re-elected by her constituents until her retirement this year. Her electors were well aware of her religious stand point when voting.
If we start going down the moral high ground for AW then I also want to know the voting persuasion and religious views of every other contestant too.
jinx2 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:46
jill1812
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tannadice
Posts: 11,736
Ann Widdecombe can huff and puff and hold views that are distasteful, but we can choose to ignore her/laugh at her/moan about her, without it making a damn bit of difference to our lives. As she is no longer a politician, she is no longer in a position to influence the law of the land and, to be fair, she has not used her position on Strictly to promulgate her views.

She may well be homophobic, or she may just be narrowly interpreting the Bible, as do many right-wing evangelical Christians. This may not be relevant, but I was sent this by an American friend of mine a while back and it made me laugh:

Dear Dr. Laura:
On a similar the from The West Wing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI
jill1812 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:47
evil dipsy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 158
Ann Widdecombe can huff and puff and hold views that are distasteful, but we can choose to ignore her/laugh at her/moan about her, without it making a damn bit of difference to our lives. As she is no longer a politician, she is no longer in a position to influence the law of the land and, to be fair, she has not used her position on Strictly to promulgate her views.

She may well be homophobic, or she may just be narrowly interpreting the Bible, as do many right-wing evangelical Christians. This may not be relevant, but I was sent this by an American friend of mine a while back and it made me laugh:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Okay. Now this has become my favourite post of the year (sorry mistress). So good that I thought I'd quote it for added effect.
evil dipsy is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:47
DavidJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
May I also propose that AW is a hypocrite?

She said at the beginning that she wasn't interested in the 'journey', she wanted to learn "TO DANCE!" (said very vociferously).

As pointed out by KH (?), she did start by learning some steps, now she just isn't bothered and focuses on the clowning around.

That smacks of hypocrisy to me. The ones on the 'journey' that she so derided are actually LEARNING TO DANCE more than her, despite her earlier pronouncement.
Whilst that's an interesting point, I'd suggest it's a separate debate.

Tell you what, why don't you start a new thread on it?

DavidJames is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:48
jill1812
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tannadice
Posts: 11,736
Surely she has her right to opinions the same as everyone else.
She has a right to have an opinion on homosexuality and female Bishops and someone else has the right to an opposing view.
As for her political views, she was elected to become an M.P. in 1987 and was re-elected by her constituents until her retirement this year. Her electors were well aware of her religious stand point when voting.
If we start going down the moral high ground for AW then I also want to know the voting persuasion and religious views of every other contestant too.
But none of those contestants voted against gay rights legislation.
jill1812 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:50
DavidJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
Surely she has her right to opinions the same as everyone else.
Of course. And part of that process is having opinions about the actions of other people.

Which is why I've raised this thread as a question rather than an accusation.

If we start going down the moral high ground for AW then I also want to know the voting persuasion and religious views of every other contestant too.
In response to this, I refer you to the post above, where I said:

to my mind, this question becomes especially relevant here, for two reasons:
- The personal views of an ex-politician are more integral to that contestant's "personality" than the personal views of (say) a footballer.
- The "personality factor" with Ann is clearly precisely why people are voting for. Unless people think that her dancing is what people are voting for...
Clear?
DavidJames is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:50
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
Ah, I'm glad you asked that.

Firstly, I'd answer that there are many threads about contestant's personal lives - e.g. the Kara / Artem one recently. So this is along the lines of those.
You seem to be confusing a person's personal life with their personal views and beliefs. Two separate things. Furthermore, just because there seem to be a number of such "personal" threads regarding other couples, it does not justify you creating one in an apparent effort at retaliation.

Secondly, I'd answer is that the reason Ann is in, is all because of her "entertainment" value. So as this entertainment is all about her personality, it's completely valid to ask questions about that personality.
And here you confuse someone's personality with their personal or religious beliefs. Another couple of separate things.


As an attempt at character assassination this thread seems to rank with the best. As another Ann hate thread, it's up there with quite a few others. But in my view such nasty threads have no place in this forum, and have no relevance to SCD itself.,
mossy2103 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:52
Philly1234
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Not where you are
Posts: 1,263
Yes, I think the definition of the term 'homophobic' has evolved over time, as words often do.

It's a lot more encompassing now.
That's too bad, really. I suppose the word "phobia" also seems to have changed to mean anything you're even a little bit afraid of. But if I used it, I would use it to mean someone who doth protest too much.

Anybody know if that Dr. Laura letter was written by Bill Maher? It sounds like him.
Philly1234 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:54
DavidJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
You seem to be confusing a person's personal life with their personal views and beliefs.
Nope.

I specifically talked about her actions. And my question was about her personality, based on her actions.

Re-read the OP. It was phrased quite carefully.

Furthermore, just because there seem to be a number of such "personal" threads regarding other couples, it does not justify you creating one in an apparent effort at retaliation.
This is not retaliation, it's balance.

And here you confuse someone's personality with their personal or religious beliefs. Another couple of separate things.
OK, so would you say that it was inappropriate for anyone to, for example, question Anton's use of the word "****" last year?
DavidJames is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 17:57
yenston
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,359
Ann Widdecombe can huff and puff and hold views that are distasteful, but we can choose to ignore her/laugh at her/moan about her, without it making a damn bit of difference to our lives. As she is no longer a politician, she is no longer in a position to influence the law of the land and, to be fair, she has not used her position on Strictly to promulgate her views.
I understand that when she spoke at the anti-abortion dinner last week it was billed as a chance to hear "Strictly Sensation" Ann Widdecombe talk about the challenges facing the anti-abortion movement in Europe. So as far as this goes she was using the Strictly name to air her views on a public platform.

As well as being against gay rights I'd say she is also against womens rights, being anti-abortion, against women priests and in favour of shackling female prisoners in labour.

A thoroughly unpleasant woman all round.
yenston is offline  
 
Closed Thread




 
Forum Jump


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