Lynne Choona Featherstone Interviewed by The Times

chrisn4 · March 2012

Detritus - you did say that you moved to California so that you could get better access to smoking spliffs and as you are married to miss annie could it be possible that the skunk fumes waft across the sitting room and are inhaled...not entirely impossible i would have thought...also yourself and miss annie are dishing out the comments to me for example you wrote you thought that what i was saying was "a load of sh-t" as you charmingly put it - so i am just batting the conversational tennis ball back over the net to you and miss annie ...give up the spliffs its bad for your health.if you think that standing up for the institution of marriage is as trivial as you make out then have a look at coalition for marriage website read all the articles in the blog and news section...and realise the institution of marriage has been going for hundreds of years and we dont want bee in their bonnet gays mucking it up as has happened in other countries like holland and canada... i am not going to apologise...

Detritus · March 2012

I never said I was married to Miss Annie, she is my other half.Yes I moved to LA as it was easy for me to smoke but also because i was offered a job there and I dont smoke cigs in the house let alone a joint."Gays mucking it up" I dont mean to be rude and I would like to know if you are homophobic, as it does come across that way.Now I know that a alcoholic will not admit to being a alcoholic, but you are saying that a proportion of the people in this country cant get married because they are gay, what gives you the right to make that judgment?Your right marriage has been going on for years along with slavery and the rape of the natural world, times change live with it.As I doubt you will ever change your very narrow minded view of this subject I wont bother replying its like trying to have a reasoned debate with a wall.

chrisn4 · March 2012

i am not homophobic because i am not scared of my home... i think gays are jolly good eggs - although they do eat too much quiche (which i dont like,perhaps i am quicheaphobic i hope you dont smoke spliffs outside tesco in sgrd because you and your mates were rather critical of that on the "the camp outside tesco" thread. if you aren't married and are living with a woman maybe it is time you should be married...i am old fashioned and i dont believe in partners and all that...i call people like you and missannie who live together and are not married i say you are "living in sin"...i am not being ironic that is what i think...no doubt some clever clogs will say its a troll view...thats the sort of intolerant mentality of some ...ie if you have a different view they smear you as a troll...when its just good old fashioned british common sense... carry on

miss annie · March 2012

Oh, we won't be getting married any time soon as Detritus is already married. To a Muslim lady. That should give you plenty of material. I don't care at all about what you think of my domestic arrangements, and I won't be troubling myself to read whatever ill informed comments you choose to make about them. I'll be much too busy commiting various sins.

chrisn4 · March 2012

Muslim ladies and gentlemen are generally against gay marriage,sensible people.Was this the cause of the parting of the ways by any chance? It might have made for a heated argument over the cornflakes of a morning perhaps... my apologies if i have offended you miss annie and anyone else - i dont mean any real offense - just a lively too and fro argument on a local internet discussion forum... carry on

Detritus · March 2012

Chrisn4 a little tip... remove head from arse or is that to gay for you?

chrisn4 · March 2012

This view is plainly not shared by Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem MP who is Equalities Minister. She said the opposition expressed by prominent Christians to same-sex marriage was ‘homophobic’ and belonged in ‘the Dark Ages’. She singled out as ‘medieval’ the use of the term ‘heretic’ by a cleric to describe those advocating a change in the law. Miss Featherstone said her own views were, by contrast, ‘progressive’ and the Government’s policy was ‘loving’. Such blinkered intransigence — indeed, I would go so far as to call it bigotry — does not bode well for the free, pluralistic society that liberals claim to believe in. And it makes a mockery of their much-vaunted virtue of ‘tolerance’. The truth is that a predominantly Conservative government is pursuing a social policy Read more: <A style="COLOR: #003399" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2116123/Gay-marriage-row-The-real-bigots-liberals.html#ixzz1pVruUHiZ">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2116123/Gay-marriage-row-The-real-bigots-liberals.html#ixzz1pVruUHiZ</A>;

Detritus · March 2012

Ahh The Daily Mail, enough said.

chrisn4 · March 2012

if you click on the link above - simon heffer's article in the daily mail is quite good on how so called liberals are acting in not in a liberal way...a bit like on this thread...smearing and using the phrase homophobic to intolerantly try and shut down an argument they dont agree with - rather intolerant really but thats hypocritical liberals for you...simon heffer in the article in link above says the gay people he is mates with agree with him - they think gay marriage is a bit silly...

chrisn4 · March 2012

simon heffer was a well respected journalist on the daily telegraph perhaps he still is,i read the sun and the sun on sunday, hes not just a daily mail headbanger...he is a feminist...unusual for men to say they are a feminist perhaps but he says that he is one...i think he is religious and pro gay generally...and a tory...he cant stand dave cameron...

Detritus · March 2012

I dont think I did smear the word homophobic I asked you a direct question that you didn't answer, in no way am I a bleeding heart liberal but on this I guess I am.I think its wrong not to give the same rights to homosexual people that straight people have.I am a conservative voter always have been and before you ask I grew up in a Labor strong hold up north the very same constituency that is now held by Ed Balls. Also the same place that Nick Griffin gave the speech that landed him in court (Morley Town Hall)I dont think a socialist society can work but the marriage laws in this country are draconian until it is equal rights for all.

Detritus · March 2012

Cameron was the only option we had at the election, Brown was a awful PM.It was like the Major government following someone like Thatcher he didn't stand a chance, but he did win a second term in office unlike Brown. Strangely that helped the Labor party reform itself under Smith and then Blair, If Labor had won in 92 then Kinnock would have been in power we would have been dragged into the Euro and Labour would still have clause 4 in its manifesto.I understand why people for many reasons dont approve of gay marriage but it will happen regardless of what people think.Why do you so vehemently disagree?

chrisn4 · March 2012

simon heffer says it was the economy which was why major lost election in 97 - but it wasnt it was because people were sick of tory sleaze ie cash for questions and sex sleaze scandals - heffer says in the article above he is not religious i noticed on re reading the article his article that is linked to above... perhaps people can put on a link to a news story to illustrate their side of the argument if they are genuine in their beliefs and not just doing what simon heffer claims the liberals are doing... i cant answer anymore questions today mr detritus...

Detritus · March 2012

It was sleaze and the fact that Labour had a new and dynamic leader in Blair plus the country needed a change in 97 but then Labour lasted about 13 years and people had enough of the Labour party.I cant see that cycle changing much but the fact that this was a hung parliament might throw a spanner in the works and we do look like we have gone from a 3 party system to a 2 and a half party system.I have no news stories that I can show you that backs up what I think is the correct thing to do its just a gut feeling that regardless of someones sexuality they should have the same rights as everyone else.I fundamentally think it's a clear moral judgment unencumbered by any over riding religious belief on my part.Church and state must always be 2 separate beasts you can not have the church telling the government what policies they can or can't have.Democracy not Theocracy.

Brodiej · March 2012

@ Detritus. So you must have been to the Mermaid Fish and Chip retaurant and maybe The Commercial in Churwell at some point? One of my mates lived in a terrace in Churwell so we used to meet up there before the football. All - Can we agree to disagree on the gay marriage debate? I think its fair to say that no-one is going to concede any ground by the looks of it. New topic required.

Detritus · March 2012

I remember the day the Mermaid burnt down, I went to Woodkirk High School. I dont drink so didnt really go into pubs.Agreed

gardener-joe · March 2012

This thread is proving to be top-notch spectator sport; so, who will be the last '(wo)man' standing on the soap box?

Detritus · March 2012

I back out gracefully, we are never going to agree.

andy · March 2012

why do you all keep responding to this troll?

Detritus · March 2012

Miss Annie has asked me the same question, I guess it's because I am a idiot.

Brodiej · March 2012

@Andy. What a great question to ask everyone when the person who you think is a troll has posted approximately 10,000 posts on the very same thread. I would bet the entire GDP of the western world that it is now likely that the "debate" will "carry on".

Detritus · March 2012

Not by me

gardener-joe · March 2012

awww ... I was kind of enjoying the sport ...

Detritus · March 2012

It ended 0 - 0

chrisn4 · March 2012

Brian Sewell: Cameron is wrong - gays can't be allowed to marry 'I am as queer as any of them but I do not much care for my brethren in crass, demanding mood,' says the Evening Standard's art critic Brian Sewell 16 March 2012 Fifty years ago, homosexuality was outside the law, the legal punishment imprisonment, the social punishment disgrace. To be caught in flagrante was to end a man’s career, to ruin him and sully his family. The generous, class-changing Swinging Sixties witnessed both the most spitefully destructive trials and the first tentative moves towards homosexual equality. Change has been slow, opposed not only by church and state (MPs often the most vociferous) but by a wider society in which ignorance and prejudice have been entrenched. The first modifications of the law were of a kind with Shylock’s permitted pound of flesh but not a drop of blood, a trap, ungenerous — homosexuals were allowed to have sexual contacts but not to make them (that was importuning). But with every whittling away at the law, the pace of change increased, and in the past two decades, particularly with the institution of civil partnerships, homosexuals have rights almost equal to heterosexuals. They may live openly together, join the armed forces, even become priests and politicians. They may inherit each other’s property exactly as may a man and his wife, and may even adopt children — this last a remarkable concession, for it implies homosexuals are no longer bundled together with paedophiles, rapists and others perceived to be deviants. Is this not enough? Apparently not. Homosexuals — I suspect very few — now demand gay marriage. Marriage is much more than the opportunity for dressing in old-fashioned clothes and whooping it up after an arcane ceremony in a pretty church. Marriage in Christian Europe has for nearly a millennium been categorised as one of the Seven Sacraments, “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace … ordained by Christ himself”. Let me put it in the context of the other sacraments — baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, absolution, extreme unction and ordination — for then the purely spiritual element is more obvious. Let me use the alternative word for it — matrimony — and its status as sacramental is reinforced. Let us consider the Solemnisation of Matrimony in the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer dating back to 1552 or so. Holy Matrimony, it declares, was primarily “ordained for the procreation of children to be brought up in the fear and nature of the Lord”. It could not be clearer. Suddenly the Latin origin comes into play — a derivation from mater, mother, matrimony the sacramental licence to make a mother of a girl — and the idea of two men in a marriage is immediately preposterous. Marriage or holy matrimony is to those of a Christian faith that is far more securely founded than on only the annual jollity of a midnight mass more than just a word. It is an age-old theological concept, one of many, all interlinked. Must the Catholic Church be compelled by ignorant politicians and hoi polloi to share this sacramental term with homosexuals? I am as queer as any of them but I do not much care for my brethren in crass, demanding mood. By all means dress in ridiculous togs, exchange rings and kisses, guzzle Laurent Perrier, bake a cake and dance the night away, but call it a wedding, an Old English term of even older German origin, with nothing theological about it — and leave marriage to those who still believe in its sanctity. inShare.5Ads by Google

chrisn4 · March 2012

<DIV id=pagetitle class="eight columns" checkedByCssHelper="true"> <H1 checkedByCssHelper="true">coalition for marriage. website .Blog </H1></DIV> <DIV id=signatures class="eight columns" checkedByCssHelper="true"> <DIV id=countertext checkedByCssHelper="true"> signatures</DIV> <DIV id=pagecounter checkedByCssHelper="true"> 250,759</DIV></DIV> <DIV id=contentwrapper checkedByCssHelper="true"> <DIV id=content class=container checkedByCssHelper="true"> <DIV class="sixteen columns" checkedByCssHelper="true"> <DIV class=entry checkedByCssHelper="true"> <DIV class=entryheader checkedByCssHelper="true"> <H2 checkedByCssHelper="true">The impact of redefining marriage on the monarchy and courtesy titles. Plus, senior Jew and Sikh voice concerns. </H2> <H3 checkedByCssHelper="true">Posted on 19th, March 2012 </H3></DIV> At the weekend the <A href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4202145/Gay-marriage-law-means-there-could-be-two-Queens-on-the-throne.html" checkedByCssHelper="true">Sun on Sunday</A> carried a story that Tory MP Peter Bone has written a letter to Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone asking whether she has considered the constitutional implications of redefining marriage. He says it could allow a lesbian Queen to rule together with a Queen consort, or a gay King with a King consort. He says the monarch’s role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would be untenable, sparking a constitutional crisis. The <A href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116401/The-Honourable-David-Furnish-Gay-partners-knights-peers-given-courtesy-titles-latest-equality-drive.html" checkedByCssHelper="true">Mail on Sunday</A> reports that courtesy titles like knighthoods and peerages could be thrown into confusion by redefining marriage. At present, if a man is knighted his wife is given the title Lady. The Government’s consultation on redefining marriage, launched last week, refers to the problem of courtesy titles. The <A href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9150808/Senior-Jew-and-Sikh-fight-gay-marriage.html" checkedByCssHelper="true">Telegraph</A> reports that Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, who advises the Chief Rabbi on family issues, and Lord Singh, head of the Network of Sikh Organisations, have spoken out against the Government’s plans to redefine marriage. So too has Reg Bailey, head of the Mothers’ Union. Mr Bailey is also an advisor on family issues to David Cameron. He says redefining marriage risks leading to polygamy and even marriage between siblings.</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>

chrisn4 · March 2012

keep an eye on the blog and news section of the "coalition for marriage "website for daily updated news stories on gay marriage.Or google "gay marriage" and post any links on this thread.... Or just chat about dog muck,bins being emptied by the council or some drivel about an olympic flame and how it will be great because there will be a burger van there and you can all stuff your face.... Disgrace to Stroud Green.

Detritus · March 2012

Chrisn4 your right I agree with you 100% on everything ever..... .....Ever Excuse me whilst I headbutt a wall.

chrisn4 · March 2012

Thank you for informing me Mr D. For information: if you click on the green coloured words in my post above it takes you to the news stories mentioned. Calm down dear! It's only a discussion of ideas on a local internet forum. Sorry about any comments I made yesterday Mr D that might have been of an offensive nature.Rather rude I'm afraid. Note to myself: Do not buy Tenants Super from Stroud Green Convienience Store or Jacks and then go on sg.org

Detritus · March 2012

Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press: patronize /ˈpatrənʌɪz/ (or patronise) <div class="sense">▶verb </div><div class="sense"><ul><li>1 (often as adj. patronizing) treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority. </li></ul></div><ul><li>2 frequent (an establishment) as a customer. </li></ul><ul><li>3 act as a patron towards (a person, organization, etc.).</li></ul> Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press: pillock/ˈpɪlək/ <div class="sense">▶noun Brit. informal a stupid person. </div><div class="etymentry" title="Etymology">– origin C16: var. of archaic pillicock ‘penis’.</div><div class="etymentry" title="Etymology"> </div><div class="etymentry" title="Etymology">Extra time is over</div>

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Lynne Choona Featherstone Interviewed by The Times

Comments