mj.scuba Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 it's not about being gay - say it loud, gay and proud, -it's about hypocrisy and that was ken's point - hague (whose straight routine has become laughable) aggressively opposed gay rights and , it seems, was involved in the suppression of a photo suggesting his 'advisor' is gay, that makes him hypocritical and corrupt - get out in the open william, it's the 21st century - but perhaps people won't vote for you , not cos you're gay but cos you're a liar But that's just you showing your prejudice isn't it? You think that gay people should all share the same opinions. Even if he was gay, he's entitled to hold different opinions, not necessarily those which align with your particular preconceived view of what a gay persons opinion should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 If Hague has had gay relationships and also voted against the rights of other LGBT people then he absolutely should be outed. Policial hypocrisy is absolutely in the public interest to know. And here is his voting record: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=40499&dmp=826 In summary William Hague: Voted against gay couples adopting Voted to keep Section 28 Voted against lesbians being allowed to access IVF treatment Was absent from the vote on Civil partnerships Was absent on the vote about the equal age of consent. His record is pretty dreadful . If he is gay then he is fair game to be outed. And there is a deeper issue. It appears that Hague created a third special advisers position for this guy at the FCO, you’d wonder why he needs 3 special advisers, especially given that this one is 25, has no experience of foreign affairs and Cameron is supposedly on an economy drive. So, if this guy is Hague’s secret lover, Hague is funnelling public money to him as well as using public money to fund his extra-marital getaways. That’s pretty bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurian Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 If Hague has had gay relationships and also voted against the rights of other LGBT people then he absolutely should be outed. Policial hypocrisy is absolutely in the public interest to know. And here is his voting record: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=40499&dmp=826 In summary William Hague: Voted against gay couples adopting Voted to keep Section 28 Voted against lesbians being allowed to access IVF treatment Was absent from the vote on Civil partnerships Was absent on the vote about the equal age of consent. His record is pretty dreadful . If he is gay then he is fair game to be outed. And there is a deeper issue. It appears that Hague created a third special advisers position for this guy at the FCO, you’d wonder why he needs 3 special advisers, especially given that this one is 25, has no experience of foreign affairs and Cameron is supposedly on an economy drive. So, if this guy is Hague’s secret lover, Hague is funnelling public money to him as well as using public money to fund his extra-marital getaways. That’s pretty bad. I take it that Hague is not your favourite MP then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 If Hague has had gay relationships and also voted against the rights of other LGBT people then he absolutely should be outed. Policial hypocrisy is absolutely in the public interest to know. And here is his voting record: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=40499&dmp=826 In summary William Hague: Voted against gay couples adopting Voted to keep Section 28 Voted against lesbians being allowed to access IVF treatment Was absent from the vote on Civil partnerships Was absent on the vote about the equal age of consent. His record is pretty dreadful . If he is gay then he is fair game to be outed. And there is a deeper issue. It appears that Hague created a third special advisers position for this guy at the FCO, you’d wonder why he needs 3 special advisers, especially given that this one is 25, has no experience of foreign affairs and Cameron is supposedly on an economy drive. So, if this guy is Hague’s secret lover, Hague is funnelling public money to him as well as using public money to fund his extra-marital getaways. That’s pretty bad. Again you are only demonstrating your own prejudice about gays. Guess what, gay people don't all have to think the same, they don't all have to have the same opinions. Even if Hague was gay, he is entitled to vote the way he did, it's called democracy, and it's only hypocritical in your view, because you think gay people should all share identical opinions and therefore he should have only voted a certain way. It's also very prejudiced to assume somebody might be gay, just because they employ a gay person, or even just for sharing a hotel room. Have you not though, that that sort of assumption, may discourage people from employing gay people, if they themselves are to be accused of being gay just for employing them? You do a disservice to gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yes he's handed it to the Tory party, whose Mayoral candidate Boros Johnson said on the issue of homosexual marraige: "If gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog." Read all the words. I don't know what 'Marraige' is , but marriage is a Christian Sacrament. It's something that Christians do as a part of their religious rites. "Marriage is the union between a man and a woman..." You may not agree, but the fact that you do not agree does not negative the beliefs of those who do and if your disagreement is to be allowed to nullify the beliefs of those who do believe that "marriage is the union between a man and a woman" why should they not trash everything you hold dear? Why should you be given some special dispensation to practice Ecclesiophobia? Note Boris' use of the word 'consecrated' The Christian churches 'consecrate' things; consecration is within their remit - it is not a power of the state. And of course Boris comparing civil partnerships to dogs marrying. The Tories, or at least the old Etonian braying toffs, have a nasty undercurrent of homophobia. No he did not! - Read the words. Boris didn't mention 'civil partnerships' he was talking about marriage, which is a Christian sacrament. - Something completely different. Many sects within the Christian church do not accept a civil ceremony in a Registrars Office - a lawful and proper contract - to be the same as 'marriage'. Why should they? - The state has its rules; the churches have their own. Even if you ignore '3 men and a dog' Boris Johnson was quite right. Marriage is a Christian sacrament. The Christians have rules, one of which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There is no reason whatsoever why society cannot or should not recognise unions other than marriage - but they are not marriage. Should a group of people wish to celebrate a boy's puberty at a particular (possibly arbitrary - let's say 13) age, then there is no reason whatsoever why they should not do so. They could give it a name - whatever name they liked - 'puberty party' or whatever. If those people were Jewish, it would be a Bar Mitzvah. If they were not, it would be something else. It would not be a Bar Mitzvah, because that is a Jewish ceremony. Just as a union between 2 or more people who are not Christians (irrespective of their sexes) is not a marriage. Homophobia (the wrong word, but since most people agree on the misinterpretation, I'll use it) is forbidden at law. There are good reasons for that. It would be wrong for one group of people to discriminate against another group in such a way that the people in that group (homosexuals) were caused distress or fear. If homophobia in such a case is illegal, why is homophilia - in those cases where it may cause distress or fear to another group - not also proscribed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Marriage is a Christian sacrament. The Christians have rules, one of which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Oh sheesh, Christian bigots are like little yapping dogs. There is no "Christian Rule" that says marriage should be between men and women. Rupert, thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your posts, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them: When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) Rupert: I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. Cameron making a fool of himself: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/24/david-cameron-stumbles-gay-rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 "I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?" I don't have time to go through the hole post just now, but do you think 5 bob would be a fair offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 "I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?" I don't have time to go through the hole post just now, but do you think 5 bob would be a fair offer? Ah! So you pick and choose biblical rules and select only the ones that bolster your prejudice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Oh sheesh, Christian bigots are like little yapping dogs. There is no "Christian Rule" that says marriage should be between men and women. Rupert, thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your posts, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them: When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) Rupert: I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. Cameron making a fool of himself: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/24/david-cameron-stumbles-gay-rights Old testament ,the Christian religion got civilized by the birth of Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Old testament ,the Christian religion got civilized by the birth of Christ Who said nothing whatsoever about gays. I seem to remember some stuff about not judging people like Rupert's just done, and treating people how you'd like to be treated. That religious bigots misappropriate bits of the bible and use them to attack people in the most un-christian manner imaginable is depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.