The gay marriage debate in a nutshell
If you think Nick Griffin’s bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Liberal Conspiracy tells us of the new Independent candidate for the Salford and Eccles by-election, Richard Carvath. (This is the same seat Hazel Blears is due to contest.)
Instead of being subtly homophobic, á la Griffin, Carvath goes on the full “pervert” offensive at the news that Matthew Sephton, a local Tory campaigner (who also happens to be gay) has been selected as the Conservatives’ candidate.
Well… read it for yourself.
The Conservative Party has just selected homosexual Matthew Sephton as their candidate for Salford and Eccles.
As a rival [and pro-heterosexual!] candidate I welcome Matthew to the contest for Salford and Eccles.
Matthew’s own blog is heavy with pro homosexual pervert content…
OK, I get it now.
This is a British Mike Huckabee with a £500 deposit to burn… wonderful. We could really do with lunatic American-style candidates in office… not.
Tags: homophobia, idiots, kooks, news, Politics
-
Isn’t it funny how, when someone tells the truth about homosexuality again after all these years, it becomes a media event?
-
Horseshit.
(a) it has not become a “media event” – nothing here, and even the Cretins’ Favourite remains silent.
(b) There is not a shred of truth in any of the blog post, besides his description of himself being a “rival candidate,” and the fact the media hasn’t really reported on his candidancy (which is no surprise, considering that he’s an independent candidate who probably isn’t going to win.)
Cynic’s note: Mr. Carvath’s blog can hardly be considered a bastion of journalistic integrity, especially when using such fallacies as ‘pro-heterosexual’ to mean ‘anti-gay’ and calling Mr. Sephton as a ‘pervert’. A quick search of Mr. Sephton’s own web site does not reveal any material I’d consider to be perverted…
“Truth?” Only if you don’t like gays.
-
-
You didn’t like my comments, did you Jonathan?
If there is ‘pro-gay’ then it follows that there is also ‘pro-heterosexual’.
““Truth?” Only if you don’t like gays.”
No. Truth that homosexual acts are perverted. Nature confirms what the heart knows.
-
If there is ‘pro-gay’ then it follows that there is also ‘pro-heterosexual’.
O RLY?
Pro-gay does not equal anti-heterosexual, and vica versa. It may be a strange thing for you to accept, Mr. Cowan, but it’s called tolerance: that is, if someone believes in rights for black people, they’re not necessarily against rights for white people. The same applies here.
Truth that homosexual acts are perverted. Nature confirms what the heart knows.
Prove it. Not with quotes from the Bible or “studies” from church front organisations. With actual, peer-reviewed evidence.
-
I know it’s called tolerance, but if society tolerates sin then it’s the worse for it. Why should anyone tolerate wrongdoing? It’s one of the prime reasons we have so many social problems in this country today.
Rights for black people is absolutely a different thing altogether. It’s nothing but a strawman, but a good one to the unlearned recipient.
People who have never been to church in their lives know that homosexual behaviour is perverted. There’s this great myth that it’s all to do with religion.
-
I know it’s called tolerance, but if society tolerates sin then it’s the worse for it.
Query not answered. What defines it as a sin? In what way is it wrongdoing?
That you find it disgusting? I happen to find not washing your hands after using the lavatory disgusting, and yet I certainly don’t find that immoral.
That a three thousand-year-old book of dubious origin, allegedly written by an invisible god with a track record of genocide and despotism, says it’s wrong? Hardly a reliable yardstick for one’s moral compass.
People who have never been to church in their lives know that homosexual behaviour is perverted. There’s this great myth that it’s all to do with religion.
Again, proof, please. Without the bible, nor anecdotal evidence.
-
-
-
-
Does it make you feel better listing me under ‘kooks’ on Twitter?
Why am I a kook? For recognising it is obscene for a man to insert his reproductive organ into another man’s dung.
Yeah, some crazy dude, me!
-
Why am I a kook? For recognising it is obscene for a man to insert his reproductive organ into another man’s dung.
And it’s somehow different if it’s a woman’s dung-hole a man’s organ is being inserted into?
Looking at it subjectively, all sex practices are disgusting – a fact we overlook in the heat of the moment.
It is not the act you so despise, but your views that are obscene. In my book, that qualifies you as a kook.
-
I’m against the buggery of the fairer sex as well.
-
I note how you’ve remained curiously silent on the issue of lesbianism.
Is that OK, I wonder? What about homosexual acts that do not involve, as you put it, “inserting a reproductive organ into another man’s dung”?
-
-
-
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://crashedpips.com/2009/12/the-lunatics-invade-well-one/trackback/