[Darth Helmut]

Scene setter;

I dont like the Daily Mail and am not a fan of Littlejohn and am not enamoured by how the BBC report news.

But.

He wrote in his DM column that his ideal would for a happy female/male relationship to bring up sprogs (read the full content). I think all he was doing was confirming or highlighting basic human evolution. And most importantly, voicing his opinion based on his values and upbringing.

Various sponsors or providers of the DM have overtly said they will not circulate the paper based on his remarks.

Seriously??

Is this the world we live in now? If you don't endorse or agree or even neutrally passively confirm a minority, you will be ostracised? Is it because he is over 30 years old and cannot defend his supposed 'outdated' opinion via some form of socialmeeja loudly his opinion is wrong? Are the companies who have overtly and vocally dropped his paper right to do so? If so, they must be clearly endorsing gay couples regardless of whether they are suitable over heterosexual couples?

His comments were not akin to burning Jews or murdering gays but simply passing his personal opinion; he possibly disagrees with a gay couple being seen as the default. Seems personal opinion now has the same stigma as fascism/Nazism/dont agree so I'll kill you-ism.

Quandary. Would like to know if these are the same people who endorse mass, unfiltered immigration from the Islamic world. If so, would love to be a fly on the wall when they bring up the same subject matter.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43093154


Due to the poor decision making of under 30s (millenials), we should invoke a reverse Logans Run policy. Those of a certain age will understand this....

[Tengocity]

I'm all for freedom of speech, and he's entitled to his viewpoint therefore, and social media has given the whole world a platform to share theirs, even if they're not a columnist, celeb or whatever.

However, commercial organisations are also entitled to advertise their brands and products how they wish, and how that's done is normally part of a clear segmentation strategy, aligned to insights on knowing who your customer is, and what beliefs and behaviours they might have.

So if companies make a decision about where and where not to advertise then that too is part of being in a free country.

Personally, I see these things as commercial business decisions, and not about anything else really.

[Bryans69]

I'm no fan of the DM, but in this case think the sponsors are wrong. Center Parcs apparently reacted because a woman tweeted that she wouldn't go there now because they were homphobic.

I don't think the article was homphobic, and I suspect a large (now probably silent) part of the population agree with the idea the in a perfect world a man and woman is the ideal combination for raising kids (after he acknowledges many gay couples and single people do an excellent job)

Just because some poeple do not agree with his views, doesn't mean he shoudn't have them, and be allowed to express them.

If I was on twitter, I'd be telling Center Parcs I wouldn't be going because they are suppressing free speech. However, given that that currently seems less important that supporting LGBT, I suspect they wouldn't care.

[Tengocity]

I've re-read the full article, and most of it is rambling nonsense. It may not be overtly homophobic, but it's easy to infer a certain level of homophobia from them:

"I supported civil partnerships long before it was fashionable and I'd rather children were fostered by loving gay couples than condemned to rot in state-run institutions, where they face a better-than-average chance of being abused."

Saying that being being fostered by a gay couple is a step up from being abused in institutional care is hardly a ringing endorsement of it, or is it to imply that being gay means you should only be fostering or adopting children, and not having children of your own?

"That said, and despite the fact that countless single parents do a fantastic job, I still cling to the belief that children benefit most from being brought up by a man and a woman."

I'm sure that there are many aspects of parenting that anyone could call out as being what children benefit most from, but that does not mean anything less than that is not acceptable or inappropriate.

"Which is precisely what worries me most about the Daley publicity stunt. Here we have two men drawing attention to the fact that 'they' are having a baby.

But where's the mum, the possessor of the womb which features in this photograph? She appears to have been written out of the script entirely.

We are not told her identity, where she lives, or even when the baby is due. She is merely the anonymous incubator."

This last bit is all over the place, because if they are using a surrogate, they will also be using an egg donor, which will be a different woman to the surrogate, and both of which, I am sure, expecting full confidentiality, and in the donor's case, possibly not even aware. So that she is not mentioned is pretty much what you'd actually expect in this case, and I don't really get his indignation at this.

Having said all that, I can't really stand the celeb lifestyle thing, so using stuff like this to raise your public profile all seems pretty naff to me, whoever you are, and whatever your sexual orientation, and the sharing of ultrasound pics (that do indeed all look the same) is a modern trend I could do without.

[....,,,,..,,..]

He has his personal opinion, as long as he has a single bit that basically says my opinion is...

It is also a load of bollox about needing a mum and dad, rather than 2 mums or 2 dads.

I know quite a few women living together raising kids that belong to one of the partners in the relationship. Some I have known since early 90's.

The key bit is having a parent (ideally parents) that care, listen, learn to communicate, read signs, etc etc.

A large number of single parents raise perfectly stable and well educated kids, granted it's a bloody challenge and chances of things not working as well are increased.

With 2 parents it does not matter what sex they are, I would sooner two men raised a kid than a man / woman couple where the father was not around much or one of parents a drunk etc.

Forces brats are sort of raised in a collective (explains a few things), as one or both parents can be away a lot, for the first 5 years of my daughters life I was spending between 6 and 8 months away every year. That sort of thing can be quite standard for scalybrats and the majority grow up in to perfectly normal individuals just with no accent and speaking posh English lol.

Back to the article, there is a lot of overreaction to stuff these days, almost like everyone is looking for the next witch hunt and a witch to burn.

Btw the DM is a vile publication but unfortunately it is one of the papers to read to ensure you get a bit of a balance.

[teaston]

And this is the reason that America has regressed to old school racism and homophobia, because positive discrimination is getting out of control to the point where it is going to push society over the edge! Yes minority groups deserve rights, but not more rights than the rest of us!

[Blacktemplar]

^^This. It’s why they’ve got The Donald. Years of liberalism rammed down the throat (if you’ll pardon the pun) of the public and an ethos of “if you’re no’ with us, you’re agin’ us” - nobody’s allowed to have an opinion these days that runs contra to the popular narrative.....

[Broncho]

I wonder just how many people think WTF? When they read Tom Daley and his husband are expecting a child but feel that they can’t say it?

[Edinburra]

How often do we read, in numerous publications, not just the DM. "one person complained" and on that complaint we cancelled, removed, stopped the offending item, piece or person?
Since when did one complaint mean so much?

[Mr Whippy]

Tengo, htf do gay couples have kids of their own?

Pretty sure you need an egg from a woman still!


The article is nonsense that need not be stated any way.
But so much these days seems to be designed to stir up retards so they share their opinions, and then retarded opinions get reported on as mainstream news.


Best to turn it all off and ignore it as it doesn't enrich you.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

I don't care either way about tom Daley and his partner, husband, whatever they are.

But, the Daily Mail lost the adverstsing down to its own idiocy. Placing an advert aimed squarely at families, next to an article that was bound to generate a little controversy, even if mostly unwarranted, was plain stupid.

Plus, without this there's probably been many more reasons for most to drop the Daily Mail. Such as naming, shaming and putting photographs of MP's on the front page because they disagree with their views, a year after one was murdered.

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

Tengo, htf do gay couples have kids of their own?

Pretty sure you need an egg from a woman still!

Yes, that's what I said above. You need an egg donor and you need a surrogate. Both of which would have a right to confidentiality, and (for most people) and expectation to anonymity, hence why they wouldn't be identified in a newspaper article.

I am not sure a gay couple wanting to have a child of their own is any different to a heterosexual couple with fertility issues using a donor or surrogate.

Would Richard Littlejohn imply all those couples should adopt or foster, rather than use IVF? If not then it's very arguably homophobic.

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by Broncho

I wonder just how many people think WTF? When they read Tom Daley and his husband are expecting a child but feel that they can’t say it?

Yes, I wonder.

But then I recall a thread last year where you espoused how great being a dad was, and you couldn't imagine your life being complete otherwise (or something to that effect), and that someone like me is hugely missing out by not having kids, yet here is a story with two guys expressing much the same desires and emotions... so what exactly are you WTFing about?

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by teaston

And this is the reason that America has regressed to old school racism and homophobia, because positive discrimination is getting out of control to the point where it is going to push society over the edge! Yes minority groups deserve rights, but not more rights than the rest of us!

You lost me. Where is the positive discrimination here?

[teaston]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

You lost me. Where is the positive discrimination here?

Because, quite obviously, if he'd said the opposite then no one would dare to object to it!

[Broncho]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Yes, I wonder.

But then I recall a thread last year where you espoused how great being a dad was, and you couldn't imagine your life being complete otherwise (or something to that effect), and that someone like me is hugely missing out by not having kids, yet here is a story with two guys expressing much the same desires and emotions... so what exactly are you WTFing about?

Ha ha back off I never said I did

[JLR1969]

I life in the middle of nowhere so I can ignore society and all of the stupidity that's going on in the world as much as possible

Am I ignorant 'Yes' do I care 'No'

I like to call it 'Ignorant Bliss'

Any idiot can make life complicated

[rosstin]

If the question is, should a business be allowed to choose where they place their advertising money, yes of course it is right.

I don't doubt it was an overreaction but I assume Center Parcs felt rightly or wrongly his opinions don't match their customer base.

If you're siding with the notion that millennials are flawed, because their behaviour and views don't fit with your own interpretation of life, that's a different point that I'm not getting involved in.

I'm mostly just pissed off that I gave dailymail.com another click.

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by teaston

Because, quite obviously, if he'd said the opposite then no one would dare to object to it!

Sorry, I'm still not understanding your point. What would the opposite viewpoint have been?

[teaston]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Sorry, I'm still not understanding your point. What would the opposite viewpoint have been?

That a child is better off with a gay couple than a straight couple!!

Are you not firing on all cylinders today Tengo?

[juwivive]

Originally Posted by Blacktemplar

^^This. It’s why they’ve got The Donald. Years of liberalism rammed down the throat (if you’ll pardon the pun) of the public and an ethos of “if you’re no’ with us, you’re agin’ us” - nobody’s allowed to have an opinion these days that runs contra to the popular narrative.....

"Years" of liberalism? After how many centuries of oppression of anyone who's not white, male and straight? I suppose you think that "MeToo" is a bunch of militant lesbians?

It's rather pathetic that so many white straight males feel so threatened by those who don't take sexism, racism and homophobia lying down. Is your manhood feeling imperilled or something?

[juwivive]

Originally Posted by teaston

And this is the reason that America has regressed to old school racism and homophobia, because positive discrimination is getting out of control to the point where it is going to push society over the edge! Yes minority groups deserve rights, but not more rights than the rest of us!

No-one's asking for more rights than anyone else? Women's groups, for example, are asking for "equal pay for equal work".

Then again, expecting someone as spectacularly misinformed, prejudiced and entitled as you are not to distort things deliberately is rather naive, isn't it?