Why doesn't Winston just give us a straight answer?

[Will.]

He starts rambling on about stuff that has nothing to do with it.

[ThriceShy]

I agree with Winston so what is it you want an answer to?

[LukeB]

that's why Emma got frustrated with him, he never gives straight answers or explains things.. he brings up irrelevant stuff

[Jarvio]

He starts rambling on about stuff that has nothing to do with it.

A common reaction from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about

[zakman440]

Because he knows that his views are awful, so will just say anything in the hope that people back off.

[Paul Kersey]

I agree with Winston so what is it you want an answer to?


:clap1:

[Headie]

I agree with Winston so what is it you want an answer to?

:clap1:

http://45.media.tumblr.com/3fa488914fd16052951761c9059d6526/tumblr_o0nyqiddBr1uym6sbo4_400.gif

[GiRTh]

Ok for those who agree with Winston maybe you can answer the question - why is it abuse for a same sex couple to adopt? Please be specific and highlight why exactly it would be abuse.

[Will.]

I agree with Winston so what is it you want an answer to?

http://45.media.tumblr.com/eb1b1ec18de1b6d774cd8d676a9a0028/tumblr_nz05ddhJFy1ugxgfwo1_400.gif

[ThriceShy]

Ok for those who agree with Winston maybe you can answer the question - why is it abuse for a same sex couple to adopt? Please be specific and highlight why exactly it would be abuse.

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Because y'all can't handle the truth. (his truth)

[GiRTh]

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?I don't see an issue so please explain why its bad?

[Will.]

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

https://media2.giphy.com/media/Q6CmuhVmn2nGo/200_s.gif

[Mitchell]

I agree with Winston so what is it you want an answer to?

I'm going to enjoy this.

Hello Thrice, so what part of Gay adoption is child abuse? Thats what I really want to know, what part of children being scared, hurt, injured and tormented physically and mentally is comparable to putting them in a house with two loving parents?

[Shaun]

For someone so against the gays he sure can't give a straight answer :shrug:

[Paul Kersey]

Gay mafia does not allow any other point of view.

[Shaun]

*arranges for a unicorn head on Paul's pillow*

[cheapbbfan]

Why does he have to? He does not need to justify his view on gay adoption to anyone on this show. He explained himself. People didnt like his answer. There is NOTHING he can say on the subject that people will like so why even bother?

[cheapbbfan]

that's why Emma got frustrated with him, he never gives straight answers or explains things.. he brings up irrelevant stuff

his view on gay adoption is irrelevant to this show so thats quite fitting

[ThriceShy]

I'm going to enjoy this.

Hello Thrice, so what part of Gay adoption is child abuse? Thats what I really want to know, what part of children being scared, hurt, injured and tormented physically and mentally is comparable to putting them in a house with two loving parents?

Do you think a child having no mum is healthy? Would you deliberately put a child into such a situation?

I keep hearing that everyone has the right to have children. The fact is that that is a selfish view. Children have the right to a mother.

[GiRTh]

Why does he have to? He does not need to justify his view on gay adoption to anyone on this show. He explained himself. People didnt like his answer. There is NOTHING he can say on the subject that people will like so why even bother?Its polite to answer a questions when asked. Especially as when asked if he stood by what he said. he said as I recall 'Hell Yes' If he's that adamant he should be able to explain why he takes this stance.

[rubymoo]

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

Just because someone is female doesn't make them a perfect mother, i can think of a lot of child abuse cases where mothers have been the spawn of satan (and i'm not religious).

Just as long as a child has caring parents whether they be a gay couple, a single parent, or those with religious beliefs, as long as the child will be loved and cared for in a secure and loving home, what does it really matter?

[Jamie89]

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

They don't have a mother in a care home either. And as someone who knows a gay man who's adopted a child, I can assure you that there is plenty of 'forethought'. No one just wakes up one day and says 'I think I'll adopt a kid today, and yipee i'm gay so they won't have a mum'. Life's not a fairy tale mate, and any child in care would be lucky to have a loving home to go to, regardless of how many parents and what gender/sexual orientation they are.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Do you think a child having no mum is healthy? Would you deliberately put a child into such a situation?

I keep hearing that everyone has the right to have children. The fact is that that is a selfish view. Children have the right to a mother.

But the children in care who would be adopted have no parents. It is selfish of you to deny children a loving home.

[Mitchell]

Do you think a child having no mum is healthy? Would you deliberately put a child into such a situation?

I keep hearing that everyone has the right to have children. The fact is that that is a selfish view. Children have the right to a mother.

Its certainly not unhealthy? What about all those hundreds of people who have abusive mothers who beat up their children? Two dads and two mums can do just as good as a job as a man and a woman, its the person inside not the persons identity.

Its not a selfish view at all, providing people have one loving parent, that is fine for me.

[Paul Kersey]

He starts rambling on about stuff that has nothing to do with it.

Wanna kill him? Hang him?

[Jason.]

It's because he's a politician. Most of them do the same thing. Having irrelevant answers to questions so they don't look as bad. :rolleyes:

[MrWong]

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

Would you rather they stay in a childrens home with no mother or father?

[ThriceShy]

Its certainly not unhealthy? What about all those hundreds of people who have abusive mothers who beat up their children? Two dads and two mums can do just as good as a job as a man and a woman, its the person inside not the persons identity.

Its not a selfish view at all, providing people have one loving parent, that is fine for me.

Children need a mother. That is why nature has seen women giving birth to children and nursing them for the last 100,000 years.

[cheapbbfan]

Its polite to answer a questions when asked. Especially as when asked if he stood by what he said. he said as I recall 'Hell Yes' If he's that adamant he should be able to explain why he takes this stance.

he explained himself in the house. If Emma wanted answers, she should watch the tapes. He was being goaded into saying more controversial stuff so this show would have further material to attack him with. If you give an idiot a rope, they'll hang themselves. He did his best not to let them put him in a position to do that bc anything he would have said would have been met with scrutiny. Opposers of him may want to deny that but you know its true

[Will.]

I'd love to have gay parents, they always seem to bring there children up in such a pleasant manner and go the extra mile.

ALL YOU NEED IS 2 LOVING PARENTS! IT DOESN'T ****ING MATTER ABOUT THEIR GODAMN SEXUALITY, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

[Niamh.]

For someone so against the gays he sure can't give a straight answer :shrug:


:hehe:

[Mitchell]

Children need a mother. That is why nature has seen women giving birth to children and nursing them for the last 100,000 years.

Children need a mother to be born congratulations, doesn't mean that they need a mother and a father does it? I've never felt appreciated with my Dad, I've coped extremely well with one loving parent, so why should a child be denied of loving parents just because they didn't squeeze them out of their fanny? (Obviously lesbians want to adopt too and should be allowed to, more loving parents are what we should be encouraging.)

[ThriceShy]

Would you rather they stay in a childrens home with no mother or father?


No. I would rather they went to a mother and father.

[Vicky.]

Its not just this, he doesn't give a straight answer to anything from what I have seen, always rambly. Very...politician like :p

[GiRTh]

he explained himself in the house. If Emma wanted answers, she should watch the tapes. He was being goaded into saying more controversial stuff so this show would have further material to attack him with. If you give an idiot a rope, they'll hang themselves. He did his best not to let them put him in a position to do that bc anything he would have said would have been met with scrutiny. Opposers of him may want to deny that but you know its trueNo. HE started waffling on about boxing, his support for the homeless, all Emma did was get him back on track.

As for giving him enough rope to hang himself? No one forced him into saying what he said so I dont get that he was lead in any way or baited. He made his comment with little provocation and failed to stand by them.,

[reece(:]

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?
If a mother was deceased or couldn't handle children and the dad was on his own it would be child abuse?

[LukeB]

his view on gay adoption is irrelevant to this show so thats quite fitting

it's only fair since Tila got removed over her comments.

[Mitchell]

No. I would rather they went to a mother and father.

Its not even worth trying to explain something to you, its obvious you are stuck in your ancient discriminating ways and seem to pride yourself on deciding that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, you're probably one of those imbeciles who think gays shouldn't be allowed to donate blood incase they spread gayness

[joeysteele]

He won't give a straight answer because likely the real truth and real answer is he does hold the view that gay adoption is child abuse.
Also that he stands firmly by his distorted and prejudiced comments which by the fact he will not retract any part of it, shows the quote is in fact totally his.

[Vicky.]

it's only fair since Tila got removed over her comments.

Which was also quite stupid, as offensive as their views are...they were said/done before BB, and as such producers knew about it before casting them.

[ThriceShy]

Its not even worth trying to explain something to you, its obvious you are stuck in your ancient discriminating ways and seem to pride yourself on deciding that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, you're probably one of those imbeciles who think gays shouldn't be allowed to donate blood incase they spread gayness

Nice strawman.

If you are going to make up arguments I have never said then I think we will leave it there.

You said this would be fun so I had high hopes for a decent debate with you. Boy, was I disappointed.

[Mitchell]

Nice strawman.

If you are going to make up arguments I have never said then I think we will leave it there.

You said this would be fun so I had high hopes for a decent debate with you. Boy, was I disappointed.

I did have fun actually, it was a right laugh reading you clutching at straws trying to prove to me why adoption by homosexual couples was child abuse, maybe we should meet next week for more fabby fun :)

[ThriceShy]

I did have fun actually, it was a right laugh reading you clutching at straws trying to prove to me why adoption by homosexual couples was child abuse, maybe we should meet next week for more fabby fun :)

You are a glutton for punishment I will give you that.:laugh:

If you think that resorting to "I bet you think all gays have AIDS", like you just did, is winning then I have news for you I'm afraid.

[Mitchell]

You are a glutton for punishment I will give you that.:laugh:

If you think that resorting to "I bet you think all gays have AIDS", like you just did, is winning then I have news for you I'm afraid.

Did the words "I bet you think all gays have AIDS" come out of my mouth honey? Did I insinuate that in any way what so ever?

If so, you need to get your eyes tested love because you are seeing things that aren't there x

[smudgie]

I want to know why nobody asked him the correct question.he had already answered that he does believe it's wrong and that it could cause child abuse.
Surely the question that should have been asked is what exactly does he mean by abuse?
Is he of the old fashioned opinion that such children would face ridicule and bullying at school and from their peers.
If so, then he needs to understand that the only way to stop this happening is to make it more normal for same sex parenting.
Children are cruel, if a child loses one of its parents due to bereavement they can end up being bullied as well, it is purely down to the ignorance of the other children, they don't like anything different or out of the ordinary that they don't understand, so surely the more they see that it is quite normal and ok for same sex parents the better.
If he is on about any other kind of abuse then I don't have a clue where he gets that skewered idea.
I can understand his Christian upbringing saying its not allowed for man to lay with man etc. in the bible, but I have never heard anything about child abuse in the bible.

[ThriceShy]

I want to know why nobody asked him the correct question.he had already answered that he does believe it's wrong and that it could cause child abuse.
Surely the question that should have been asked is what exactly does he mean by abuse?
Is he of the old fashioned opinion that such children would face ridicule and bullying at school and from their peers.
If so, then he needs to understand that the only way to stop this happening is to make it more normal for same sex parenting.
Children are cruel, if a child loses one of its parents due to bereavement they can end up being bullied as well, it is purely down to the ignorance of the other children, they don't like anything different or out of the ordinary that they don't understand, so surely the more they see that it is quite normal and ok for same sex parents the better.
If he is on about any other kind of abuse then I don't have a clue where he gets that skewered idea.
I can understand his Christian upbringing saying its not allowed for man to lay with man etc. in the bible, but I have never heard anything about child abuse in the bible.


Why should he have to justify his views to anyone?

I certainly wouldn't. I would have said "Its my opinion." And those would have been my last 3 words on the subject.

[Vicky.]

I want to know why nobody asked him the correct question.he had already answered that he does believe it's wrong and that it could cause child abuse.
Surely the question that should have been asked is what exactly does he mean by abuse?
Is he of the old fashioned opinion that such children would face ridicule and bullying at school and from their peers.
If so, then he needs to understand that the only way to stop this happening is to make it more normal for same sex parenting.
Children are cruel, if a child loses one of its parents due to bereavement they can end up being bullied as well, it is purely down to the ignorance of the other children, they don't like anything different or out of the ordinary that they don't understand, so surely the more they see that it is quite normal and ok for same sex parents the better.
If he is on about any other kind of abuse then I don't have a clue where he gets that skewered idea.
I can understand his Christian upbringing saying its not allowed for man to lay with man etc. in the bible, but I have never heard anything about child abuse in the bible.
They did ask that, multiple times :laugh:

[cheapbbfan]

No. HE started waffling on about boxing, his support for the homeless, all Emma did was get him back on track.

As for giving him enough rope to hang himself? No one forced him into saying what he said so I dont get that he was lead in any way or baited. He made his comment with little provocation and failed to stand by them.,Because he didnt want to answer and he should have been straight forward with that. If I were him, Id have told Emma straight up that I no longer wanted to talk about that subject. We can discuss my time in the house. Next.

he never said that in the house. It was completely irrelevant to the game and should have never been brought into this. He has NO reason to justify anything he said or did outside of this house. Had he been going around telling that comment to others in the house, it would have been a different story but he chose to keep his opinions to himself till BB forced this upon him. He doesnt need to respond to that

[smudgie]

They did ask that, multiple times :laugh:

I must have missed it, multiple times.
All I could hear was did he say it, why did he say it, not what he actually meant by abuse.

[cheapbbfan]

it's only fair since Tila got removed over her comments.

No its not. Tila's comments were NOT a part of the game. Did they keep her in the house, expose it to the housemate, make it a storyline and have her blasted over it. Your analogy fails. They removed her from the game; they didnt exploit her past for ratings. To compare it to Tila, he should have been removed from the house prior to eviction night and essentially erased from the program. There is a BIG difference between how Tila was handled and how Winston was and I hope you are able to understand that

[Vicky.]

I must have missed it, multiple times.
All I could hear was did he say it, why did he say it, not what he actually meant by abuse.

A few times during question time, Daniella and someone else asked what he actually meant by child abuse.

[ThriceShy]

It is clear what he means by abuse. He isn't saying that gay people will physically or sexually abuse the child. He is saying that psychologically it isn't healthy to deliberately start a child off in life without a mother.

He has perhaps chosen unwise words but his opinion is not unreasonable and it is shared by lots of people.

[Jamie89]

Why should he have to justify his views to anyone?

I certainly wouldn't. I would have said "Its my opinion." And those would have been my last 3 words on the subject.

It's not about justifying them. He can't justify them. It's about explaining exactly what he means. As smudgie said, simply saying 'abuse' doesn't make it clear what his opinions actually are and people obviously want to know what type of abuse he's talking about.

[jet]

It is clear what he means by abuse. He isn't saying that gay people will physically or sexually abuse the child. He is saying that psychologically it isn't healthy to deliberately start a child off in life without a mother.

He has perhaps chosen unwise words but his opinion is not unreasonable and it is shared by lots of people.

But he didn't say that, you can't speak for him.

[sampvt]

The verbage he used wasn't right, but he didn't mean sexual or physical abuse which is what his haters are paralleling his words up to. He simply meant that the child would not receive what he perceives is a correct upbringing in the face of 2 men promoting homosexual acts or views and this was against his religious and ethical principles. A hell of a lot more different from physical or sexual abuse. The words Child abuse conjures up a bad feeling but can be misunderstood by the masses.

[sampvt]

But he didn't say that, you can't speak for him.

By the same token what gives you the right to speak against him for something you obviously either don't want to understand or simply don't understand. Don't be too hasty to condemn something that is obviously above you. Debate it instead and learn the bones of the views instead of standing in judgement as the only voice of reason.

[Paul Kersey]

Shouldn't this topic be closed too?

[Vicky.]

The topic wasn't the issue, it was what the thread had become. Just a bunch of insults and arguments and pointless pointscoring against one another. This one hasn't gone that way

yet

[Paul Kersey]

The topic wasn't the issue, it was what the thread had become. Just a bunch of insults and arguments and pointless pointscoring against one another. This one hasn't gone that way

yet

Ok, if i'm gonna insult someone, then would this be closed?

[Vicky.]

Ok, if i'm gonna insult someone, then would this be closed?

No. but you may be banned for it. One insult is a hell of a lot easier to clean up that 50 posts involving loads of different people.

Don't purposely try to get threads closed please. There is really no point.

[Paul Kersey]

No. but you may be banned for it. One insult is a hell of a lot easier to clean up that 50 posts involving loads of different people.

Don't purposely try to get threads closed please. There is really no point.

Ok, i see...

[Withano]

Because you are deliberately, with forethought, putting a child in a home without a mother.

How the **** can that be a good thing?

Can you explain how children have the choice to be born to a home to a heterosexual couple? To a single mother? To a single father? I have a feeling that you already know that you're talking **** because you want some attention but i'd be very interested to hear your answer

[Withano]

It is clear what he means by abuse. He isn't saying that gay people will physically or sexually abuse the child. He is saying that psychologically it isn't healthy to deliberately start a child off in life without a mother.

He has perhaps chosen unwise words but his opinion is not unreasonable and it is shared by lots of people.

This post contradicts your other ones. Is your point that Winston is allowed his views because **** morality or is it your point that Winston needs an education because he doesnt understand psychological damage?
You were fairly consistent with your ridiculous posts up until here.

[waterhog]

simple - he is a politician.

[waterhog]

in the making lol

[chuff me dizzy]

It is clear what he means by abuse. He isn't saying that gay people will physically or sexually abuse the child. He is saying that psychologically it isn't healthy to deliberately start a child off in life without a mother.

He has perhaps chosen unwise words but his opinion is not unreasonable and it is shared by lots of people.

Thats exactly what he was saying

[chuff me dizzy]

Ok, if i'm gonna insult someone, then would this be closed?

Why would you want it closed ?

[Kazanne]

The verbage he used wasn't right, but he didn't mean sexual or physical abuse which is what his haters are paralleling his words up to. He simply meant that the child would not receive what he perceives is a correct upbringing in the face of 2 men promoting homosexual acts or views and this was against his religious and ethical principles. A hell of a lot more different from physical or sexual abuse. The words Child abuse conjures up a bad feeling but can be misunderstood by the masses.

That's what I think he meant too,nothing to do with physical or sexual abuse.people just sometimes love to be offended.:hehe:

[MrWong]

The verbage he used wasn't right, but he didn't mean sexual or physical abuse which is what his haters are paralleling his words up to. He simply meant that the child would not receive what he perceives is a correct upbringing in the face of 2 men promoting homosexual acts or views and this was against his religious and ethical principles. A hell of a lot more different from physical or sexual abuse. The words Child abuse conjures up a bad feeling but can be misunderstood by the masses.

Unfortunately, despite a number of opportunities, we have no idea what he means because he rambles on about utter bollox whenever he's asked.

HMs are usually interviewed in one of the tabloids. Has he explained his views in one of those yet?

Btw, even your version of what he meant is still offensive.

[jet]

[QUOTE=sampvt;8409417]By the same token what gives you the right to speak against him for something you obviously either don't want to understand or simply don't understand. Don't be too hasty to condemn something that is obviously above you. Debate it instead and learn the bones of the views instead of standing in judgement as the only voice of reason.[/QUOT

This forum gives me the right to speak, it is what it is for. :laugh:
What is it I am supposed to not understand or what is supposed to be above me. You talk in riddles. :huh: Debate the issues that arise about the HM in question instead of making sweeping and confusing statements about the poster.

[Livia]

He starts rambling on about stuff that has nothing to do with it.

Look at any of his "serious" interviews and he's the same. He's an idiot and a gobsh1te.

[jet]

Look at any of his "serious" interviews and he's the same. He's an idiot and a gobsh1te.

Just looked at an interview....Lord he so is..:shocked:

[Kizzy]

It's a diversionary tactic used by politicians, witter shiz until another part of your brain formulates an adequate response..only he's rubbish at it because he's non too bright.

[AnnieK]

This is a serious and non confrontational question to the people who do agree with Winstons views on two men adopting, do you feel as strongly to two women adopting as people seem to feel that the deprivation of a mother is an issue? Are two women who wish to adopt as unpalatable as two men?

[ThriceShy]

Can you explain how children have the choice to be born to a home to a heterosexual couple? To a single mother? To a single father? I have a feeling that you already know that you're talking **** because you want some attention but i'd be very interested to hear your answer

I didn't say they have a choice.

My point is that when you, as the authorities, are choosing where to place a child then you want to place it with a mother. Mothers are quite important.

I keep hearing that "heveryone has the right to adopt, the right to be happy, the right to a child." What a selfish viewpoint. The only person whose happiness is paramount is the child. Robbing a child of a mother from day one is not healthy.

[ThriceShy]

Unfortunately, despite a number of opportunities, we have no idea what he means because he rambles on about utter bollox whenever he's asked.

HMs are usually interviewed in one of the tabloids. Has he explained his views in one of those yet?

Btw, even your version of what he meant is still offensive.

Do you think he is has to explain or justify his views?:shrug:

[jet]

Do you think he is has to explain or justify his views?:shrug:

He obviously wanted to, given that he called for a conference for 1 oclock. :laugh:
In which he proceeded to be a pompous ass who made it all about him wanting respect for himself...

[ThriceShy]

He obviously wanted to, given that he called for a conference for 1 oclock. :laugh:
In which he proceeded to be a pompous ass who made it all about him wanting respect for himself...


He never brought it up. BB did.

I am asking if you think he has to justify or explain his views?

[jet]

He never brought it up. BB did.

I am asking if you think he has to justify or explain his views?

He called the conference to justify his views, not BB.
It's no skin off my nose whether he wants to justify them or not. It's up to him. But he wanted to, and failed miserably.

[ThriceShy]

Just as I thought. My ignore list grows.

[MrWong]

Do you think he is has to explain or justify his views?:shrug:

He called a meeting to justify them.

[ThriceShy]

He called a meeting to justify them.

That isn't what I asked.

Do you think that he, or indeed anyone with such views, should have to justify them?

Winston was wrong IMO to try and justify them. I said from the beginning that he should have just said "its my opinion" and ignored them. He hasn't because he has lived with 15 people who were all bullying him.

So I will rephrase my question:

Do you think anyone with such views should have to justify them?


I'll nail my colours to the mast. I don't think they should.

[ThriceShy]

By the way, if you recall, it was the HMs, and specifically Gemma, that demanded that Winston explain his views when the task happened.

They seemed to think he somehow had a duty to explain them.

[MrWong]

That isn't what I asked.

Do you think that he, or indeed anyone with such views, should have to justify them?

Winston was wrong IMO to try and justify them. I said from the beginning that he should have just said "its my opinion" and ignored them. He hasn't because he has lived with 15 people who were all bullying him.

So I will rephrase my question:

Do you think anyone with such views should have to justify them?


I'll nail my colours to the mast. I don't think they should.

They should expect to be challenged on them.

They can try and justify them if they like, I don't care as the justifications are usually a load of waffle anyway and have no basis in fact.

[ThriceShy]

They should expect to be challenged on them.

They can try and justify them if they like, I don't care as the justifications are usually a load of waffle anyway and have no basis in fact.

Why should they expect to be challenged on them? Are you saying those views are less valid than opposing views?

Why shouldn't someone who agrees with gay adoption expect to be challenged on their views?:shrug:

And I return to the question I asked yesterday. Why wasn't Jim Davidson expected to be challenged on his view that Brian Dowling is a "shirtlifter" and a "puff"? Do we only challenge people we don't like?

[MrWong]

Why should they expect to be challenged on them? Are you saying those views are less valid than opposing views?

Nope. Try reading again.

Why shouldn't someone who agrees with gay adoption expect to be challenged on their views?:shrug:

It's called debate. Ever changed your opinion on something when hearing different sides? Hardly shocking behaviour.


And I return to the question I asked yesterday. Why wasn't Jim Davidson expected to be challenged on his view that Brian Dowling is a "shirtlifter" and a "puff"? Do we only challenge people we don't like?

How the **** should I know? Ask the producers. I hated Jim.

[erinp5]

Winston doesn't give a straight answer because he doesn't understand the question .

[ThriceShy]

Nope. Try reading again.



It's called debate. Ever changed your opinion on something when hearing different sides? Hardly shocking behaviour.




How the **** should I know? Ask the producers. I hated Jim.

You are deliberately avoiding my point, as usual.

You claim that someone like Winston should be challenged on his views. Why? Why is his view less worthy than say John's? Should John be challenged on his?

Let us suppose that Winston had simply said, as I advised, "It's my opinion, I don't wish to discuss it, the end." Would that be OK?

Is Winstons opinion as valid as John's? If not, why not?

[MrWong]

You are deliberately avoiding my point, as usual.

You claim that someone like Winston should be challenged on his views. Why? Why is his view less worthy than say John's? Should John be challenged on his?

Let us suppose that Winston had simply said, as I advised, "It's my opinion, I don't wish to discuss it, the end." Would that be OK?

Is Winstons opinion as valid as John's? If not, why not?

You are being deliberately obtuse.

Maybe someone else can be arsed with you because I can't.

[jet]

You are deliberately avoiding my point, as usual.

You claim that someone like Winston should be challenged on his views. Why? Why is his view less worthy than say John's? Should John be challenged on his?

Let us suppose that Winston had simply said, as I advised, "It's my opinion, I don't wish to discuss it, the end." Would that be OK?

Is Winstons opinion as valid as John's? If not, why not?

If only you would take your own advice. :hehe:
Just joking, the forum is for discussion, carry on. :hehe:

[erinp5]

Now he denies making homophobic remarks

Disgraced Celebrity Big Brother contestant Winston McKenzie has denied making homophobic comments and called the allegations ‘grotesque’.

The former UKIP candidate told reporters on Friday night: ‘I don’t know who said that. I deny any allegation – I think that’s a grotesque statement to make.’

He added: ‘I genuinely do not remember saying that unless someone has some tape and then they need to come forward. But I don’t remember saying something like that.’
http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/09/celebrity-big-brother-2016-winston-mckenzie-doesnt-remember-making-homophobic-comments-5611836/
You would think he would have lookedat his VT before denying he said it !!!!

W_pyTTme-Sk

[Beso]

Oh oh, a bit of passive agression creeping in now.

[ThriceShy]

You are being deliberately obtuse.

Maybe someone else can be arsed with you because I can't.

A wise retreat.

Your view that Winston should be challenged tells us everything.

[MrWong]

A wise retreat.

Your view that Winston should be challenged tells us everything.

I'd challenge any view I disagree with. It's only you that thinks he's a special case. So it tells you **** all really :shrug:

If the person doesn't want to engage in debate, so what?

Views are challenged all the time on any subject.

You like conversations that go 'I think blah blah is whatever. It's my opinion and that's that. I don't have to justify it'

The conversation would be very short and probs end with 'umm ok, moving on'...

[ThriceShy]

I'd challenge any view I disagree with. It's only you that thinks he's a special case. So it tells you **** all really :shrug:

If the person doesn't want to engage in debate, so what?

Views are challenged all the time on any subject.

You like conversations that go 'I think blah blah is whatever. It's my opinion and that's that. I don't have to justify it'

The conversation would be very short and probs end with 'umm ok, moving on'...


Great so you also think John should be challenged on his view that gay adoption is right.

We got there in the end didn't we.:spin:

[jet]

http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/09/celebrity-big-brother-2016-winston-mckenzie-doesnt-remember-making-homophobic-comments-5611836/

WTF? What is wrong with this man? He denies saying what he did on his VT..

Disgraced Celebrity Big Brother contestant Winston McKenzie has denied making homophobic comments and called the allegations ‘grotesque’.
The former UKIP candidate told reporters on Friday night: ‘I don’t know who said that. I deny any allegation – I think that’s a grotesque statement to make.’
He added: ‘I genuinely do not remember saying that unless someone has some tape and then they need to come forward. But I don’t remember saying something like that.’

OFCOM received 403 complaints after Winston was admitted that he would ‘cope with a homosexual in the house’ before adding: ‘I guess I’ll just have to stand with my back against a brick wall all the time.’
He also revealed that he thought it was ‘child abuse’ to allow gay couples to adopt children.
The comments were made in a pre-recorded introduction for Tuesday night’s launch episode, and it was reported that producers were struggling to decide how to deal with the backlash from viewers.

A shock eviction during Friday night’s show sealed Winston’s fate however, with 13 housemates voting for Winston to leave.
Gemma Collins told him: ‘Winston your comment was absolutely disgusting. I couldn’t bare to see John so upset in the house.’
Former EastEnders actor John Partidge, who is gay, told Winston: ‘I don’t respect you and that disgusted me too.’
Metro.co.uk have contacted reps for Winston for comment

[Kazanne]

http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/09/celebrity-big-brother-2016-winston-mckenzie-doesnt-remember-making-homophobic-comments-5611836/

WTF? What is wrong with this man? He denies saying what he did on his VT..

He might have the onset of Dementia for all we know,don't be nasty:hehe:

[jet]

He might have the onset of Dementia for all we know,don't be nasty:hehe:

Where am I and who are you? :laugh:

[Ammi]

I didn't say they have a choice.

My point is that when you, as the authorities, are choosing where to place a child then you want to place it with a mother. Mothers are quite important.

I keep hearing that "heveryone has the right to adopt, the right to be happy, the right to a child." What a selfish viewpoint. The only person whose happiness is paramount is the child. Robbing a child of a mother from day one is not healthy.

...the child's happiness and the best family for them is always considered as the first priority, though...and in that priority gay couples are able to adopt because they are felt to be preferential parents, to be able to offer what that child needs..there is no 'robbing' by adoption agencies of anything a mother could provide because in some cases it's the biological mother herself who has 'robbed'...robbing her child(ren) of love, safety, trust and of a committed, responsible and stable home and maternal parent...and instead, damaged them in some cases with abuse...children..(I don't mean babies..).. that are adopted are often and mostly very 'damaged' children and very mistrusting, for obvious reasons.... they can and often do, have extreme behaviour issues...and where a mother herself has been the issue/the reason for their being adopted and the reason for their 'damage'...they can also have no trust with females in their lives/who then become the 'targets' for their emotions, through their fear and mistrust of them and it certainly wouldn't be in their best interest to place them with one... but for instance..two males could be exactly what's needed to provide that happiness...there is not 'one size fits all' child to be adopted as the reasons for them being adopted/their lives are entirely different and equally there is not a one size fits all parenting for that child(ren)...it's not selfish at all to give a child happiness and a family who can best provide that, to give them everything, they've already been 'robbed' of before adoption, I would say it's the exact opposite of selfishness...it would be robbing a second time, to deny them that if it was available to them...


..but equally, if a male/female parenting is what that child(ren) need, that's indeed exactly what they get...always what will provide them with what they've been 'robbed' of in their lives...

[Withano]

I didn't say they have a choice.

My point is that when you, as the authorities, are choosing where to place a child then you want to place it with a mother. Mothers are quite important.

I keep hearing that "heveryone has the right to adopt, the right to be happy, the right to a child." What a selfish viewpoint. The only person whose happiness is paramount is the child. Robbing a child of a mother from day one is not healthy.

In whos opinion, yours? It is easy to argue that growing up with two fathers leave the child in a much healthier position (they certainly would not grow up as ignorant as Winston and wouldn't possess yours and his shared views, so thats one, nil to same sex couples right there) but it is obviously something that you've grown into and not something you are willing to grow out of.

I do believe that you would personally be upset with a same sex couple as parents but you should understand that most people are likely to not give a **** because that is the way Britain is evolving, your only argument is I'm less evolved than most of Britain so listen to me and Winston because **** you. and that's not a good argument.

[MrWong]

Winston can't give a straight answer to a question because it's hard to defend bigotry.

[ThriceShy]

In whos opinion, yours? It is easy to argue that growing up with two fathers leave the child in a much healthier position (they certainly would not grow up as ignorant as Winston and wouldn't possess yours and his shared views, so thats one, nil to same sex couples right there) but it is obviously something that you've grown into and not something you are willing to grow out of.

I do believe that you would personally be upset with a same sex couple as parents but you should understand that most people are likely to not give a **** because that is the way Britain is evolving, your only argument is I'm less evolved than most of Britain so listen to me and Winston because **** you. and that's not a good argument.

So you are saying that only your opinion is right?

Do you actually know what an opinion is?:laugh:

[billy123]

Give it up. Racists and homophobes in this thread (there are a few) are going to support him and anyone with a brain is going to know what a twat he was. Either way morons like him will be forgotten faster if you dont talk about them.
Dont feed the idiots.

[ThriceShy]

Give it up. Racists and homophobes in this thread (there are a few) are going to support him and anyone with a brain is going to know what a twat he was. Either way morons like him will be forgotten faster if you dont talk about them.


Why would racists support him?:shrug: They would be the ones witch hunting him.

[sungrass]

They don't have a mother in a care home either. And as someone who knows a gay man who's adopted a child, I can assure you that there is plenty of 'forethought'. No one just wakes up one day and says 'I think I'll adopt a kid today, and yipee i'm gay so they won't have a mum'. Life's not a fairy tale mate, and any child in care would be lucky to have a loving home to go to, regardless of how many parents and what gender/sexual orientation they are.

Aye - having worked with kids that have been in care in a vocational college- truthfully they just want a family that loves them, they couldnt care less about them being gay, care is awful and lonely. However Winston was used by CBB and it was a witch hunt, in his culture thats how things are - its like my old nan, she is NOT politically correct! and its like nan - you musn't say that - but shes just an old woman. You should watch a bit of "it was alright in the 70's" - if you ever work with older people the things they will say will really shock you!

[jet]

Aye - having worked with kids that have been in care in a vocational college- truthfully they just want a family that loves them, they couldnt care less about them being gay, care is awful and lonely. However Winston was used by CBB and it was a witch hunt, in his culture thats how things are - its like my old nan, she is NOT politically correct! and its like nan - you musn't say that - but shes just an old woman. You should watch a bit of "it was alright in the 70's" - if you ever work with older people the things they will say will really shock you!

Winston is 62, not 82. His formative years were during the 60's which was quite an age of enlightenment. I don't personally know many people under 70 who has views like Winston. Over it, yes, I know quite a few who are scandalized by homosexuality but also others that aren't. Age isn't always an indicator by any means.

[Mitchell]

Has anyone made the "Unlike Winston to give a gay answer" pun yet?

[jet]

On top of being a homophobe, he apparently also ran a pub which was closed down by police for being a 'hotbed' for arms and drugs. He's an all - round horrible piece of work.

[sampvt]

Gemma Collins in the house on that fateful day asked him....did you say those words....answer, HELL YES.

What more do you want him to say or are you all just interested in him digging a hole and allowing his comments to be ridden like a wild horse.

Sometimes wanting blood after blood is really shallow. He said it, admitted it once which in his eyes was good enough, its documented and he avoids it now because admitting it yet again will only let his interviewer make him discuss it more which he obviously does not want to give then the satisfaction of.

[Kazanne]

On top of being a homophobe, he apparently also ran a pub which was closed down by police for being a 'hotbed' for arms and drugs. He's an all - round horrible piece of work.

Any link for that ?

[jet]

Any link for that ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_McKenzie

[Jamie89]

Winston is 62, not 82. His formative years were during the 60's which was quite an age of enlightenment. I don't personally know many people under 70 who has views like Winston. Over it, yes, I know quite a few who are scandalized by homosexuality but also others that aren't. Age isn't always an indicator by any means.

Also, as a politician he should be expected to be in touch with how society currently is, regardless of his age. He should be held to different standards to other older people who aren't trying to be representative figures for the current population. If he's unable to move with the times then frankly, he's in the wrong job.