Tory MP Andrew Turner says homosexuality is 'wrong'

[Boring_Chris]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Boring_Chris said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Boring_Chris said:

Tom Logan said:

I personally think it's disgusting to stick your nudger up another chap's blurter (or vice versa) but I would not berate anyone of that ilk.

Don't mind lesbians though.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.



edited for clarity

Edited by Tom Logan on Friday 28th April 21:08

What does this even mean?

Are you 15 years old?

Though somewhat inelegantly put, I would suggest that this is what was once known as a 'liberal' view point, now more commonly referred to as 'classic liberalism' I believe.

"I don't like / agree with what you are doing / saying, but I support / defend your free right to do it / say it."

It's what the some folks did before other people decided that political correctness was more important.


Edit: see italics

Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Saturday 29th April 12:06

Yeah, I kind of got that.

Goaty Bill, how do you feel about bum sex with a lady?

If you "kind of got that." then I am slightly confused as to why you would ask?
Would it not be, assuming you were rather objecting to the way in which Tom phrased his statement, be easier to simply criticise that directly?

My sexual orientation and proclivities are none of your business and in no way relevant to any part of the quoted conversation above.

Got the quotes confused - question was to Tom.

[Ayahuasca]

Boring_Chris said:

Ayahuasca said:

romeogolf said:

Tom Logan said:

I personally think it's disgusting to stick your nudger up another chap's blurter (or vice versa) but I would not berate anyone of that ilk.

Don't mind lesbians though.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.



edited for clarity

Edited by Tom Logan on Friday 28th April 21:08

Do you know what's really irritating? For my entire being to be reduced to a sex act. I'm a gay man, but there's a lot more to my life than anal sex. Not to mention the fact that I, like a huge number of gay men, don't even engage in it. And yet it's the first thing anyone thinks of when gay men are in the conversation.

You know what's also irritating? Someone who defines themselves as 'gay' (i.e. homo SEXUAL) getting irritated when people reduce him to a sex act. Stop defining yourself - reducing your whole being, in your words - by what you do with your bits and maybe others will follow.

Just a thought.

You're a cretin.

That's your debating style? Ad hominem. Figures.

[popeyewhite]

desolate said:

Why would a politician of many years' experience lie?

[Tom Logan]

Boring_Chris said:

Got the quotes confused - question was to Tom.

My answer to the question is that its not my thing but for those that like that kind of activity then crack on.

So to speak.

[Derek Smith]

desolate said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Because he is not permitted an opinion that does not comply with the party line?

Of course he is permitted the opinion. The article said he resigned, do you expect the party to beg him to stay?

Change gay to black or female. He would be perfectly permitted to have and opinion that, for instance, women cannot be popes. He could even believe that for mystical reasons they cannot be priests or vicars. That's reasonable given that the most open minded pope of recent years has stated, a number of times, that they lack the necessary to do stuff. The catholic church, or any religion come to that, is a club. People don't have to belong.

If an MP got up and said that women are inferior to men (which is, in essence, what various religions have said over the years and what the current CEO of catholicsm ltd has reiterated recently) then he should be removed from MPing as one openly professing prejudice is really a no-no.

The various political parties should not judge their MPs on thought crimes. However, following church morés is one thing; preaching them, which is what this chap has done, is quite another. MPs should be moral and being against women, gays, whatever is not. MPs get kicked out (all too rarely) for immoral conduct.

However, he was probably removed from his post because of the likely backlash and not through any disgust.

[Halb]

Ayahuasca said:

No, I don't believe it is.

He happens to believe that homosexuality is wrong and dangerous to society. You may not agree with him, but castigating someone for his beliefs - as opposed to his actions - is what, to use an extreme example, ISIS do.

If there is any evidence that he discriminated against gay people, fine, punish him But punishing people for thought crimes is not what we should be doing.

He spoke out on a topic (which he seemed ill equipped to) and revealed his fkwittery, it's got fk all to do with party line and to do with being a decent human. And he's toast not because of denying whatever special 'party line' exists, but because of his lack of humanity/intelligence which might or might not result in kick back from the public (but more than likely will result) at large or his constituency, it's how civilisation works. The Torys knew he was a dead duck, as did he himself.

Edited by Halb on Sunday 30th April 00:11

[Ayahuasca]

Halb said:

Ayahuasca said:

No, I don't believe it is.

He happens to believe that homosexuality is wrong and dangerous to society. You may not agree with him, but castigating someone for his beliefs - as opposed to his actions - is what, to use an extreme example, ISIS do.

If there is any evidence that he discriminated against gay people, fine, punish him But punishing people for thought crimes is not what we should be doing.

He spoke out on a topic (which he seemed ill equipped to) and revealed his fkwittery, it's got fk all to do with party line and to do with being a decent human. And he's toast not because of denying whatever special 'party line' exists, but because of his lack of humanity/intelligence which might or might not result in kick back from the public (but more than likely will result) at large or his constituency, it's how civilisation works. The Torys knew he was a dead duck, as did he himself.

Edited by Halb on Sunday 30th April 00:11

And yet seems to be intellectually more honest than the weaseling Tim Farron, who prevaricated for an eternity on pretty much the same issue, before forcing himself to state that gay sex is not a sin (and many think he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he choked the words out), yet he remains leader of his party.

In the interests of a political even playing field, I demand to know what Theresa May thinks of bum fun.

[PurpleMoonlight]

More Conservative MP's were against gay marriage than for it.

[mickytruelove]

The marriage thing is surely a religious ceremony so i struggle to understand the gay marriage arguement. They have civil partnership which is the same for benifits and the rest. If you want to dress up in a wedding dress in a church then build your own church and do it. You cant force your views on someone else , i.e the brain warped church goers and their religion club. its their club and their rules.

i have gay friends and it does not bother me one bit. A wedding is religous and if you are religous you would not be sleeping with a bloke. Christianity would frown apon it and islam would throw you off a building. Surely that makes a could case for giving up on religion.

[Halb]

Ayahuasca said:

And yet seems to be intellectually more honest than the weaseling Tim Farron, who prevaricated for an eternity on pretty much the same issue, before forcing himself to state that gay sex is not a sin (and many think he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he choked the words out), yet he remains leader of his party.
In the interests of a political even playing field, I demand to know what Theresa May thinks of bum fun.

I don't like Tim, don't think I ever have, but you may be right, I dunno. I do feel he was hounded by an illogical gutter press, he didn't volunteer his thoughts, he had to be badgered for them.
May was on Marr just and was asked that question directly, there was barely a nanosecond before May responded there is no problem with bum fun. There was a follow up question which was good and was handled well as well...and I have instantly forgotten what it was...

[king arthur]

mickytruelove said:

The marriage thing is surely a religious ceremony so i struggle to understand the gay marriage arguement. They have civil partnership which is the same for benifits and the rest. If you want to dress up in a wedding dress in a church then build your own church and do it. You cant force your views on someone else , i.e the brain warped church goers and their religion club. its their club and their rules.

i have gay friends and it does not bother me one bit. A wedding is religous and if you are religous you would not be sleeping with a bloke. Christianity would frown apon it and islam would throw you off a building. Surely that makes a could case for giving up on religion.

So atheists can't get married either then, is that what you're saying?

[motco]

Ayahuasca said:

And yet seems to be intellectually more honest than the weaseling Tim Farron, who prevaricated for an eternity on pretty much the same issue, before forcing himself to state that gay sex is not a sin (and many think he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he choked the words out), yet he remains leader of his party.

In the interests of a political even playing field, I demand to know what Theresa May thinks of bum fun.

I think he was careful to say that homosexuality was not a sin, not gay sex. The inference I draw is that the act may be a sin in his opinion, but being homosexual is not. Of course the quote might be inaccurate...

[Derek Smith]

mickytruelove said:

The marriage thing is surely a religious ceremony so i struggle to understand the gay marriage arguement. They have civil partnership which is the same for benifits and the rest. If you want to dress up in a wedding dress in a church then build your own church and do it. You cant force your views on someone else , i.e the brain warped church goers and their religion club. its their club and their rules.

i have gay friends and it does not bother me one bit. A wedding is religous and if you are religous you would not be sleeping with a bloke. Christianity would frown apon it and islam would throw you off a building. Surely that makes a could case for giving up on religion.

You are wrong in that marriage is a purely religious ceremony.

People got married before the imposition of christianity on this country. Some suggest church marriages were something the majority of the population did not have the option of right up until the 14thC, and probably beyond. Various vicars would do the rounds and 'bless' real marriages, for a fee of course. It wasn't until the Hardwicke Act, middle 18thC, that the church's position was 'official'. Up until then marriage was something that two people entered by means other than via a church ceremony, if you see what I mean. Jumping broomsticks was accepted as a marriage in some places.

In effect a couple were married when they said they were. And quite rightly so.

It is a myth that marriage was instituted by (a) god. It was, like christmas, a celebration that the christian church usurped.

[Thorodin]

Why would he have to apologise? Apparently expressing your view is fatal to your career! I happen to think 'City' pay grades and Judges' allowances are obscene in the extreme, infinitely worse and more immoral than most sexual practice or inclinations could possibly be. But then there are precious few lobbyists in that field in the woodwork. Come to think of it, proselytising evangelistic homosexuals do in fact annoy to a greater extent.

Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 30th April 15:16

[98elise]

mickytruelove said:

The marriage thing is surely a religious ceremony so i struggle to understand the gay marriage arguement. They have civil partnership which is the same for benifits and the rest. If you want to dress up in a wedding dress in a church then build your own church and do it. You cant force your views on someone else , i.e the brain warped church goers and their religion club. its their club and their rules.

i have gay friends and it does not bother me one bit. A wedding is religous and if you are religous you would not be sleeping with a bloke. Christianity would frown apon it and islam would throw you off a building. Surely that makes a could case for giving up on religion.

No it's not a religious ceremony. You can be married in a civil ceremony if you want (it's quite common). You can even be married by an Elvis impersonator in a drive through if you wish.

Churches can also marry people, but they don't have exclusive rights to it.

I've never really understood the difference between a civil partnership and marriage though. I assumed they were pretty much the same thing but the distinction seems to be important.

[Mr Tracy]

Halb said:

May was on Marr just and was asked that question directly, there was barely a nanosecond before May responded there is no problem with bum fun.

There was a follow up question which was good and was handled well as well...and I have instantly forgotten what it was...

Which was, would you let Tim Farron bum you? May .... only if he becomes the next PM!

I think it's safe to say she'll have no need to break out the KY anytime soon

[NEEP]

Tom Logan said:

I personally think it's disgusting to stick your nudger up another chap's blurter (or vice versa)

Edited by Tom Logan on Friday 28th April 21:08

You do know it's not compulsory. But if the thought of it helps you fapp one out, knock your self out