the gay issue

[NORMANTHEDOG]

i see someone out there saw fit to have my question removed,for what reason i dont know.it just go"s to show not everybody has free speech,own up and tell me why.

[Englishbird]

didn't see it, did you use any inflammatory language?

[stevie_c2it]

Was wondering the same thing. Didn't seem to OTT to me. I'd be curious to know who objected, and why the ED pulled it.

[Drusilla]

Well, I swear it wasn't me Norman, even though I got a little irate with you.
The thing I like about this site is the free expression of views and being a shy and timid person, I would never feel able to express my thoughts openly on such issues in a face to face situation. This site gives me an opportunity to be forthright and practise my arguments.
There was one answer on your thread I found very objectionable and I did report that because it was abusive and my daughters read along with me, but your question was valid, even though I disagreed with you.
Please keep posting Norman, because free speech is important and so is responsible argument. I think the censorship on this site has got a little carried away of late and that in itself is a sadness.
Best wishes.

[libertie]

Not guilty either, I was also surprised to see that it had been pulled!

[LeMarchand]

Going off on a tangent, does anyone have any reliable figures for just what percentage of the population is homosexual?

[Englishbird]

can someone tell me the gist of the question?

[Englishbird]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/12/ngay12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/12/ixhome.html

Government used 1 in 16.66 (around 6%) for their figures when working out the tax implications of Civil Partnerships, apparently.

[sp1814]

Le Marchand

In my house the % of the population who are homosexual is currently 100%.

Going back to a previous posting...I totally disagreed with your opinion NormanTheDog, but I really appreciated you posting it.

I like to engage with people who don't share my point of view. I find it interesting. I like it when people push my buttons. I honestly think it makes everyone re-evaluate their viewpoints...and who knows - maybe even change their minds.

NormanTheDog - whilst we may not agree - I really like the fact that we don't agree.

Does that make any sense???

[flip-flop]

Norman, I fear I may have been the reason for the question being pulled......I had the temerity to suggest that a poster who accused you of being, I think the expression was 'hate filled' and then posted a link to The Guardian, could be roundly ignored.

May be wrong....or perhaps somebody got upset with me because I suggested that the two women who got 'married' had a whole husband/wife thing going on.

Or perhaps somebody got upset with me because I said I found the whole 'groom/groom' thing somewhat comical.

But then, in the short time I have been on this site, I've noticed that people get very upset on other people's behalf when, really, it has got naff all to do with them.

[flip-flop]

To clarify, because they posted a link to The Guardian they could be roundly ignored.

[surfer mike]

Not me either norm, did not see any harm in your question either.

[andy-hughes]

Like Drusilla, I reported one response - probably the same one - but had not problem with your question per se NORMANTHEDOG.

I suggest you e-mail out wonderful Ed who will probaboly give you a personal response.

[Loosehead]

Norman, you should have realised by now that free speech is only allowed if you are saying what the Liberal elite agree with, otherwise it's some of "ic" or "ism"

[sp1814]

Actually, I got a bit paranoid earlier, thinking it was me. Unfortunately I couldn't remember my last posting.

And now I can't even remember where we were with the discussion.

flip-flop - I think going to take some time before the majority of people are comfortable with looking at two grooms/two brides.

I remember back in the 70s when mixed race marraiges were rare, how people use to stare at couples. People just need to get used to change.

[NORMANTHEDOG]

thanks for all your responses,yes it is a shame that some people do not let people speak their mind,i know it might have been a little bit near the mark,but hey come on it was topical,it was news,it was a good topic,as the response showed. just because you dont like or dont agree is no reason to object so strongly as to have the q removed.i thought the site and users were bigger in mind for pettyness.

[sp1814]

NormanTheDog - pettyness is spelled 'pettiness'.

I await the bricks that will no doubt be flying towards my screen.

[NORMANTHEDOG]

thanks for the english lesson.

[sp1814]

Seriously - I was so joking. It was all a play on the word 'pettyness' - and I was being pett...

You see where I was going with it...