The aggressive promotion of homosexuality;

Do you believe people should just give up when they've been defeated?

- - - Updated - - -

You're an Englishman. How valuable do you think your opinion is to Americans?

 

You believe that.

I believe that.

The so called voice of the LGBT movement here clearly does not think that, by his own sick words.

An org will always be judged by it's people.

- - - Updated - - -

So an island full of just gay men would not just naturally die out, is that your position?

 

When were they asked?

 

Alan Turing didn't fare very well under the "core values" of Britain in the past.

 

Oh lord, it is Brett Hart.

- - - Updated - - -

Go on then.

Tell me I am a 'bigot' or 'non progressive' for being rather concerned by 'men' like THAT, having anyone's ear.

Then tell me how.

 

You can accuse me of being an Englishman if you cannot confront the truth that I've expressed, Old Toff, but I speak a sensibility that appeals to most Americans and transcends your biases.

Equality. Get used to it.

 

February 6-10, 2013.

"Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to marry?"

Legal: 54%

Not legal: 39%

 

Well, I don't know who that person is or what he or she may (or may not) have said, so I can't address that.

Eventually, sure. But since most homosexuals are born to heterosexuals, so while that island would ultimately be doomed to be void of (human) life, society would fill back up to a natural level of homosexuals at the same time. And why is it you guys seem to forget there are gay women, too? Do they get their own island, or do you like watching lesbian porn too much to do that?

 

You have no insights to share with us. You're an Englishman for god's sakes.

 

That is not conclusive of anything, is it?

“If there are areas where there isn’t full equality with married couples then I would be more than happy to support making changes to civic ceremonies, so I really don’t know why we need to go ahead with this at all"
(MP David Davies )

What is wrong with that?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure you can, and sure you do.

I have told you.

- - - Updated - - -

Well there you go, that is what I said.

 

You do understand that society would eventually have homosexual men again, right??

 

When I was on BBC’s The Big Questions on 8th January this year, Peter Tatchell was one of the podium guests. I was asked by the production crew not to comment about paedophilia in connection with Tatchell. The request had come from Tatchell himself. That incident prompted this article. And why should Tatchell make such a request? Not the Oxford Union debate, but another event almost sixteen years ago is still in his mind.

On the Judy Finnegan television show on Sunday 8th May 1994, just eight years after its publication, I accused Peter Tatchell of contributing a chapter to The Betrayal of Youth, which I described as a paedophile book.

Tatchell is of course the leader of the homosexual media stunt group Outrage. When the homosexual ‘age of consent’ was last lowered – to 16 – an Outrage banner was photographed saying ’16 is just a start’.

PAEDOPHILES ‘AN OPPRESSED GROUP’

For the high-minded socialists and homosexuals of the 1970s and 1980s, sexuality was seen as just one aspect of the way in which children were exploited by patriarchal capitalism. Campaign for Homosexual Equality chairman Michael Jarrett was identifying paedophiles as an oppressed group, and the CHE list of “demands” included the complete abolition of minimum ages for sexual activity.

The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said ‘A socialist society would superseded the family household. … Gay people and children should have the right to live together. … It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’

So was Peter Tatchell out on a limb writing in a book advocating paedophilia, edited by a known paedophile? It is true that a lot of the loony homosexual left thought the same as he did and some of them were active paedophiles as well. But most of them stayed clear of contributing to this vile book. We should be clear that there is no evidence that Peter Tatchell was or ever has been a paedophile – but he certainly gave them support and was in company with them in The Betrayal of Youth.

PETER TATCHELL HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

But twenty-four years later, and with Peter Tatchell elevating himself to the status of ‘human rights activist,’ helping a bunch of child-abusers achieve what they thought were their ‘human rights’ to interfere with small children doesn’t seem quite such a clever thing to have done.

Are Tatchell’s views at an intellectual level still the same? Does he realise the implications of them? Does he understand that he provided support to a bunch of men who wanted nothing less than to interfere with little tots? Who approached whom to secure his contribution to this shameful book? Was he aware that Warren Middleton (alias John Parrott), the editor of The Betrayal of Youth, was an avowed child molester? Was he aware that at least two other active paedophiles were contributors? Is he still in contact with Middleton and his cronies? Has he ever renounced them? Answers to these questions will reveal much about Peter Tatchell’s mind, agenda and judgment

.http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/peter-tatchell-and-the-paedophile-book/



Anyway, Tatchell called me a liar, and threatened me with a suit for libel. In the “hospitality suite” afterwards he became abusive and violent. Obviously, Tatchell’s contribution to the book on its own, let alone the company in which he placed himself, is now a source of great embarrassment to him, as indeed it should be. No writ was ever received, of course.

[

 

What? Americans don't express opinions about other nations?

Personally, I value the overall objectivity of one who is not invested in certain interests as Americans are. The political bias between fellow Americans is obvious and even crippling at times. Personally, I like it when someone looking from the outside brings their unique 'take' upon the proceedings here.

 

Only due to hetrosexuality though.

They cannot create anything.

 

What "voice" is that? Name, please.

- - - Updated - - -

Homophobia, again.

 

Then what would be the point of your little plan?

 

Generally, foreigners are very useful for their unique insights about the American condition. But the opinion of an officious intermeddler is never welcome.

 

There is no little plan, other than to show you that a nation of homosexuals would die out, and why? Because they cannot reproduce. And why? Because the action is not of nature.

 

Two men cannot produce a child.

Nature.

Live with it.

 

Not to you, perhaps, but it does indicate that most folks do favour equality.

 

Please read the previous posts.

All the information you ask for is there.

Ta



- - - Updated - - -

To who then?

 

Question: Who said: 'Not all sex involving children is unwanted and abusive'? Answer: The Pope's biggest British critic

on June 26, 1997, Mr Tatchell wrote a start(*)ling letter to the Guardian newspaper.

In it, he defended an academic book about ‘Boy-Love’ against what he saw as calls for it to be censored. When I contacted him on Friday, he emphasised that he is ‘against sex between adults and children’ and that his main purpose in writing the letter had been to defend free speech.

He told me: ‘I was opposing calls for censorship generated by this book. I was not in any way condoning paedophilia.’

Personally, I think he went a bit further than that. He wrote that the book’s arguments were not shocking, but ‘courageous’.

He said the book documented ‘examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal’.

He gave an example of a New Guinea tribe where ‘all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood’ and allegedly grow up to be ‘happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers’.

And he concluded: ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...pes-biggest-British-critic.html#ixzz2LJ4hLL8X
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Freak.

 

No, not yet. And they CAN adopt.

And that means they cannot get married? What about heterosexuals why do not bear or intend to bear offspring?

- - - Updated - - -

Please, stop making things up.

 

Adopt is not reproduce, god forbid that freak of nature ever be attempted.

- - - Updated - - -

What drama are you throwing your hands around at now?

It was you who asked me who I mean, and I said, read the previous posts, because by doing so, you will answer your question.

Drama done?

 

In any case, I don't see why you would use that to discriminate against homosexual people; seems homophobic to me, that's for sure.

Well, brace yourself. Much is possible (or will be) through science.