manxb&b Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 the excuse was the "children" may be affected,for FUCKS sake what have a pair of queers got to offer a couple of orphaned kids? a life of queerdom no doubt,i'd rather stay hungry,homeless and sleep easy at night than with this pair of queer guys. ...and being called Billy two dads every day at school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillshepherd Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 you wouldn't have to queue at alton towers though bend over wendover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 The only reason why I cared enough to find out who the celebs in question were was because of the injunction. Childish really, because I really don't care a jot about what consenting adults get up to so long as it harms no-one. They have totally wasted their money - if celebs want everyone to know, take out a 'super injunction' in the Courts of England & Wales. Maybe Elton some singer/songwriter has a new al-bum coming out!. Fixed before someone sues the ass off you ( or similar ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Another top quality MF thread... Gutter comedy at its "finest". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I really don't care a jot about what consenting adults get up to so long as it harms no-one. I pretty much agree with that. Two non-attached consenting adults can do what ever they want, no consequences and it is very unlikely to harm anyone else - though in this over sensitive time don't certain delicate flowers claim their safe space was invaded learning about bumsex etc and hence insist they can refuse to be paid to take photos of their wedding or bake them a cake? The consequences when people have significant attachments to other people can be very harmful indeed - people forget that too often and try to use secrecy to engage in behaviour which would destroy relationships. When you enter into a relationship with someone at a certain level you basically have to expand the meaning of consent to include them - if they consent to you going off and doing certain things - well each to their own - but if they were deliberately not informed then they are wronged if their partner behaves in a certain way. Two consenting adults cannot claim their behaviour is automatically harmless to others - it depends upon the significance of their relationship with those others and the issues of privacy are really complex. How many people have found out about someone's affair and then been faced with the moral dilemma when they next meet that person's partner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Fixed before someone sues the ass off you ( or similar ) Thought the injunction only applied in England and Wales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 We are in the area of "thought legislation" aren't we? Where rather than telling you what you can't do, the law presumes to tell you what you can't think. Therefore, if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman full stop, that is somehow wrong. Thought legislation brings the law into disrepute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 the excuse was the "children" may be affected,for FUCKS sake what have a pair of queers got to offer a couple of orphaned kids? a life of queerdom no doubt,i'd rather stay hungry,homeless and sleep easy at night than with this pair of queer guys. I would rather live in luxury with a couple of homosexuals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 for FUCKS sake what have a pair of queers got to offer a couple of orphaned kids? Err, £270m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Fixed before someone sues the ass off you ( or similar ) Thought the injunction only applied in England and Wales? Yeah, I thought that too, but all previous posts had been cryptic, so was erring on the side of caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I really don't care a jot about what consenting adults get up to so long as it harms no-one. I pretty much agree with that. Two non-attached consenting adults can do what ever they want, no consequences and it is very unlikely to harm anyone else - though in this over sensitive time don't certain delicate flowers claim their safe space was invaded learning about bumsex etc and hence insist they can refuse to be paid to take photos of their wedding or bake them a cake? The consequences when people have significant attachments to other people can be very harmful indeed - people forget that too often and try to use secrecy to engage in behaviour which would destroy relationships. When you enter into a relationship with someone at a certain level you basically have to expand the meaning of consent to include them - if they consent to you going off and doing certain things - well each to their own - but if they were deliberately not informed then they are wronged if their partner behaves in a certain way. Two consenting adults cannot claim their behaviour is automatically harmless to others - it depends upon the significance of their relationship with those others and the issues of privacy are really complex. How many people have found out about someone's affair and then been faced with the moral dilemma when they next meet that person's partner? Okay, it is likely to hurt or even harm one partner or the children if the other partner in a mutually agreed monogamous relationship is unfaithful. We're in the realm of personal ethics and behaviour, so potentially I might care and potentially there might be a public interest argument to justify media reporting. But not if the public interest is simply prurience or gossip, no. It has to be something like the Government Defence Secretary having a fling with someone who is also having an affair with en enemy naval attaché. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 for FUCKS sake what have a pair of queers got to offer a couple of orphaned kids? Err, £270m? Some things money can't buy. A mum and dad are two of them I would contend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxb&b Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Another top quality MF thread... Gutter comedy at its "finest". Ffs, it must be a sad and lonely life being born with no sense of humour. No wonder you're always so fukin' miserable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Yeah homophobia is always a barrel of laughs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Fixed before someone sues the ass off you ( or similar ) Thought the injunction only applied in England and Wales? Yeah, I thought that too, but all previous posts had been cryptic, so was erring on the side of caution. Not too sure where this site is hosted, and if that would make any difference. Where's the forum lawyer these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.