If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Surprise surprise... rabid homophobe comes out of closet
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8556852.stm
He does have some cheek showing his face at a gay nightclub after his continued efforts to help perpeutate discrimination against homosexuals. I hope he got recognised and kicked out.
Anyways, this only reaffirms many people's belief that many of the more virulent gay bashers out there are closet homosexuals themselves. I'm convinced Richard Littlejohn is as gay as the day's long.
He does have some cheek showing his face at a gay nightclub after his continued efforts to help perpeutate discrimination against homosexuals. I hope he got recognised and kicked out.
Anyways, this only reaffirms many people's belief that many of the more virulent gay bashers out there are closet homosexuals themselves. I'm convinced Richard Littlejohn is as gay as the day's long.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I haven't seen any evidence that Roy Ashburn is a 'gay basher'. There's certainly nothing in that BBC article which infers it. He voted against equal gay rights - as his constituents, apparently, would have wanted him to do.
As Katralla says, this guy's story seems sad. I'm just not sure how sorry I feel for him, personally.
I'd say you don't care much for the facts of his case. Calling him a 'gay basher' is more than just semantics. From what I can glean from the BBC's article, I'd say 'gay basher' is simply factually incorrect. Still, don't let these things get in the way of another sanctimonious, hyperbole-filled, overly-simplified soapbox rant.
From that article we can't surmise anything other than he voted against equal rights for gay folk. It certainly doesn't mention him lambasting the gays, physically or verbally.
I guess what I'm getting my knickers in a twist about is the fact that this could be an interesting topic/debate, but the chance of reasonable discussion is flattened when you polarise. I just don't see what is achieved by you calling him a scum-bag.
That's enough to make anyone a scumbag in my book. The fact that the man is in fact gay as well makes him a particularly odious, despicable, hypocritical piece of garbage.
Erm, I don't see it I'm afraid. I see a bloke who for 14 years has been on the wrong side. He's had a choice between getting on in his political career or admitting the truth to himself or everyone else. I don't blame him, I blame a political system that is so polarised it forces a person to choose between being a Democrat who the right see as a Commie, flag burning liberal or a republican who the rest of the world see as over zealous creationists who hate everyone who isn't white, american, heterosexual or christian.
I feel sorry for the guy, imagine how gut wrenchingly hard it must be to vote against things that would make your own life easier. Yes there are things he could have done which we can all point out with the benefit of hind-sight, but I expect it wasn't easy for him.
About him being a scum-bag, perhaps. But only because he cares more about his career in politics than he does everything else, or because he voted against gay rights? Just because he is gay doesn't mean he has to somehow agree with what he is voting for (Example of Prop 8. I would still prefer him to abuse me physically or verbally than I would removing my human rights though.) I think a high amount of politicians are at that stage in their lives where they're batting for number 1. Which moves back to the political systems need changing for the modern age.
Gay rights won't change while religion is the trump card in politics towards gay rights - which is self redundant itself, that would be offensive to a religion.