[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I have accepted it. We're having a discussion on a discussion forum. You do comprehend what that is do you Not?

Thought police? What are you blathering about now? No one sought to control her thoughts.

When those thoughts become publicly broadcast opinions and become actions in her role in parliament then it becomes a subject for us all to comment on.

She is bigoted against LGBT people and doesn't believe they deserve equality. Fact.

She's entitled to that opinion. But you can't blindingly retort that it isn't homophobic. It is.

According to you, she is wrong, did wrong and needs to stop being as she is.

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.

[Lilac hills]

Trying to prove Ann is a homophobe is such a trivial pursuit. She lost the vote she didn’t agree on so her allegedly homophobic views didn’t count for sh!t so liek who cares

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Lilac hills

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

They have both called it a relationship

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Bigot has got a good airing in this thread, at least it's giving racism a much needed duvet day

Its been a refreshing change to not have endless accusations of racism this series actually.

I think its quite clear Ann has some homophobic views. I don't really think age is an excuse but I can see why others think it is. I did used to excuse my grandads homophobia as being gay was actually illegal for most of his life and I don't think its possible to just change your views as soon as the law changes. It was odd as my grandad was clearly homophobic but he got on brilliantly with my gay friends. He was so stereotypical in his thinking too..like, before he met any of them he thought all gay people were really camp and such.

I didn't mean to make this about my grandad. But yeah, I do think Ann has some homophobic views, but I don't know is she is actually homophobic, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't the way I am explaining it but I know what I mean

[bots]

ann is not a homophobe. She has not persecuted any homosexual people in the house, excluded them, isolated them or tried to treat them differently from anyone else in the house. There is zero evidence of her persecuting anyone.

When people attribute a difference of opinion to some sort of hate or persecution they are diluting the cases where it genuinely exists and reducing the chances of real homophobia being treated seriously

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Lilac hills

Trying to prove Ann is a homophobe is such a trivial pursuit. She lost the vote she didn’t agree on so her allegedly homophobic views didn’t count for sh!t so liek who cares

So true.

How many moons ago was it but let's get the big stick out to hit her with, time and time again.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

According to you, she is wrong, did wrong and needs to stop being as she is.

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.

Hear Hear !!

[Vanessa]

She's clearly homophobic. She has similar views in homosexuality that my parents used to have.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.

You seem completely unwilling to accept any view along the line of 'I think Ann is homophobic'. I dont think youve really thought this through.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

According to you, she is wrong, did wrong and needs to stop being as she is.

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.

Where did I say she needs to be stopped?

I'm pointing out the obvious to those few still laughably claiming she's not homophobic because she's chummy with Amanda Barrie in Celebrity Big Brother.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Lilac hills

Trying to prove Ann is a homophobe is such a trivial pursuit. She lost the vote she didn’t agree on so her allegedly homophobic views didn’t count for sh!t so liek who cares

Her homophobic view not being voted into parliament doesn't mean she is no longer homophobic.

But you just successfully called out her homophobia regardless so, progress at last.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Its been a refreshing change to not have endless accusations of racism this series actually.

I think its quite clear Ann has some homophobic views. I don't really think age is an excuse but I can see why others think it is. I did used to excuse my grandads homophobia as being gay was actually illegal for most of his life and I don't think its possible to just change your views as soon as the law changes. It was odd as my grandad was clearly homophobic but he got on brilliantly with my gay friends. He was so stereotypical in his thinking too..like, before he met any of them he thought all gay people were really camp and such.

I didn't mean to make this about my grandad. But yeah, I do think Ann has some homophobic views, but I don't know is she is actually homophobic, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't the way I am explaining it but I know what I mean

I would say that is a fair summation

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Its been a refreshing change to not have endless accusations of racism this series actually.

I think its quite clear Ann has some homophobic views. I don't really think age is an excuse but I can see why others think it is. I did used to excuse my grandads homophobia as being gay was actually illegal for most of his life and I don't think its possible to just change your views as soon as the law changes. It was odd as my grandad was clearly homophobic but he got on brilliantly with my gay friends. He was so stereotypical in his thinking too..like, before he met any of them he thought all gay people were really camp and such.

I didn't mean to make this about my grandad. But yeah, I do think Ann has some homophobic views, but I don't know is she is actually homophobic, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't the way I am explaining it but I know what I mean

Good post.

All she has really said is that she doesn't agree with it and the sanctity of marriage within the church is between a man and a woman in her opinion.

She has not gone into the vile rants of many of the opposite views who if they said it towards Gay people would be far worse than anything she has ever said.

They do the Gay community no help by being so vociferous in their language and insults towards a lady who has not said anything like the nastiness thrown her way.

[Robertocarlo]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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.

Goodness me you are hard work Popsywoppsy. Of course I am aware that Ann wasn't the only Tory MP to vote against Equal Marriage - I watched the debates on TV and on line. I could add MPs like Philip Hollobone, Peter Bone and Jacob Reec-Mogg in the mix too.

In no way am I or anyone else putting the blame on Ann's shoulders but as she's in the BBH and the other MPs are not of course we are commenting on Ann?! How do you know what Ann's constituents felt about equal marriage? I can tell you that the majority of the UK population are in favour by about 70%! Thus, I am sure most of Ann's constituents would have been in favour yet Ann ignored that and voted against because of her bigoted and homophobic beliefs - supported by her supposed Catholic 'faith'.

Indeed, Ann continues to use her power, as with the nomination of Andrew, to push her bigoted and homophobic agenda.

As for the play-fight, so what if they got aroused? What's the problem? Only a homophobe would object. Besides did you actually see their 'arousal' through their clothing? Because I didn't?!

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

ann is not a homophobe. She has not persecuted any homosexual people in the house, excluded them, isolated them or tried to treat them differently from anyone else in the house. There is zero evidence of her persecuting anyone.

When people attribute a difference of opinion to some sort of hate or persecution they are diluting the cases where it genuinely exists and reducing the chances of real homophobia being treated seriously

People need to act on their homophobia to be homophobic? (Although one could argue her work as a politician more than acted on it).

People need to act upon their racist opinions in order to be racist too?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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.

Nobody's forcing anyone to vote anyway.

They're explaining how those votes are bigoted.

Never fails to astound me on this forum how basic facts get ignored.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

Good post.

All she has really said is that she doesn't agree with it and the sanctity of marriage within the church is between a man and a woman in her opinion.

She has not gone into the vile rants of many of the opposite views who if they said it towards Gay people would be far worse than anything she has ever said.

They do the Gay community no help by being so vociferous in their language and insults towards a lady who has not said anything like the nastiness thrown her way.

She doesn't need to go into vile rants.

She doesn't believe they are deserving of equal rights. That is discrimination.

Funny how calling out her homophobia is labelled as "vociferous insults" but the homophobia itself people need to "get over it". Ok.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

ann is not a homophobe. She has not persecuted any homosexual people in the house, excluded them, isolated them or tried to treat them differently from anyone else in the house. There is zero evidence of her persecuting anyone.

When people attribute a difference of opinion to some sort of hate or persecution they are diluting the cases where it genuinely exists and reducing the chances of real homophobia being treated seriously

100% true

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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

Yes,but under the law as it stood gay people had not the equal rights to do so.

Hence why both Labour and Con govts.brought in bills for to ensure equal rights,and scrap clauses that discriminated against said gay communities.

Ann Widdecombe voted against every change to giving equal rights to lgbt people, thereby deliberately denying them the chance to live their lives as they wish to,equal under the law.

[Marsh.]

"Difference of opinion"

listen to yourselves.

I suppose a racist is simply a difference of opinion too?

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

She doesn't need to go into vile rants.

She doesn't believe they are deserving of equal rights. That is discrimination.

Funny how calling out her homophobia is labelled as "vociferous insults" but the homophobia itself people need to "get over it". Ok.

No, she leaves that to Andrew

She can be and think as she wants, it is her right

You cannot dictate what and how she thinks

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

No, she leaves that to Andrew

She can be and think as she wants, it is her right

You cannot dictate what and how she thinks

I'm not dictating how she thinks and acts.

I'm illustrating how the way she thinks and acts is homophobic.

How does one miss that?

It's like talking to a wall.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

I don’t agree with Ann on many things such as women not being allowed to be priests but she has the right to express that opinion - I might disagree but I don’t want to shut her down for it. If she can’t express that opinion then her rights would be being denied.

What many don’t seem to understand that yes we all have rights, but sometimes one person’s rights can impinge on another’s. A good example of that is self-identification where any man claiming to self identify as a woman can enter the women’s bathrooms at any time.

Many, if not most, women are uncomfortable with that for many reasons ranging from privacy to safety. So why should the rights of trans men who only self indentify, without the proof if you like, get priority over that of the women who object. That would be blatant sexism in my opinon suggesting that the feelings of the trans men are more important than those of the women. Not to mention the potential safety issues for the women. Why?

That is where commonsense has to come into play. You can’t just run roughshot over the rights of one group to accommodate those of a another.

I think total equality is probably an impossible thing to achieve.

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Yes,but under the law as it stood gay people had not the equal rights to do so.

Hence why both Labour and Con govts.brought in bills for to ensure equal rights,and scrap clauses that discriminated against said gay communities.

Ann Widdecombe voted against every change to giving equal rights to lgbt people, thereby deliberately denying them the chance to live their lives as they wish to,equal under the law.

Well she lost, everything is now changed so why keep on about it?

She can think, act and behave as long as it is lawful, exactly as she wants.

Laws have been passed, equal rights are here, times have changed.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

Well she lost, everything is now changed so why keep on about it?

She can think, act and behave as long as it is lawful, exactly as she wants.

Laws have been passed, equal rights are here, times have changed.

Yes. Why on earth must we discuss a big brother housemate in a thread about her on a forum designed for that purpose.

Why indeed.