[Lilac hills]

Are people still calling Ann a homophobe lmaoooo

[Robodog]

Originally Posted by Lilac hills

Are people still calling Ann a homophobe lmaoooo

Yes

Labelling someone is not an argument.

Some people don't have arguments: all they have are labels

The same old cheap, cliched, over-used labels - again and again.

Does get boring

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Robodog

Yes

Labelling someone is not an argument.

Some people don't have arguments: all they have are labels

The same old cheap, cliched, over-used labels - again and again.

Does get boring

It's been explained dozens of times.

Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the argument doesn't make it disappear.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It's been explained dozens of times.

Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the argument doesn't make it disappear.

Nobody has explaind how she has a phobia when she doesn't fear gay people.

I'm all ears

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

Nobody has explaind how she has a phobia when she doesn't fear gay people.

I'm all ears

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Alf

Nobody has explaind how she has a phobia when she doesn't fear gay people.

I'm all ears

The suffix of phobia most closely translates to 'an aversion to'. Nobody thinks she jumps on the table stomping her feet yelling help for straight people to safely escort her out of the area everytime she sees a gay person.

I cant tell if youre being serious or not, but your take on the word would explain the confusion that has been going on with the word recently. Hmm.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Robodog

Yes

Labelling someone is not an argument.

Some people don't have arguments: all they have are labels

The same old cheap, cliched, over-used labels - again and again.

Does get boring

There were some excellent arguments behind that given label.

[mr rochester]

If Andrews family have no problem about his behaviour with Shane that’s all well and good but I suspect the names he called Ann will have embarrassed them. A pity Andrew did not consider his family more. There are times when Andrew becomes a person only a mother could love. It might not do Andrew any harm to become slightly less bombastic and opinionated in general. Ann advising him to be more considerate of his family is not a homophobic retort. It is good solid advice that he might have done well to consider. She did not mention shame...he did!

[Lilac hills]

Ann is not prejudice against homosexuals

Shane is doing more harm to the lgbt community than Ann is

People will think relationships like Andrews and Shane’s are always fake and for attention

Also he thinks gender is a spectrum wtf

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Lilac hills

Ann is not prejudice against homosexuals

Shane is doing more harm to the lgbt community than Ann is

People will think relationships like Andrews and Shane’s are always fake and for attention

Also he thinks gender is a spectrum wtf

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

Also Andrew and Shane are not in a relationship.

[Lilac hills]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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

Also Andrew and Shane are not in a relationship.

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

[Marsh.]

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

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.

[Lilac hills]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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.

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.

[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

[Kazanne]

As Rylan said on BBBOTS IF Ann had been deemed to have said anything wrong , BB would have pulled her up on it ,she hasn't.

[Brillopad]

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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

You don't have to shove your opinion down other people's throats to be bigoted.

I would argue her contribution to votes is bordering on forcing that opinion on others as she strongly feels out laws should reflect her feeling on the matter.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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

[Marsh.]

"Difference of opinion"

listen to yourselves.

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

[Vicky.]

I read on here that Ann also voted against gay people being able to have civil partnerships, is this true?

Just..I understand her reason for voting against gay marriage if its really about the meaning of the word marriage (ie between a man and a woman, blahblah) even though I disagree with it, but I cannot think of any reason why she would vote against civil partnerships.

The age of consent thing I think I might possibly agree with her on. Not that gay people should have a different age of consent (though she clarified this was not what she meant) but that she thinks the age of consent for everyone should be raised. So she voted against lowering it as she thinks it should be higher for everyone, totally understand the reasoning for that one.

But civil partnerships, no idea. Can surely only be homophobia as civil partnerships is nothing to do with religion or anything. Thats why I am checking if that was actually true, I didn't realize there was a vote on them to start with tbh.