Why put on a special party for a group of people just because they are Gay?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/2vyc84a

It would appear one has to belong to a minority group in this country, before one gets any recognition.

If the Government of the land find a need to put on special parties at No.10, why not put them on for people who have achieved something good for their country, instead of a group of people who's only achievement is their particular sexual preferences.

[joeluke]

JTH......not in my group they don't

Theres one where I work, usual huge chip on his shoulder

[joeluke]

Steve5.......good point

Will they be using the rear entrance at No10?

[Bobbisox]

Steve I knew joe was homophobic, but I am a tad suprised at you pet x

[Sqad]

The" pink vote" is here to stay.............take what you can from them.....even if it involves a "special party"

[jackthehat]

With such kind and open-minded work-mates as you I am greatly surprised that he may appear a little chippy................

Steve.5 - It is better to say nothing and be thought an idiot than to speak up and remove all doubt.........

[joeluke]

Ignore her Steve.......she's a man-hater

[jackthehat]

By all means, please ignore me, Steve.5...............

[ummmm]

Is that the best you can do Joe?

[Zeuhl]

I suspect it is ummm.

joeluke's posts are consistently short on wit, judgement or intelligence.

.

[ummmm]

hehe

[joeluke]

zehul

....and your witty, intelligent view on Cameron and the pink vote is...............?

[ummmm]

I don't think he was offering his view on anything but your crap comebacks :-)

[andy-hughes]

I find myself unimpressed with any politician who feels the need to exhibit their so-called 'cool credentials' to the meida, and thus to the electorate.

From my experience, gay people are not stupid. they know that the Tory party has a lamentable history of homophobia and reactionary views, and are unlikely to be impressed by this media-friendly sop which, if i were gay I would find deeply insulting,

Mr Cameron would do better by providing an encompassing attitude, and not simply cherry-picking sections of soceity and insulting them by thinking he can woo their votes by giving jelly and ice-cream to prominent individuals who'se only common link is an aspect of sexuality.

I never thought I'd say it, but I entirely agree with AOG!

[andy-hughes]

Steve5. - who / what is 'brown', and why is our jack suppsed to hate him / her / it?

[ttfn]

Only achievement? So then AOG - these are all under achievers eh? Nuryev, Nijinsky, Oscar Wilde,Michelangelo, Leonard Bernstein, Terence Rattigan, Gielgud, Guinness, Redgrave, Errol Flynn, Josephine Baker, Elton John, Dusty Springfield, Virginia Woolfe, Noel Coward, Michael Tippett, Navratilova, Fashanu, Saint-Seans, Cecil Beaton, E M Forster, Tennessee Williams, Tchaikovsky........

May one ask what your achievement is then - I know you are already a minority group.

Have you ever considered going to one of the Queen's garden parties?

[andy-hughes]

ttfn - i don't think AOG is making the point that gay people are non-achievers, rather that the apparent raison d'etre of this party is to entertain celebrities etc., purely on the basis that they are gay. AOG takes issue with the notion of inviting individuals purely on the basis of their orientation, and i think that's a valid point.

[bibblebub]

When does downing street have the time anyway, what with all those groups of white, suited businessmen who are there most days? They must be really boring because the Mail never bothers mentioning all the favours that they are after.

[ttfn]

Hi andy, I can't see that point in the op:-
'instead of a group of people who's only achievement is their particular sexual preferences'
but perhaps I should not have said 'under achievers'. I think my examples have achieved in more than one field