[cheapbbfan]

Originally Posted by LukeB

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.]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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...

[Withano]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

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]

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.

[waterhog]

simple - he is a politician.

[waterhog]

in the making lol

[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

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Will1999

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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..

[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?