[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by 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.

They did ask that, multiple times

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

They did ask that, multiple times

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by smudgie

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[sampvt]

Originally Posted by jet

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.

[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.
What is it I am supposed to not understand or what is supposed to be above me. You talk in riddles. Debate the issues that arise about the HM in question instead of making sweeping and confusing statements about the poster.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thats exactly what he was saying

[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.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by MrWong

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?

[jet]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

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

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

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by jet

He obviously wanted to, given that he called for a conference for 1 oclock.
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?

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

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

He called a meeting to justify them.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by MrWong

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Paul Kersey

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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...

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Paul Kersey

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

Why would you want it closed ?

[waterhog]

simple - he is a politician.