Lynne Choona Featherstone Interviewed by The Times

checkski · March 2012

Excellent post, Lololala - very well said. It's good to see that there are some humane and decent people on this forum.Plus sensible, intelligent, persuasive.... But that'll do for now!

chrisn4 · March 2012

Lololala - if you are a teacher in a local school is it a good idea talking about one of your pupils as a "turkey baster" child. I would not want a teacher talking about children in that way,publicly on a local forum.It's abusing the childs privacy.Also if you are a teacher why would you make a generalisation from this one "turkey baster" child as you crudely put it.That's one child it does not mean other children of gay people will not be bullied by kids who bully as the parents are different from the norm.Just a lack of logic really.If you think that teenage kids will be tolerant of difference in their peer group and wont bully kids of gay parents then I think you and others on this forum are living in an idealised naive fantasy world.Some kids are really bad people are viscious bullies they arent tolerant at all. In this Friday's "The Times" ,William Rees - Mogg writes about how traditional marriage needs to be protected for children's sake .Extending the rigt to marry only weakens an institution that society needs to be strong.Marriage is for the protection and education of children.At a time when elderly people need help from the government the government wants to waste time and money on gay marriage just to catch some floating voters perhaps.Putting the interests of children in front of the selfish needs of gay people is morally right.Morality should not be undermined by selfish liberalism.

Detritus · March 2012

What a lot of shit your talking, who cares if people are gay straight or bi if 2 people want to get married then who the hell are we to say they can't just because they happen to be a gay couple?40 years ago homosexuality was illegal, that changed (for the better) and in another 40 years time people will look back and say this is all a fuss over nothing. Marriage is a union between 2 people who love each other and that's it really. Yes you can bring all the dogmatic religious overtones into this coz religion is always right and has it's finger on the pulse of modern society.Hell the Catholic church says that contraception homosexuality and abortion are an abomination in the eyes of God, very modern thinking. And as for morality, the moment the church lectures me on morality I would just show the mountains of press on members of the so called moral church fucking choristers and the like.And as this is a Tory government saying that it should be allowed that's a huge change and it's a change for the better.If a man loves a man and wants to commit to there relationship let them, as we are a long time dead and if they are lucky enough to find "the one" good luck to them.

Mirandola · March 2012

Off topic but not really: as a kid I thought that children whose parents weren't married were just the coolest thing ever. Which is odd, when you think that people of my parents' generation often got married because they thought their child would be bullied if it was a bastard.<div> </div><div> </div>

Lololala · March 2012

Thanks for your concern chrisn4 but I am extremely well versed in both Child Protection and privacy laws. I'm not sure you noticed but I did not, nor would I ever, identify a) myself b) the child or c) the school in my post. The phrase "turkey baster baby" is common parlance and were my student's mother's words when she came to explain the family situation to me at the beginning of term, not mine. The reason that I made the post in the first place is because chrisn4 keeps ranting about children of gay parents being bullied in school, yet I have personal experience that this has not been the case. Yes, it's just one example but I think you do the young people of today an enormous disservice by automatically assuming they will bully and be bullied for having gay parents. Do you actually know any school age children? This is the last post I am going to make on this matter. Gay people can already legally adopt children and have their own through surrogacy/sperm donation so your arguments about children of gay parents being bullied as a reason for the continued ban on same sex marriage are entirely illogical. The law is going to change so you should really try to accept it, if just for the sake of preserving your own mental health. p.s. Rather than crusading against same sex marriage your time might be better spent improving your own spelling and grammar. There are some excellent adult access courses.

Detritus · March 2012

I am a Barnardo's boy, adopted by my parents under a year old, the reason why my natural mother gave me up was that I am affair gone wrong and her husband wanted nothing to do with me.I can see that people getting married is sometimes a way to stop children getting picked on, but I do have a few reservations about children being adopted by same sex couples as I do think that children should have both a mother and a father, but that has been slowly changed over the years due to the rise of single parent families.But it should not stop 2 people who are the same sex being able to marry, I dont see why people are up in arms, if 2 black people were not allowed to get married most people would be shouting the roof off.Who cares who people love or who they have sex with like I said before if they are lucky to have found someone they want to spend the rest of there life with let them and congratulate them

chrisn4 · March 2012

lolala - you say "automatically assuming" - i am not doing that. i am saying there are alot of bullies out there who will bully the kids of gay parents. if your lovely henrys and tarquins and cordelias in leafy north london arent bullys thats nice...bet there are some you just dont know about them...try sticking kids of gay parents in flick knife comprehensive in the north of england and see how long it is before they get a smack in the mouth...if that parent had his ipod on maybe he just objects to being taught by a teacher who comes across as thick ie saying the kid you teach isnt being bullied so therefore that shows all kids likely not to be bullied and not understanding the minds of kids.kids are often looking to pick on other kids thats life - and also kids can be bullied without the teacher noticing ie behind teachers back.the naiveity of some teachers is amazing ...also you are patronising saying my spelling and grammar means i need to go to some evening class typical stuck up teacher patronising working class people n parents ...crap...its this sort of patronising teachers who are out of touch with how kids think and how the real world works that probably make that parent not listen to you and prefer to listen to his ipod....the fact that some people in england are so soft minded and brainwashed by political correctness that they put gay rights in front of kids need not to be bullied shows how badly wrong this country is going...

chrisn4 · March 2012

L- youve described the child and said you work in a local school....cant be many kids like that that meet this insulting description...perhaps the parents who know who you are can complain to your headteacher about this...parents are bound to know if you are a teacher in a local school as you claim...i would be complaining if i was a parent at your school about you talking about a kid on a local forum - and clearly identifying them for obvious reasons... if we click on your name in this thread we can see other comments that L hasnt written.Its about time schools disciplined teachers who let down kids.

Detritus · March 2012

God I want to open up but I have a feeling that if someone said the sky was blue you would say no its purple just be be in your eyes controversial.Ffs its the year 2012 not 1912 let people live how they want to live and not how YOU think they should live.

chrisn4 · March 2012

Lola - you say the revolting phrease "turkey baster child" are in common parlance and are words parents used.... yes words used in privacy and confidence to you ...the 4 parents didnt ask you to repeat them on a local forum....where others who know this kid can see what you have written parents say lots of comments that are in common parlance like racist coments - you dont repeat these back on a forum... maybe the man with the ipod plugged in and not listening to you had read this forum and thought i wont say anything she is only going to repeat it back on the sg.org because thats what she did with the kid with 4 parents slavery was legal for hundreds of years in england - but not morally good - so your argument that something is legal makes it morally good - is ridiculous - so people should have tolerated slavery and "get used to it" as you patronisingly say - just conform to the status quo because loony choons choona featherstone and chubby cheeks twat david cameron want some floating voters - dave cameron i am told does not believe in gay marriage himself hes a church going christian and a rich tory conservative - hes just bringing in gay marrriage to dog whistle to floating voters its as cyncial as that at the expense of kids thats what these evil tories like call me dave cameron is like its all about power - and it makes me sick - ive had a gutfull...thanks lolala for questioning my sanity ...so i say you are possibly mad yourself...

chrisn4 · March 2012

detritus - keep smoking the wacky backy and living in la la land with lololala -and the other fantasy world liberals....

checkski · March 2012

Odd that in this thread Detritus is the liberal and ChrisN4 the reactionary, where in the Tesco camp thread it is the other way round. Live and let live - but only 50% of the time? Both could do better, in my opinion.

chrisn4 · March 2012

mirandola - what you naively dont understand is how ever much the gay lobby campaign kids will never stop bullying kids of gay parents...its nothing to do with men and women argument you say... detritus - 2 black parents marrying - thats a man and a woman - kids see that as normal...so silly argument... homosexuality was legalised because gay people killed themselves as homosexuality was not tolerated.But now gay marriage to be legalised so kids can be damaged.Gay people are so selfish with this regard;now people will be thinking are we right to be tolerant of gay people at all if they are so selfish as to expose kids to bullying.It's a total own goal for gay people and counter productive to them.But they are so obsessed with pursuing equality they arent bothered about kids developement and security...just "why cant we be equal".It's an unfair world grow up gays

chrisn4 · March 2012

checkski - on the camp outside tesco thread i am saying i dont like it that people are bullying the 2 people they are talking about - i am doing the same thing on this thread - saying i dont like bullying - its the same theme... detritus is saying its 2012 not 1912 - yes that is my point i prefer the pre 1968 values to politically correct values of 2012..christian values were much better than political correct values much more tolerant and protecting kids... la la land lola says she is well versed in child protection and privacy laws...too many teachers know the laws but dont have common sense arkady will say my cse teacher told me that there is no such thing as common sense well tell that to the kid getting a kicking because his parents set him up for a playground beating due to being gay parents la la lola says "this is the last post i am going to make on this thread" we will see..somehow i doubt it.. some people like to get in the last word ..you may be able to as ive had a gutfull of the north london liberal naive living in a fantasy world lack of common sense opinions of some on this forum...some people really do lack good old fashioned british common sense... Disgrace...

chrisn4 · March 2012

<DIV class=entryheader checkedByCssHelper="true"> <H2 checkedByCssHelper="true">POLL: 78% OF VOTERS SAY REDEFINING MARRIAGE ISN’T A PRIORITY </H2> <H3 checkedByCssHelper="true">Posted on 12th, March 2012 </H3></DIV> Two polls for two national newspapers were published at the weekend. An <A href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9136017/Dont-make-gay-marriage-a-priority-say-voters.html" checkedByCssHelper="true">ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph</A> showed that 78% of people don’t think the Government should prioritise redefining marriage before the next general election in 2015. Although the plan to redefine marriage has had the support of Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, Conservative voters don’t agree. Only 35% of them support the principle of redefining marriage. A separate <A href="http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8xrr8zjqs7/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-09-110312.pdf" checkedByCssHelper="true">YouGov poll for the Sunday Times </A>shows that 63% of people believe David Cameron is backing plans to redefine marriage “for political reasons”, rather than because he believes in it. Last week, a <A href="http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Marriage_Tables_March_2012.pdf" checkedByCssHelper="true">ComRes poll </A>showed that 70% of people don’t want marriage to be redefined. The Coalition for Marriage’s petition, which calls on the Government to keep the current definition of marriage, is approaching 150,000 signatures.

chrisn4 · March 2012

Now they’re redefining the meaning of “consultation” Posted on 15th, March 2012 The Government launched its consultation on redefining marriage today. Not content with trying to change the meaning of “marriage”, now they’re trying to redefine the meaning of “consultation”. Consultation means listening to people before making up your mind. But Lynne Featherstone has a new definition – she is going to bulldoze ahead with the plans whether the public like it or not. Some consultation. Yes, she’ll ask the public if they agree. But she says she’s already determined to push on. Asking isn’t the same as listening – unless the meaning of those words has been redefined too. The Coalition for Marriage will examine the consultation documents. In due course we shall advise our hundreds of thousands of supporters of the best way they can engage with it. Coalition for Marriage campaign director, Colin Hart, said: “The Government has today launched a consultation on redefining marriage. After initially relenting and promising to include a question on the principle of introducing same sex marriage it is clear from the written statement given to both Houses of Parliament by the Equalities Minister that she will simply ignore any answers to this question. “I always thought that a consultation was about listening to people and asking them their views, before making a decision. Not only are they redefining the meaning of marriage, they’re redefining the meaning of consultation. “This consultation is a sham. It is being pushed through despite the public never having a say on this change. None of the main political parties proposed redefining marriage in their manifestos and the impact assessment misses out many of the possible problems that could occur if this institution is redefined, for example how this change will affect our schools. “The institution of marriage is not the play thing of the state, it belongs to society and therefore cannot be redefined by a few politicians obsessed with appearing ‘trendy’ and ‘progressive’. “It is also bizarre that Lynne Featherstone says that she wants to end the current two tier system’, yet wants to replace this with an even more complicated system that has two options for gays, and only one for heterosexuals. That’s equality for you. “The plain truth is marriage is marriage and should not be redefined by politicians. “C4M and the 200,000 people who have signed our petition believe that this change is profoundly undemocratic, will have massive consequences for society and is simply unnecessary as civil partnerships provide all the legal rights of marriage.”

chrisn4 · March 2012

the above 2 postings are from coalition for marriage website...

gardener-joe · March 2012

Although the relentless misanthropy of this thread is beginning to repel me ... yet I cannot stay away ... fascinsted by witnessing the futile attempts of others to counter it.

chrisn4 · March 2012

it is not misanthropic to make a principled stand for the rights of children (you pillock)...mr winter in james bond or in islington local mark gatiss's the league of gentlemen? some quotes from the daily mail to follow (look away now loony choona la la land dwelling lefties) who dont like truth

chrisn4 · March 2012

Don't use the words husband and wife! Coalition's same-sex wedding reforms would axe terms from official documents 'Bride' and 'bridegroom' could even be removed from marriage certificates By Steve Doughty PUBLISHED: 00:02, 16 March 2012 | UPDATED: 14:32, 16 March 2012 Comments (948) Share Reforms to allow same-sex marriage will see the words husband and wife removed from official forms, it was revealed last night. Tax and benefits guidance and immigration documents must be rewritten so they no longer assume a married couple is a man and a woman. And private companies will be told to overhaul paperwork and computer databases containing the words.

chrisn4 · March 2012

Marriage certificates could even be affected by the Coalition proposals, with rules possibly axing terms such as bride and bridegroom. More...Gay couples WILL be able to get married - but not in church STEVE DOUGHTY: 'Lawfully wedded partners': Why opening marriage up to everyone will kill it stone dead The reforms – promised by Prime Minister David Cameron last autumn and set out in a consultation paper launched yesterday – intend to open civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples for the first time. A different category – religious marriage – will be reserved for male and female couples. Pledge: Prime Minster David Cameron promised the reforms last autumn The proposals have triggered a furious row, with the Church of England accusing the Coalition of misunderstanding the law of marriage. But Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone warned religious leaders not to ‘fan the flames of homophobia’ with ‘inflammatory’ language. New versions of documents will‘replace references to husband and wife with the more neutral terms spouses and partners’. The cost of the red tape revolution demanded by the ‘Equal Civil Marriage’ plans will run into millions, according to an official analysis published alongside the consultation paper. Businesses will be given ‘lead-in time’ – a period of grace to change their websites and databases before their failure to recognise same-sex marriage runs foul of the law.

chrisn4 · March 2012

The consultation paper, produced by Home Secretary Theresa May and Miss Featherstone, has set aside three months for public responses before civil servants begin to draw up the new legislation. And the axing of the terms husband and wife is spelled out in an ‘impact analysis’ published by the Home Office alongside the paper. <DIV class=clear></DIV> <DIV class=clear></DIV> <DIV class=thinCenter><IMG class=blkBorder alt="A thing of the past: UK border agency forms would replace the words husband and wife with spouses and partners" src="http://1.2.3.10/bmi/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/15/article-0-123128BB000005DC-88_468x300.jpg" width=468 height=300> A thing of the past: UK Border Agency forms would replace the terms with spouses and partners</DIV> It said UK Border Agency forms and staff guidance would replace husbands and wives with spouses and partners. ‘Some tax, National Insurance Contributions and tax credit legislation will have to be changed where there is a specific reference to a husband and wife,’ it added. References to go include direct mentions of husband and wife and phrases about couples ‘living together as husband and wife’. Forms and IT systems and guidance for Revenue and Customs staff will need to change, it added. <DIV class=thinFloatRHS><IMG class=blkBorder alt="Argument: Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone believes marriage 'should be open to everyone" src="http://1.2.3.13/bmi/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/15/article-0-122F97D8000005DC-630_233x316.jpg" width=233 height=316> Argument: Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone believes marriage 'should be open to everyone</DIV> The removal of gender-specific language also has sweeping implications for marriage services. The Home Office declined to say yesterday how ministers intend to change the wording of ceremonies. Currently couples marrying in a register office must pledge to take each other as ‘my wedded husband’ or ‘my wedded wife’. If marriage law is reformed in line with the rewrite of red tape, then couples will be required at a civil wedding to pledge themselves to ‘my wedded partner’. The Church of England said: ‘Arguments that suggest “religious marriage” is separate and different from “civil marriage”, and will not be affected by the proposed redefinition, misunderstand the legal nature of marriage in this country. 'They mistake the form of the ceremony for the institution itself.’ The Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales said in a statement: ‘It is alarming to note that children are not mentioned at any stage in this consultation document about marriage.’ But Miss Featherstone said yesterday: ‘I believe that if a couple love each other and want to commit to a life together, they should have the option of a civil marriage, whatever their gender. 'Marriage is a celebration of love and should be open to everyone. Read more: <A style="COLOR: #003399" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115677/Dont-use-words-husband-wife-Coalitions-sex-wedding-reforms-axe-terms-official-documents.html#ixzz1pU8vVDBq">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115677/Dont-use-words-husband-wife-Coalitions-sex-wedding-reforms-axe-terms-official-documents.html#ixzz1pU8vVDBq</A>;

chrisn4 · March 2012

ps Choona is fit for a 60 year old.. carry on

chrisn4 · March 2012

so on people's wedding day people have to hear the word "my wedded partner" rather than "my wedded husband" and "my wedded wife".And the words husband and wife being done away with on official documents and replaced. All because a minority of gay people and Dave Cameron and Lyne loony Choona Featherston want some lefty floating voters to vote for them;the majority of heterosexual people have to put up with this... next...

miss annie · March 2012

I feel sorry for the bin.Comparing the difference in meanings between the words marriage and wedding might be interesting for you @ChrisN4. You are using them interchangeably when actually they are quite different.Sorry to interrupt you when you are talking to yourself. Now please, do carry on.

Arkady · March 2012

"If you don't like the idea of gay marriage, don't marry a person of the same sex". Ben Summerskill That really ought to be the end of it.

chrisn4 · March 2012

miss annie - have you been on the cooking sherry again? or perhaps sharing a spliff or seven with detritus? arkady - if you look on coalition for marriage website you will see 70% of people in a poll arent fans of gay marriage i dont just pass judgement on naughty gays who want to get married (isnt the point of being gay to avoid marriage?) for alot of people marriage is a life sentence with no parole...do gays really need that...what wrong with a good old fashioned bunk up on hampstead heath and a trip to old compton st or a day out in brighton to have a gay time? i also pass judgement on men and women who have kids without getting married.that is bad.men and women should be married when they have kids.its nicer for the kids and it is legally stronger as if the relationship fails then more legal rights for men and women if they are married than unmarried...jeremy paxman on newsnight is married but have kids which i think sets a bad example but he is a bit left wing so you cant expect him to do the right thing all the time...people who are married have relationships that last longer than unmarried people studies show.but that might be because people who get married are just more responsible and mature types of people than unmarried people so get married if you have got kids is what i say (but not if you are gay) is my radio 4 thought for the day i am an atheist however so not one of those religious types.... had a few drinks so better leave it at that...

chrisn4 · March 2012

More recently, though, familiar words such as “husband and wife” and “mother and father” are disappearing from the statute books in the small minority of countries that have begun the experiment in social engineering. And the moves have been controversial. In Spain, the change was introduced by the Socialist government in 2005, with some 160,000 people turning out on the streets in protest. It passed in parliament in a divisive 187 to 147 vote and, the following year, it was announced that Spanish birth certificates would read “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B” instead of “father” and “mother”. This kind of language is Orwellian. Can we expect the same kind of thing here if marriage is redefined? In Spain itself the issue is far from settled. The current Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, does not agree with using “marriage” to describe same-sex unions, and his Popular Party has challenged the 2005 law. In Canada, since same-sex marriage was brought in, the courts have ruled that a child can legally have three parents, and in the province of British Columbia serious attempts have been made to legalise polygamy. After all, if you can abolish the most important pre-condition of marriage – namely that it requires a person of each sex – why should you be able to retain other pre-conditions, such as limiting it to only two people? In the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001, “cohabitation agreements” have been used to give three-way relationships a measure of legal recognition. It is even being advocated as the next step over here. One Guardian writer, Martin Robbins, recently responded to these concerns by arguing “What’s wrong with polygamy?” He went on: “It seems to me that a child brought up by three loving parents would have some quite big economic advantages…” from coalition for marriage website ...gay people are now signing the petition on this website ...sensible gays...

Detritus · March 2012

Number 1 Miss Annie has not had a drink since Christmas and she does not smoke.And number 2 I fail to see how the fact that I have a "spliff" every now is pertinent to a conversation about same sex marriage.I also think that lala land is a place where people get a bee in there bonnet about something that is pointless same sex marriage will happen and should happen.And I like being a liberal its a new fluffy feeling, maybe I should get back to kicking the homeless.

Detritus · March 2012

I also think that you should apologize to Miss Annie, she HAS never and WILL never take drugs, it's upset her a tad that someone who looks like there mind is closed to any and all new ideas decides to put on here that she has taken drugs. Ask anyone who knows her and they will say exactly the same as I have.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Lynne Choona Featherstone Interviewed by The Times

Comments