[Closed] Tory MP in homophobic farore shocker...

I had better tell those people I know in same-sex relationships that also have kids to put them in a home or something then...

:-/

Rachel

The shadow Welsh secretary, Owen Smith, attacked the comments as evidence that the "nasty party is alive and well under David Cameron".

Shame the opposition couldn't just point out a few facts and realities instead of jumping in with childish and clichéd soundbites.

Really it seams no matter how embarrassingly stupid a comment one party makes, the others just want to make themselves seem equally pathetic.

Funny how the responses immediately started to offer this as evidence that the Tory party is "nasty", before ityro2012 posted a long list of Labour MP's who'd voted against "gay marriage"...

Most amusing.

He might have a point though. How are you supposed to raise children if you spend your days snorting poppers, rollerblading, dancing to Euro disco and bumming?

Funny how the responses immediately started to offer this as evidence that the Tory party is "nasty", before ityro2012 posted a long list of Labour MP's who'd voted against "gay marriage"...

A list somewhat shorter than the list of Tory MPs who voted against it.

So what's your point?

They're all cahnts.

I reckon he will be outed sooner or later. Or caught on video with a ladyboy.

[i]Jones said: "I regard marriage as an institution that has developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same-sex partners can't do.[/i]

A bit of a contradiction there; as once gays' can marry then surely the 'environment' is there?

indeed, but the mechanics are still somewhat difficult to overcome

erm - toys19 - that's a couple of times you felt the need to mention ladyboys in your posts. Anything you want to tell us all?? 🙄

I wonder what the percentage of really ****ed up nasty criminal people's parents were heterosexual and married at one point and err, not gay. Heterosexual, married parents are automatically kind and loving and warm then? My twisted logic kind of contradicts yer argument there a bit bud. How do these people get to represent us is beyond me. This guy just sounds really thick!

I read that as him meaning they cannot have kids tbh. Clumsy language but ambiquous IMHO

When I say cannot have kids I mean biologically together etc for clarity. I have same sex mates with kids but see how many caveats you need
It goes without saying all Tories are ****s and some on all sides of the political spectrum, I call them religious,are homophobic re marriage

Funny, cos I read it as a gay couple can't provide a caring nurturing loving home.

Funny, cos I read it as a gay couple can't provide a caring nurturing loving home.

+ 1

More poor use of language that out right homophobia, but I'm sure the Tory whips will pick him up on this and make sure he toes the party line and is 100% homophobic from now on.

😀

So do gay parents make good mums and dads,

probably yes, good jobs, high disposble income, fun loving, well dressed,gereat desin sence and funny and helpful to all.

Totally the opposite to a conservative.

Must try and meet a conservative and see if they have kids, not looked after by a nanny.Eg part time parents.

On the clumsy language point, I think could be a valid excuse if that was said down the pub. But that sentence structure, from an MP, (any MP, but it does tend be the Tories) in the weeks after the first gay marriage vote when surely all the Tories would have been sent on a special course on how not to sound too homophobic even if you are, can't be excused... either on grounds of just being incredibly offensive, or just too plain incompetent to be allowed out unsupervised.

good jobs, high disposble income, fun loving, well dressed,gereat desin sence and funny and helpful to all.

How's that for a generalisation? And some shit spelling... ;0)

I think it conceivably could just be wrong choice of words... Not impossible. Don't think it was, though.

project - Member
So do gay parents make good mums and dads,

probably yes, good jobs, high disposble income, fun loving, well dressed,gereat desin sence and funny and helpful to all.

Totally the opposite to a conservative.

Must try and meet a conservative and see if they have kids, not looked after by a nanny.Eg part time parents.

POSTED 11 MINUTES AGO #

Congratulations you are now a fully paid up member of the received opinion club !

I think it is about time we see the other side of this...

I know many gay couples both with and without children who would withdraw the right of Tories to marry, cohabit or procreate - as well as removing any possibility of adoption.

Some of my best friends are Tory mps ..

homophobic farore shocker

O.P. in unable to spell furore shocker. 😀

Man in public office not allowed personal opinion shocker.

clubber - Member
Some of my best friends are Tory mps ..
POSTED 10 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

And hopefully they have a sense of humour! 🙂

Man in public office not allowed personal opinion shocker.

Man in public office airs his personal opinions via the press shocker.

Good to see the Enlightened™ are united in their Toryphobia. 8)

If there's just one thing in the world you have to dislike, might as well be the Tories.

carbon337 - Member

Man in public office not allowed personal opinion shocker.

Oh, he's allowed a personal opinion. The issue isn't that he dared to have an opinion, it's that it seems to be an ill-informed, prejudiced and offensive one. Is it hard to understand the difference between being dissatisfied with someone's opinion, and dissatisfied that he has one?

I wasn't seriously suggesting preventing Conservatives having formal or informal relationships nor from procreating. I was joking, simply suggesting how ludicrous it is to: -
- stereotype by political persuasion
- reduce basic rights or opportunities based on sexuality

the levels of Toryphobia on this thread are sickening.

they should really be higher.

Am I allowed to say on this thread how much I really don't give a toss about any of what the thread is about? Please.

enfht - Member
Good to see the Enlightened™ are united in their Toryphobia.

Glad to see your pride in being unenlightened enfht. 😆

"ill-informed, prejudiced and offensive one"

There was a Tory **** on the radio last week discussing gay marriage. He stated that the purpose of marriage was to raise children therefore gay marriage was wrong. Was quickly put down by a presenter suggesting that marriage between the over 50s and infertile couples should also be made illegal as clearly they wouldn't produce much in the way of offspring.

I think that we need to cull a few MPs to remind them that they are there to enable the will of the majority, clearly something that they have forgotten. In the interest of fairness and equality I would suggest Michael Gove, Danny Alexander and Ed Balls to start with.

Good to see the Enlightened™ are united in their Toryphobia

Doesn't phobia imply a fear of something. If I despise something it doesn't mean I fear it. I have a phobia of moths which means I am terrified of them. I'd never wish ill on one or go out of my way to harm one though. Tory MPs on the other hand... 😈

carbon337 - Member

to you maybe.

No, ill-informed and prejudiced isn't a "to you maybe"- it is or it isn't.

When someone says that marriage is "essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same-sex partners can't do.", that's undeniably ill-informed.

And the only thing that can drive that sort of bat**** wrongheadedness is prejudice- there's no logical argument for it whatsoever.

So do gay parents make good mums and dads,

probably yes, good jobs, high disposble income, fun loving, well dressed,gereat desin sence and funny and helpful to all.

Or unemployed and unemployable, drugged up, manic depressive, violent, promiscuous, anti-social... .

I think you'll find the same mix of good and bad among the gay community as in the rest of the community.

I know homosexuals who fit the quote perfectly, one who is Jekyl and Hyde evil, and one who is a really nice guy but spent a few years in jail for touching up minors - I got a real hammering on a thread here when I said I still considered him a friend.

As for the Welsh secretary, he's entitled to his opinion which I respect. He's being to subjected to the kind of hatred that gays were subject to a few years back. Think about that.

As for the Welsh secretary, he's entitled to his opinion which I respect. He's being to subjected to the kind of hatred that gays were subject to a few years back. Think about that.

But years ago the so called gay scene was so far underground you almost had to be a miner to exist in it,where as tories have their own clubs and newspapers, and even a political party now.

Edukator, please name some good things that the tories have done for the uk working man or woman.

Edukator, please name some good things that the tories have done for the uk working man or woman.

Too easy! Two words - lost elections!

Edukator - Member

He's being to subjected to the kind of hatred that gays were subject to a few years back. Think about that.

Srsly? No. He's being subjected to criticism on the grounds of having said something boneheaded and prejudiced. That's hardly comparable to being persecuted because of your sexual persuasion.

He's being to subjected to the kind of hatred that gays were subject to a few years back. Think about that.

Oh that did make me laugh.

Tories not being allowed to serve in the navy, being beaten in the police just because of the way they vote, bullied all through school, the entire Premiership only have one openly Tory player... 😆

Seriously. Those that want people to be tolerant are demostrating their own lack of tolerance.

"boneheaded" and "prejudiced" you say. And how would you qualify your own attitude to his views?

Edukator - Member

Seriously. Those that want people to be tolerant are demostrating their own lack of tolerance.

"boneheaded" and "prejudiced" you say. And how would you qualify your own attitude to his views?

Exactly like I already did up the page.

My view is that he is wrong and verging on the backwards, certainly regressive. He's basically implying gay people can't love children. Or such an idiot he can't frame sentences properly when he knows he's being recorded for broadcast.

I think its probably both to some extent. Its fostering that the view that it makes them some how abnormal, lesser and yes i think he should criticised for that, publicly so that young gay people growing up (the children he is apparently so keen should be supported) aren't made to feel that way by the institutions and representatives of their government.

You say he's ill-informed. [url= http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-gay-couples-academically-disadvantaged-study/ ]That depends on whom you believe.[/url]

seriously you're referencing lifesitenews?

Really? OK, NO, i do not believe anything printed on lifesitenews.

I'm suspicious even of the date.

And the propaganda you read is less biased, Unklhomered? The pro-gay stuff is propaganda and the anti-gay marriage stuff is propaganda. Trying to say one side or the other is ill-informed is ill-informed. Neither is in anyway objective as both sides base their arguments on passion rather than anything objective. When they pretent to be objective they cheat, manipulating and massaging the statistics to suit their needs.

Brilliant.

Maybe there would be less Toryphobia if they all stopped proudly demonstrating the fact that they're all such complete and utter ****s!

Just a thought

pro-gay stuff

Errr, Mary Berry's cook book? Just William? XKCD? STW? Al Jazeera? The Archers?

You're reading more into the Archers than is right and proper...

My opinions come from my experiences of 32.3 yrs of my life. There are very few people who do not have the capacity for love and compassion, and there is no litmus test to weed them out. Or we would know, irrefutably.

And with that I think I'd better step back, this has the risk of getting nasty and that was not my intent.

So what was the intent of your list of red herrings and accusing me of reading things into the Archers, Unklehomerod?

Think about it, it's pretty obvious (seeing as he states his reason in his third sentence).

Illustrating (badly apparently) how humorous I found the idea that I have been brain washing myself with 'pro gay stuff'. I did also read the Harrogate Advertiser - not of my own will, I have to read it for work. But any pro gay subtext in there is too well hidden for me to spot.

I also find the assertion that being supportive of gay marriage makes me 'pro-gay' quite amusing, does that mean I'm 'anti-straight'?

Being pro-something doesn't necessarily make you anti-anything. I'm pro-stripes, that doesn't make me anti-spots.

As for the third sentence (I assume you mean third paragraph), there's nothing in the article to suggest the Welsh secretary would disagree based on his even longer experience of life.

Edukator - Member

You say he's ill-informed. That depends on whom you believe.

That you're quoting openly anti-gay websites is interesting. But what's more telling is that the website you quote doesn't even support the argument that you're trying to make.

Jones says marriage is "essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same-sex partners can't do."

So go on, who thinks that's correct? Same sex partners can't possibly provide a safe and warm environment for the upbringing of children?

He may not be ill-informed, mind- he [i]might [/i] be perfectly aware it's not true.

Just another one of those Friday nights when Edukator's had a few too many beaujolais.

It's not pro or anti anything to me, it's just about everyone being treated equally by each other and The State, simple. It's not about any particular minority or Tory bashing. He's just being backward and stuck in the past, scared of any kind of progression into a fairer society. I just find it hard to understand that kind of divisive way of thinking.

If you read the article I linked it points out that research saying children of gay couples do as well or better eliminated a lot of gay couples form the study by setting a minimum seven-year period for the relationship to be included. Many gay couples being eliminated from the study as their relationships are less durable than hetero couples. If you accept that stable parenting is more beneficial than rapidly changing parents then the study eliminated couples for whom at least one adverse aspect of gay relationships was present.

I'm quoting the article so please refrain from quoting the above and getting personal with me.

The argument I'm trying to make is that the people slagging off the Welsh secretary for his views on what constitutes a marriage are gulity of exactly the sort on intolerance and prejudice they suffered for years.

Let's be totally clear- he hasn't said that same-sex couples may be a less good environment for kids. He's said that same sex couples cannot provide a warm and safe environment for kids.

You don't seem to be defending what he said; you seem to be defending different comments which he hasn't actually made.

I don't think many people will have a problem with a suggestion that kids from a same-sex family may be disadvantaged in various ways. And if he'd actually said that, we'd be having a whole different discussion.

I haven't had a drink for six days, Darcy. Once again you only have personal insult to add to a thread.

So what constitutes a "safe, warm environment". Factors might include (do include according to the antis), a durable realtionship, monagamous rather than promiscuous parents and a lack of violence between parents. Now do some Googling on how long the average male homosexual "stable" relationship lasts, how many other sexual partners the couple will have during that "stable" relationship and how many of those relationships will be violent.

The Welsh secretary has a point. Being realistic and objective about the average behaviour of homosexual couples is not being homophobic.

If you want my personal view:

"gay marriage": find another word please that doesn't include "marriage" whatever the rights it might confer.

Adoption: each case on its merits.

Edukator - Member

So what constitutes a "safe, warm environment". Factors might include (do include according to the antis), a durable realtionship, monagamous rather than promiscuous parents and a lack of violence between parents. Now do some Googling on how long the average male homosexual "stable" relationship lasts, how many other sexual partners the couple will have during that "stable" relationship and how many of those relationships will be violent.

None of which goes any further towards supporting his argument. But does go further towards defending an argument he didn't make. It's [i]almost[/i] as though you can't defend what he really said!

And just to state the bleedin' obvious- the behavior of average couples, hetero or homo, has little relevance to the non-average relationships that lead to establishing families.

I think it does (edit to follow your edit: on both points) so we'll have to agree to disagree. Time for bed, good night all.

We can agree to disagree on that; we can't agree to disagree on the truth of what he's said, and what he's being condemned for.

Edukator said:

The Welsh secretary has a point. Being realistic and objective about the average behaviour of homosexual couples is not being homophobic.

Rachel

the levels of Toryphobia on this thread are sickening.

I haven't had a drink for six days, Darcy. Once again you only have personal insult to add to a thread.

Oh right, sorry Ed, my mistake sugar. You're being a bit sensitive. I thought only a drunk could have been spouting the kind of shite you were last night. But, wow, you really think those things? I'm amazed.

e.g.

So what constitutes a "safe, warm environment". Factors might include (do include according to the antis), a durable realtionship, monagamous rather than promiscuous parents and a lack of violence between parents. Now do some Googling on how long the average male homosexual "stable" relationship lasts, how many other sexual partners the couple will have during that "stable" relationship and how many of those relationships will be violent.

This...wow! Do some googling to find out? You list factors which you arbitrarily decide constititute a warm safe environment, then advise us to google to find statistics which say that a gay couple should not raise children. Have you some statistics to suggest heterosexual couples are less violent towards one another than gay couples? (preferably not from your anti-gay propaganda website, thanks).

If you want my personal view:

It seems that some evenings, we don't really have a choice. You've outdone yourself this weekend though. Perhaps have a drink this evening. Go have a dance. It might relax you some.

I find it interesting that people would label the Tories the nasty party over this whole saga. Agreed there are a few knobs in there but it is a Tory government that has put forward the legislation for gay marriage.

Also interesting is everybody trying not to offend, be offended and generally walk on egg shells around the topic for fear of being labelled prejudice. It is all a bit 'I have gay friends but...'

Fwiw I don't think a gay couple would make a good mum and dad for a child but I don't see any reason why they would not make good parents ;). You'd have to be blind to think traditional marriage was some sort of perfect institution when it came to relationships and childcare.

oooh that got a little frayed while I slept.

I don't mind if the secretary of state says he believes marriage is between a man a woman and that shouldn't change. Well alright I do, but its a background buzz of irritation, it will always be there, I disagree with him and find the view old fashioned and limiting. What I strongly verbally object to is the assertion of facts which are ridiculous and false, and should be challenged.

Just for objectivity here is the video.

"I regard marriage as... warm safe environment for the upbringing of children" -an assertion of opinion. But then IMO he then switches to an assertion of fact "which is clearly something that two same partners can't do."

Can't, not are less likely to due to their crazy gay lifestyle, unstable relationships and whatever. Can't i.e. Cannot - not possible. That last bit is why I want him raked over the coals, a minister in the government just went on TV and told half a million British citizens they would not be capable of loving a child.

FWIW I by and large can't stand children... should I be moving my piercing over to the other ear?

The Tory bit in the title I regret a bit, I was about to leave work and hurrying about, and my tory MP, of whom i'm not massively 'woohoo', voted for the bill last week, as did over 100 others and as stated above, the bill is Cameron's baby, and I think he's actually doing his party a massive favour pushing it through, even the leading members of the 1922 committee will likely see that to seek to overturn it would be a largely unpopular act and will let the issue drop in future freeing the party from a big millstone round its neck.

Educators point about the use of the word marriage is a good one a lot of people get upset about the need to use that one word for what they rightly see as two different forms of union . I would suggest this could be resolved by the use of two different terms.

Marriage for the popular concept of two people publicly announcing there love and commitment to one another.

And "religiously sanctioned breeding contract" for the other one .

Agreed there are a few knobs in there but it is a Tory government that has put forward the legislation for gay marriage.

More Tory MPs voted against gay marriage than in support of it. And in the case of Welsh Tory MPs, since the subject here is the Welsh secretary, every single one voted against gay marriage.

The reason the vote was overwhelming carried was because of the huge support it had from other non-Tory parties in the House of Commons.

So "a few knobs" ? ..... well if legislation for gay marriage is your yardstick then the few are really not a small minority at all.

EDIT : The whole point of legalising gay marriage was an attempt by Cameron to shed the "Nasty Party" image. It doesn't appear to have been successful according to the Tory supporting Sun newspaper :

[url= http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4787880/David-Cameron-loses-votes-over-gay-marriage-row.html ]Gay marriages vote gives Cam a bashing[/url]

[i] Mr Cameron hoped extending gay rights would help shed the Tories’ “nasty party” image.

But the gamble has backfired with 134 of his MPs — over half — refusing to back him.[/i]

😯

wow, really, just wow.

Edukator your views are just...y'know I can't even begin to say how much it makes me just....sad really.

deadlydarcy - Member
Just another one of those Friday nights when Edukator's had a few too many beaujolais.

Nah. He's just like that...

The argument I'm trying to make is that the people slagging off the Welsh secretary for his views on what constitutes a marriage are gulity of exactly the sort on intolerance and prejudice they suffered for years.

Some of my best friends are Tories.

What a load of rubbish - nobody's being intolerant, he's perfectly entitled to hold his views, but we're entitled to say he's an arse and shouldn't be in a position of power if he holds them. Nobody's being prejudiced either - it's not because he's a Tory, it's because (again) he's being an arse.

And "exactly the sort" - really? He's been attacked in the street, denied the right to marry, been prosecuted for who he loves, offered chemical treatment for his "condition"?

Anyone would think that there are no homosexuals in the Tory party. 😆

Anyway, as we're all so liberally pro-gay at the moment, is this the time and place to start slagging off Islam, and all the other nasty religions?
😉

Anyone would think that there are no homosexuals in the Tory party.

To paraphrase the Welsh Secretary .......

[i]"The Tory Party is an institution that has developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for hypocrites and bigots" [/i]