Originally Posted by Alf (Post 9826508)

Deadly serious, I believe phobia is the wrong word to use.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9826512)

No. Voting against equality isn't prejudiced. :/

Also Andrew and Shane are not in a relationship.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9826498)

Maybe you need to study the English language again instead of continuing to repeat that line as though it is at all funny?

Homophobia is a dislike or prejudice against homosexuals.

Originally Posted by Lilac hills (Post 9826520)

They’re not in a relationship, they had a relationship. It doesn’t mean dating

Also like sure you can prove in the most bare bones sense Ann is a ‘homophobe’ which I don’t necessarily agree with but whatever butters ur crumpet. But what does this prove about her and her character, her demeanour and such?

Why is this something Ann has ‘gotten away with’ like she’s avoided incarceration or smth

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 9826521)

So why are a lot of her friends gay and they love her:shrug:

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9826527)

I'm afraid I haven't met her friends.

Why don't you text them and find out.

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9826059)

Disagree all you like, but don't talk down to people. You tried to patronise me, so I responded in kind. I appreciate you may not know me as well as others do on here but that's the way I roll for future reference, I'd have been happy (and would've preferred) to have a civilised discussion with you but the minute you try to patronise me you'll be getting it back. Like you said (and I noted), treat people how you wish to be treated.

I'm not entirely sure how typing 'Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win' in the first line of one's post can then be misconstrued by someone else as finding them boring and disliking the fact they're popular, but sure... :umm2:



I don't know, you tell me - you seem to have been confused by the tone of my response.



So not only do you try to tell me how all older people would prefer to converse (and how they'll 'not take umbrage' with this and with that), you're now telling me the intent of my own prose? Am I reading this correctly?

Let me just make this clear - I'm the one that gets to decide the intent of my use of profanity, not you. And do you know why? Because I'm the one that used it, funnily enough. Now let me explain again, but this time provide the context so we're absolutely crystal clear about its usage.



In case you hadn't realised, in these three sentences, I was actually complimenting Ann. The point I was making - which is blindingly obvious to be quite frank - is that Ann Widdecombe has spent the best part of her life being a strong, independent, female politician with conviction. She is not and never has been a frail, vulnerable, sensitive, delicate little flower that needs protecting. In fact, I think the very insinuation would highly insult her, even at the grand old age of 70.

So, again, although I'm not sure why I'm bothering because you'll pretend you don't understand - the use of the f word was to emphasise her name. ANN. WIDDECOMBE. ANN WIDDECOMBE. Not a wallflower. Not a walkover. Not a frail old woman. Ann Widdecombe.



Nope. Again, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me - this is a forum after all. What I have a problem with is people attempting to patronise me, you tried it and so received it back. Remember that saying again? Treat others how you wish to be treated. Now, if you wish we can make the rest of this discussion civilised and productive - but that's on you, I follow your lead.



I've just watched it back, because I didn't remember that and wanted to double check for myself. Unless you can hear or find something I haven't (and I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong) then that's incorrect:



They are play fighting in that video. Nothing more, nothing less. You and others are only making it into more than what it is because of other instances of them flirting, but this one wasn't.



Now again, unless I've misunderstood or missed the clip (and I'll be happy to be shown otherwise), Ann's nomination was about the incident I've just posted above - if I remember correctly they actually included it as a 'flashback' in the edit to give some context to what she was saying. If that is correct, I see nothing in that clip that is anywhere even NEAR a line, let alone 'beginning to cross it'. But again, that isn't my issue nor was it Andrew's - it was about the fact she said his mother and grandmother would be watching, i.e. an insinuation they wouldn't be happy/proud of or would be ashamed/embarrassed about his behaviour in that particular incident. That incident being - as I've just pointed out - play fighting. Two men. Play fighting. Could you please enlighten me as to what is so awful about that? So 'over the line' that his mother and grandmother wouldn't be happy? I think it's an offensive insinuation, so did Andrew, and his reaction was justified. Only bigoted relatives would have any issue with two men play fighting.



Now that really is something you're going to have to watch back. Emma showed him a VT of him calling Ann a '****', he was embarrassed, and apologised to the audience and to his mother for what he had said in that instance. It was quite clear what he was apologising for and it wasn't for play fighting with Shane.

What does his father have to do with any of this? Don't tell me you're 'one of them'...deary me. Is a woman not capable of raising a child on her own? Is that what you're insinuating?



Do you know what Andrew shouldn't have to deal with? Having his relatives brought into a nomination he received and having someone insinuate his mother and grandmother wouldn't be proud of him because he was play fighting with another man. Bring someone's family into a situation that doesn't involve them, and you face the consequences. I'll just point out at this junction that he never actually said it to her face either, so she never had to 'deal with it'.

Anyway, why shouldn't she have to deal with it if she's dishing it out? You've said on two or three occasions now that people should treat others how they wish to be treated, and I agree. Well guess what? That includes Ann Widdecombe. If she is prepared to insult others and bring their family into irrelevant situations, then she needs to be prepared to face the consequences. Being seventy years old is not an excuse or a get-out-of-jail-free card. And the idea that it should be is patronising to both Ann Widdecombe and other older people.



I have heard them, yes, thank you. That doesn't mean they do, or are. So you basically believe that any and all showmances and friendships on Big Brother are fake and they're just playing up to the cameras? Or is it just people you dislike that you think this about? How very cynical of you. I didn't like Ashley or Ginuwine but that doesn't mean I think they just made the whole thing up for airtime.



I'm sorry you do believe in them, to be honest. They routinely ruin the show and then complain that it's boring. You may believe they played a blinder but I'm afraid I think the producers made yet another clueless decision in allowing a triple eviction to occur with just four nominees (especially those ones), which enabled yet another clueless decision by the voting public...mind you it's not like they had much to work with so the blame rests with the producers on this one for me. Anyway, I digress...I like(d) both Ann and Andrew, and thought they complimented each other well, they brought the best (or worst, however you see it) out in each other and finally injected some life and intrigue into this series. It's those kind of dynamics that keep the show going, but I realise not everybody recognises that.



I never wrote in bold. I accept your alternative opinion. I accept Ann's right to an alternative opinion. I said variety is the spice of life in an earlier response to you. If you wished to agree nicely to disagree you should've thought about that in your first response to me. I don't care about threats of reports, this is an internet forum and I'm not a baby, I prefer to discuss things rather than run off to the mods...for effect :cheer2: :cheer2: :cheer2:

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9826525)

The most bare bones?

Simply holding an opinion is the bare bones. Being in a position of power to contribute to attempting inequality with the laws of our land is beyond the bare bones. :joker:

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 9826530)

Good diversion:smug:

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9826531)

She isn’t as she is just expressing her opinions- as she has every right to do. She isn’t trying to shove them down anyone’s throats - that’s the difference.

So are people just expected to say what others think they should say - or should they give their honest opinons expressed in a reasonable way. That would sound very much like a dictatorship to me.

Originally Posted by Lilac hills (Post 9826546)

Do you think Ann had any malice in what she meant when she voted against gay marriage? She’s going off a technicality, in which would make her seem like in the most bare bones way she’s homophobic but it’s hardly something to incriminate her for

I could probably articulate the idea that ginuwine, for not wanting to date India, is transphobic(for the sake of this debate btw I don’t actually think he is). What good will come for putting that label on him, and what does it prove? Do you think ginuwine is a malicious person that wants to kill all trans people?

And India was panned and hated for having this mentality

Ann’s views are outdated, but it’s hardly something that should create this much ruckus, nor should it be an attack on her demeanour.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9826562)

Ginuwine not wanting to date India isn't insisting that India should not be afforded equal rights in society so I'm not sure what this silly comparison is supposed to achieve.

I couldn't care less about an old lady who feels a bit queasy because of two men getting intimate. I will call her out when she so clearly thinks they are not entitled to equal rights as herself and every other heterosexual as though they are worth any less than her and her 'superior' sexuality.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9826048)

Denying gay people equality is a "traditional moral position".

Of course it is. :pat:

"Tradition" is often used by the bigoted in a bad effort to explain away their discrimination.

Originally Posted by Lilac hills (Post 9826568)

He’s denying her of her dating rights, as a lot of people feel the same way as ginuwine.

And what does calling her out on something so minor really achieve

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 9826569)

That last statement is spot on.

Something has always been a certain way so. Should never be changed.

That is Ann's way as to lgbt rights all through.
She also hides behind religion,again until it doesn't suit her her more rigid agenda.
The Church of England which she was in, its synod democratically voted to ordain Women as Priests.

Ann does not agree Women can be or should be Priests so discounts that vote and heads off into the Roman Catholic religion where her rigid line is still in place,no women Priests.
She will not budge or compromise on equality rights.

Voting against equality rights,is leaving people without equal status and rights.
What is odd to me with religion and many say religious belief is superstition and nonsense.

Christianity,is following the teaching of Jesus. Just take the 4 gospels,(supposedly meaning truth),which account for his words and teaching.

Nowhere does any condemnation of homosexuality appear from all attributed to him.
So how Christianity can hold prejudices towards lgbt people is beyond me.
Yet Ann does.
Religion appears to suit when used to judge others and deny their needs,hopes and feelings.

This is why I think organised religion a mess and indeed harmful more than upbuilding.
This is another post that will likely be ridiculed but other times,religion as a base for prejudice and denial of rights gets derided,when it suits.

Again however,tradition as you state,is another selective barrier to allowing inequality and unequal rights to remain so.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826574)

Can it not be that people have the right to be Gay and lead their lives as they see fit

Others have the right to their own view and to do the same

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9826578)

People can live their own lives the way they see fit.

The minute they believe other people should have certain avenues closed to them or not be afforded the same opportunities because of a difference such as sexuality or race or gender or age then it becomes discrimination.

Do you see the difference?

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 9826569)

That last statement is spot on.

Something has always been a certain way so. Should never be changed.

That is Ann's way as to lgbt rights all through.
She also hides behind religion,again until it doesn't suit her her more rigid agenda.
The Church of England which she was in, its synod democratically voted to ordain Women as Priests.

Ann does not agree Women can be or should be Priests so discounts that vote and heads off into the Roman Catholic religion where her rigid line is still in place,no women Priests.
She will not budge or compromise on equality rights.

Voting against equality rights,is leaving people without equal status and rights.
What is odd to me with religion and many say religious belief is superstition and nonsense.

Christianity,is following the teaching of Jesus. Just take the 4 gospels,(supposedly meaning truth),which account for his words and teaching.

Nowhere does any condemnation of homosexuality appear from all attributed to him.
So how Christianity can hold prejudices towards lgbt people is beyond me.
Yet Ann does.
Religion appears to suit when used to judge others and deny their needs,hopes and feelings.

This is why I think organised religion a mess and indeed harmful more than upbuilding.
This is another post that will likely be ridiculed but other times,religion as a base for prejudice and denial of rights gets derided,when it suits.

Again however,tradition as you state,is another selective barrier to allowing inequality and unequal rights to remain so.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9826578)

People can live their own lives the way they see fit.

The minute they believe other people should have certain avenues closed to them or not be afforded the same opportunities because of a difference such as sexuality or race or gender or age then it becomes discrimination.

Do you see the difference?

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826584)

She is entitled to her views, you are not the thought police.

She legally voted in Parliament on a subject which went against her conscience.

She lost, she has accepted it, why can't you.

Originally Posted by Robertocarlo (Post 9826586)

You are spot on Joeysteele. People like Ann do hide behind religion to justify their bigotry and homophobia. It's not just Ann it's many so called 'religious' individuals.

In Ann's case she used her power as an MP to try to deny LGBT people like myself equal rights. I am not after 'special' rights but 'equal' rights. Thank goodness the majority of MPs were more enlightened and voted for equality.

Ann can try to justify her bigotry and loathing of LGBT people all she likes. Using her supposed 'faith' to justify it. But she is a bigot and she is a homophobe.

I have looked at the play fight incident between Andrew and Shane L again and there was no sexual touching or anything 'queer' about it. It was just a play fight between two adult men - one Gay one Straight. But to Ann's mind the fight had to be sexual and therefore used that to justify her nomination?!

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826600)

So what about all the other people who disagreed with this bill, she didn't do it on her own now did she. You are apportioning all the blame on her shoulders.

You cannot tell others how to vote in Parliament, her constituents could and would have done.

You also could not see when Ann was called to the Diary room and passed Shane and Andrew in their so called playfight which THEY said they were aroused. Missed that out. You only saw a short clip.There are differing opinions about this but Ann hasn't shown herself to be untruthful.