Rights and wrongs (From York Press)

Bog off, bigot.

What an absolute corker of a letter! Surely has to be a parody??

This certainly brought a smile to my face. I believe this is on a similar line to Godwins Law; that and the daily mail 'Won't Somebody Think Of The Children!'.

There is one simple rule, don't like gay marriage, don't marry into the same sex.

Is this letter from a man Les or a lady Les?

Either way it made me chuckle to think that out of all the damage the Tory's are doing to this country, this is what appalls them most of all.

What an awful letter, the Press should be ashamed to print such rubbish.

Who knows, Les could be Lez ?

It's a joke isn't it ?

Zetkin wrote:
Bog off, bigot.

LOL !!!!

Has to be written for a bet.
No-one can be that stupid.

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Has to be written for a bet. No-one can be that stupid.

Stupidity is taking it seriously.

Everyone should just laugh, as it's clearly a joke!!!

If he doesn't believe in same sex marriage I suggest he doesn't marry a man. Simples.

I bumped into a Conservative politician in Malton yesterday.

He told me that he intends to resign from the party "if they allow Queers to get married". Enough said!

I wonder what the other lovely residents (I know several) of Kirk Hammerton think of this individual

Les Hornby (From the Press 2011):

http://goo.gl/XvAB4

Thankfully there are many of Les's (lezzers?) generation who aren't quite so narrow-minded.

One bright moment during the horrible process of registering my mum's death last year was while sitting in the registry office in Wakefield waiting for the registrar, I noticed that one of the venues you can use for a civil partnership ceremony is Featherstone's "Big Fellas" rugby stadium. That put a smile on my face. :)

I do not agree with same sex marrage either and I an very much younger than Les... I believe that there are far more important things to occupy our MP's than debating this subject.... And even if it is passed the church will not allow same sex marrages in any of their establishments.

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
I do not agree with same sex marrage either and I an very much younger than Les... I believe that there are far more important things to occupy our MP's than debating this subject.... And even if it is passed the church will not allow same sex marrages in any of their establishments.

If there are far more important things to debate, then MPs should just pass it and get on with these other things.

Some religious groups actually want to perform same sex marriages, so why should they be barred from doing so?

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
I do not agree with same sex marrage either and I an very much younger than Les... I believe that there are far more important things to occupy our MP's than debating this subject.... And even if it is passed the church will not allow same sex marrages in any of their establishments.

I think they should be spending more time passing laws to lock-up biggots.

The current law reads that a man cannot marry his sister(& several other female relatives). Will it now be OK for a man to marry his brother or any other male relative, because there is no genetic problems.

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote: Has to be written for a bet. No-one can be that stupid.

Stupidity is taking it seriously. Everyone should just laugh, as it's clearly a joke!!!

For laughing to happen the joke has to be funny.

Les will be happy now as they have voted in favor, so the government will no longer preoccupy itself with gay rights.

jackhigh wrote:
The current law reads that a man cannot marry his sister(& several other female relatives). Will it now be OK for a man to marry his brother or any other male relative, because there is no genetic problems.

That comment is nearly as stupid as Les`s in the letter.

I had to smile about the fact that, in the article about Les Hornby's wedding anniversary that Jeff-li directs us to, Les is quoted as stating that the key to a long and happy marriage is tolerance. Surprised he managed to reach his fiftieth, then...

maybe they will now debate animal rights and allow monkeys to marry humans.
Only joking!!! please can the government now concentrate on what what they were elected to do and get this country out of the mess it's in.

postedinyork wrote:
maybe they will now debate animal rights and allow monkeys to marry humans.
Only joking!!! please can the government now concentrate on what what they were elected to do and get this country out of the mess it's in.

Animal rights are the next issue in terms of 'expanding the moral circle'.

I rather doubt their rights extend to getting married though...

The Great Buda wrote:

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
I do not agree with same sex marrage either and I an very much younger than Les... I believe that there are far more important things to occupy our MP's than debating this subject.... And even if it is passed the church will not allow same sex marrages in any of their establishments.

I think they should be spending more time passing laws to lock-up biggots.

Define 'Bigot'... the dictionary defines it as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. "

I therefore put this thought across: that simply having a differing view from that which the media would put to us as being accepted (this being fed by groups like Stonewall who, when a bus driver refused to drive a bus because of a gay rights poster on the side of it having a message which conflicted with his religious views, had a spokeswoman say "he should leave his job and work elsewhere") is NOT being a bigot... forcing people to change their lifestyle/job or making them a social pariah because of their belief, race, sexual orientation, or religion IS bigotry.
And in fact by suggesting that all people who do not agree with Homosexual Marriage should be locked up, it is in fact YOU who is the bigot, as you are stating such people do not have a right to a normal life just because of their viewpoint. I suggest you grow up and open your mind to viewpoints other than your own.

Magicman! wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
I do not agree with same sex marrage either and I an very much younger than Les... I believe that there are far more important things to occupy our MP's than debating this subject.... And even if it is passed the church will not allow same sex marrages in any of their establishments.

I think they should be spending more time passing laws to lock-up biggots.

Define 'Bigot'... the dictionary defines it as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. "

I therefore put this thought across: that simply having a differing view from that which the media would put to us as being accepted (this being fed by groups like Stonewall who, when a bus driver refused to drive a bus because of a gay rights poster on the side of it having a message which conflicted with his religious views, had a spokeswoman say "he should leave his job and work elsewhere") is NOT being a bigot... forcing people to change their lifestyle/job or making them a social pariah because of their belief, race, sexual orientation, or religion IS bigotry.
And in fact by suggesting that all people who do not agree with Homosexual Marriage should be locked up, it is in fact YOU who is the bigot, as you are stating such people do not have a right to a normal life just because of their viewpoint. I suggest you grow up and open your mind to viewpoints other than your own.

I fully agree Magicman, there seems a lot of calls of "Bigot" when all I posted reflected my views on the subject. I cannot understand why Civil Partnership which seems to give the couples the same rights was not enough. I would never endorse anyone being discriminated against but think it is about time that gay couples understand that straight people have rights too.

You have to give Callmedave credit where its due.

He has succeeded were Arthur Scargill failed. In destroying the Conservative Party.

This one is the icing on the cake after previous debacles and u turns.

If we believe in this bill or not it matters little, there are far more important issues to be addressing.

It's Christmas Eve not Christmas Steve.

I've always voted Tory but have to say I'm saddened by the biggoted comments I've heard today from members of the party and Tory voters. I think well done Cameron for putting the wishes of the country before votes for the Tory party, bravely done.
As for those who say there are more important things to be bothered about, would they be saying the same if gays could get married but those who were heterosexual couldn't? I can't believe in this day and age there are so many narrow minded people around. No one is forcing the church to accept it, it is there for if there are any reasonable minded people who are willing to do it.
As for this notion that the whole purpose of marriage is procreation - HA!! I am married and have no intention of ever having children, does that mean I shouldn't have been allowed to get married? What complete rubbish. What an embarrassment some people are to this country in their old-fashioned prejudiced views.

MrsHoney wrote:
I've always voted Tory but have to say I'm saddened by the biggoted comments I've heard today from members of the party and Tory voters. I think well done Cameron for putting the wishes of the country before votes for the Tory party, bravely done.
As for those who say there are more important things to be bothered about, would they be saying the same if gays could get married but those who were heterosexual couldn't? I can't believe in this day and age there are so many narrow minded people around. No one is forcing the church to accept it, it is there for if there are any reasonable minded people who are willing to do it.
As for this notion that the whole purpose of marriage is procreation - HA!! I am married and have no intention of ever having children, does that mean I shouldn't have been allowed to get married? What complete rubbish. What an embarrassment some people are to this country in their old-fashioned prejudiced views.

The debate on Radio two today featured many gay people stating that they didn't want the same sex marrage as they see civil partnership as a far better option (this option is NOT open to hetrosexual couples).... Should these men be barred from being gay because they do not share your views?
The whole point in this is that anyone who dares to say that they do not agree with the concept is seen as a bigot, and this is simply not the case.

Big Bad Wolf wrote:

Magicman! wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
I do not agree with same sex marrage either and I an very much younger than Les... I believe that there are far more important things to occupy our MP's than debating this subject.... And even if it is passed the church will not allow same sex marrages in any of their establishments.

I think they should be spending more time passing laws to lock-up biggots.

Define 'Bigot'... the dictionary defines it as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. "

I therefore put this thought across: that simply having a differing view from that which the media would put to us as being accepted (this being fed by groups like Stonewall who, when a bus driver refused to drive a bus because of a gay rights poster on the side of it having a message which conflicted with his religious views, had a spokeswoman say "he should leave his job and work elsewhere") is NOT being a bigot... forcing people to change their lifestyle/job or making them a social pariah because of their belief, race, sexual orientation, or religion IS bigotry.
And in fact by suggesting that all people who do not agree with Homosexual Marriage should be locked up, it is in fact YOU who is the bigot, as you are stating such people do not have a right to a normal life just because of their viewpoint. I suggest you grow up and open your mind to viewpoints other than your own.

I fully agree Magicman, there seems a lot of calls of "Bigot" when all I posted reflected my views on the subject. I cannot understand why Civil Partnership which seems to give the couples the same rights was not enough. I would never endorse anyone being discriminated against but think it is about time that gay couples understand that straight people have rights too.

Spot on. Most of the people using the word on this posting are in fact bigots.
It now turns out that the reason Cameron pushed this forward against all reason is that, yet again, the EUSSR has a new law about to be enacted saying if you marry in any EUSSR country you must be treated as a couple in every other country. Though they did not know it, the MPs were actually voting to implement Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5, to fulfil a commitment made by HM Government last year, while holding the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.
France and other countries are doing what Cameron is doing for the same reason. It's going to be forced upon us by the EUSSR whatever our view.
And this bloke is going to give an in/out vote on Europe? He adores it and will go to extreme lengths to protect it from criticism.

Live and let live. That' s my mantra. After all, who am I to dictate how other people should live their lives. A person is, and should be regarded as, a person, regardless of colour, creed or sexual preferences. Surely it's time to bury all prejudice and seek to move forward as one united society. The alternative is at best unpalatable and at worst socially divisive. Ask yourself which is the preferred option.

Big Bad Wolf wrote:

Magicman! wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
I do not agree with same sex marrage either and I an very much younger than Les... I believe that there are far more important things to occupy our MP's than debating this subject.... And even if it is passed the church will not allow same sex marrages in any of their establishments.

I think they should be spending more time passing laws to lock-up biggots.

Define 'Bigot'... the dictionary defines it as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. "

I therefore put this thought across: that simply having a differing view from that which the media would put to us as being accepted (this being fed by groups like Stonewall who, when a bus driver refused to drive a bus because of a gay rights poster on the side of it having a message which conflicted with his religious views, had a spokeswoman say "he should leave his job and work elsewhere") is NOT being a bigot... forcing people to change their lifestyle/job or making them a social pariah because of their belief, race, sexual orientation, or religion IS bigotry.
And in fact by suggesting that all people who do not agree with Homosexual Marriage should be locked up, it is in fact YOU who is the bigot, as you are stating such people do not have a right to a normal life just because of their viewpoint. I suggest you grow up and open your mind to viewpoints other than your own.

I fully agree Magicman, there seems a lot of calls of "Bigot" when all I posted reflected my views on the subject. I cannot understand why Civil Partnership which seems to give the couples the same rights was not enough. I would never endorse anyone being discriminated against but think it is about time that gay couples understand that straight people have rights too.

Exactly. The term 'bigot' is thrown around far too much, almost to the point that it could be seen as offensive as calling somebody a **** or a **** - both of which are highly offensive.

The fact is that the needle has swung so far in the other direction that any straight person who has a viewpoint other than "Oh I think it's absolutely wonderful that we have gay people" then they are seen as some sort of pariah. If the homosexuality lobby want people to tolerate homosexuality, they must also accept that they in turn must also tolerate those who do not approve of homosexuality. "Tolerate" and "like" are two words with completely different meanings... you "tolerate" a crying baby brat on a train from York to Liverpool that simply refuses to shut up and keeps shouting about how they want their sweeties - it doesn't mean you "like" that kid for being a spoilt brat and ruining the peace and quiet of the train carriage.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there was a bus driver in Rotherham who turned up to work but realised his bus had a big red banner on the side saying "some people are gay, get over it" and he refused to drive the bus because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. Had his beliefs been muslim then people would have tolerated him for refusing to drive the bus - but he had christian beliefs and so the media jumped on him, along with most of the Daily Mail readership, calling him a bigot and any other derogatory name you can think of... then the spokeswoman for the Gay Rights group Stonewall (responsible for that banner, which doesn't go well with the pink of the bus anyway!) stated the bus driver should get a different job. That is outright descrimination against the bloke for his religious beliefs... and so the woman, who was trying to say the driver was being a bigot, was herself being a bigot as she was trying to get him fired for his religious viewpoint. She would rather have had him broke and his family begging on the street rather than him say "I don't agree with gay people". There is something seriously wrong with society when there are people who are allowed to go round promoting such distorted views.

well there you go, my point about such words as f@ggot and p@ki being highly offensive has been proven true as the auto-censor has starrred them out!!

Magicman, you said "If the homosexuality lobby want people to tolerate homosexuality, they must also accept that they in turn must also tolerate those who do not approve of homosexuality."

Why should those who do not approve of homosexuality be tolerated? Do you mean in the same way you might tolerate someone with a mental problem who is being a nuisance on the bus? Because to me you'd have to be mentally deficient to use the word 'approve'. People who are homosexual, do not choose to be that way so there is nothing to approve or disapprove of. It's like saying I don't approve of dogs, or blacks or heterosexuals. They are what they are and that's that. I have been so disgusted by comments I've heard in relation to this. I had no idea there were so many backward thinking people still around. It makes my blood boil in fact. Yes I can see some people not liking the fact there are gay people but you can't judge them because it's not a life choice and to think it is is pure stupidity.

If people want to be homosexual, gay or whatever you call it then that is a matter for them. However, I don't want to see it in public and I don't want to see it represented as normal such as 'gay marriage.'
Sexuality, like religion should be a personal thing.
As for bigots, well that works both ways when forcing public perversion onto the likes of children!

Wait, you don't want to see it in public?
Do you mean you would be offended if you saw two men walking hand in hand? Or two girls?

Hello 1930s!

Typical York opinions in these comments. When will this city catch up with the rest of the country?
You may say that you don't want to see homosexuality 'flaunted in public' . But to be honest, nobody wants to see you flaunting you being a bigot. Pipe down.