ChatterBank1 min ago
Isle Of Wight Mp Steps Down After 'gay Danger Remark'
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -englan d-hamps hire-39 749203
An old dinosaur that should have stepped down years ago, IMHO.
Good riddance !
An old dinosaur that should have stepped down years ago, IMHO.
Good riddance !
Answers
Sqad But the procreation argument doesn't make sense, unless gay people are biologically incapable of producing children. And let's face facts - closeted gay people have been producing kids for millennia. So - homosexualit y in itself cannot possibly be dangerous to society. What would be accurate is this: "Homosexuali ty is dangerous to society, when...
13:46 Sat 29th Apr 2017
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they should not be ridiculed or called names or prevented from saying it. That is what freedom of speech is all about. Banning them just drives it underground where it cannot be debated.
However where it does become a problem is where they represent people, i.e. MP's. Here the selection committee should not select them as they are effectively toxic. If they are selected then the public has the opportunity to no vote the person in, perhaps then the candidate and the selectors may get the message.
However where it does become a problem is where they represent people, i.e. MP's. Here the selection committee should not select them as they are effectively toxic. If they are selected then the public has the opportunity to no vote the person in, perhaps then the candidate and the selectors may get the message.
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they should not be ridiculed or called names or prevented from saying it."
There's ever such a slight bit of a difference between ridicule and preventing someone from saying something though, isn't there.
Or is ridicule and name calling not part of free speech?
There's ever such a slight bit of a difference between ridicule and preventing someone from saying something though, isn't there.
Or is ridicule and name calling not part of free speech?
Mikey has been asking someone to point out the dangers of homosexual behaviour and our collective attitudes towards it in terms of future effects on society. We are assured that it has always been widespread( no pun intended) without causing social decay, although in most civilisations it has been taboo. We are now at the stage, where with the influence of our Liberal advisors, we are to treat it as a norm and not to discriminate. I don't think we did unless it was a blatant flaunting of such behaviour, although the "Gay community", particularly in the arts have always practised positive discrimination of their own, without you must admit any particular reaction from the hetero world. Now we reach the stage where it is to be considered an alternative lifestyle and taught to prepubescent minors as normal behaviour with no social stigma or uneasiness. What if that is to pass? What is the next "moral" crusade for the somewhat non conformist, shout loud and long, brigades. There are types out there who have a fascination with all sorts of other lifeforms, is that then to be added to our agenda of accepted behaviour? Thin end of the wedge perhaps? You tell me or better still Mikey. The "love that dare not speak its name" has fast become the one that can't shut up....................I think my lasagne is done.
jackthehat
This could explain why...
https:/ /www.th eyworkf oryou.c om/mp/1 1291/an drew_tu rner/is le_of_w ight/vo tes
https:/ /www.th eyworkf oryou.c om/mp/1 1923/ti m_farro n/westm orland_ and_lon sdale/v otes
I was aware of those statistics before I posted, Jack.
The cynic in me thinks Timmy chooses to put a career in politics before his real beliefs. I doubt he could carry on as leader if he answered sin to the question truthfully.
Of course that is just my opinion but he could have put the question to bed a long time ago ... why didn't he?
This could explain why...
https:/
https:/
I was aware of those statistics before I posted, Jack.
The cynic in me thinks Timmy chooses to put a career in politics before his real beliefs. I doubt he could carry on as leader if he answered sin to the question truthfully.
Of course that is just my opinion but he could have put the question to bed a long time ago ... why didn't he?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.