LibDems and the LBGAlliance

And we have been through this before.

You are unable to see any alternative viewpoints other than your own polarised view. Everyone reading can see it and only some posters who may be similarly deeply prejudiced with no evidence will agree with you.

Still, thanks for continuing to give a live demonstration of extreme activists tactics. You actually have encouraged some new posters to post on the thread in support of views other than yours.

And it keeps the thread bumped.

Because they’re the wrong sort of lesbian and gay.

There is some impressive clown dancing on this thread.

Do you think Baroness Nicholson and Jackie Doyle Price (both LGB Alliance supporters) are bigots or gay allies?

Of course, many LGB Alliance supporters are straights who just don't want gays to get married at all.

e.g. Baroness Nicholson who said it would "degrade" women:
twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1277648813642129410

Or Jackie Doyle Price who is against it because it “interferes in church affairs” and “for me marriage is a sacrament, it is not a creation of the state”. (Wait until she hears about all the denominations that want to marry gays)

Both these women are homophobes and it is no surprise to me that they are proud supporters of the LGBA.

The LGBA is a group that proudly welcomes straight homophobes so long as they also don't like trans people.

I doubt he made defamatory remarks, I suspect he just stated the simple truth that they are a transphobic organisation.

e.g. Such as when they said trans people were as unnatural as "vegan cats":

twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1535349212753317888

You think they're so tainted that a rebrand won't cut the mustard?

Nonsense.

You'd have to be wilfully stupid to interpret that tweet that way. This doesn't in any way compare with actual abuse and threats of violence, which are commonplace coming from gender ideologues towards anybody who disagrees with them.

Whether you support them or not there is no doubt that their name is irrevocably tarnished.

Rebrand incoming?

Apart from the actual lesbians who set up the LGB Alliance you mean?

And thanks “straight ppl masquerading as lesbians” is such a perfect description of men masquerading as women and thence demanding to be called lesbians

So you are claiming LGB is full of transpeople? I’m pretty sure it’s not. Are these the same hundreds that @Hearach15 knows or is it different hundreds?

“straight people masquerading as lesbians”

Oh the irony.

I'm not aware of any lesbians in real life (and I know hundreds) who support LGB Alliance. The general perception is they largely comprise white GC feminists and straight people masquerading as lesbians in an attempt to split the LGBT community.

I actually think @Hearach15 is the only bigot one this thread.

You're brave!
I gave up and left a few years ago.
I have attended the feminist zoom meetings though.
What did it for me was the libdem feminist group on Facebook who here the discussion was all about learning from women with penises.

Wtf, did you actually read that link? The point was that the MP had made defamatory remarks, not LGB Alliance. You gender ideologues do twist everything backwards, don’t you.

I suppose no one even here is bold enough to say that someone who is against mixed couples marrying is not a bigot?

Good grief — it’s endless brainless and false analogies here today, isn’t it? The entire point that gay people objected to in marriage was its heteronormativity (as well as its religious roots). The comparison just doesn’t work.

But, as I said, I’ve seen threads before on which these issues have been patiently explained to you; and yet here you are again with the same mouldy old points and bad arguments that misunderstand and misrepresent. And they don’t get any better for the repeated airing.

Should be noted as well the LGB Alliance have been referred to Commons security for sending gay MP John Nicolson abuse.

"On April 21 last year, LGB Alliance tweeted: “To everyone who is annoyed by the defamatory remarks made about us by the MP (really!) @MrJohnNicolson, who clearly doesn’t have a clue who we are or what we do: please make a donation to us IN HIS NAME and we will tweet out your message.” #FactsNotLies”

"A number of donations made to the group’s JustGiving page were later refunded to individuals who left donations and comments impersonating Mr Nicolson, before the platform closed down the group’s fundraising page completely, citing a violation of its platform guidelines."

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/house-of-commons-speaker-refers-historic-abuse-sent-by-lgb-alliance-to-scottish-mp-john-nicolson-to-security-after-david-amess-killing-3445737

Not sure what encouraging online abuse against a gay MP has to do with LGB rights but I've no doubt people on here will still defend this odious crowd.

There are plenty of people who are "ambivalent" about marriage. All of those who seek to ban one group of people from the institution are bigoted - whether their target is gay people or couples from different races or religions etc.

I suppose no one even here is bold enough to say that someone who is against mixed couples marrying is not a bigot?

Woohoo. Welcome aboard.

I'm not that desperate 😂

@IdisagreeMrHochhauser thank you for the info - I have signed up on the website!!

This explains their rationale. It was obviously voted on.

morningstaronline.co.uk/article/women-class-and-gender-%E2%80%93-communist-perspective

There was also a thread here c2018 or 2019 on the communist party of Greece (I think - or maybe Portugal?!) who took a similar view, with a translation of their essay explaining.

I don't think you understand what the word bigot means. Lots of people are ambivalent about marriage, whether gay or straight.

Most people, however, would surely be horrified to learn that gender ideologists including (incredibly) the CEO of Stonewall say that lesbians, i.e. females who are same-sex attracted, should be open to having sex with male-bodied people who identify as women, and those who won't consider it are bigots. The LGBA Alliance is very clear that they are there to campaign for same-sex attracted people, not same-gender. The difference is very important.

because maybe you only take a very narrow time slice in your interpretation of what I said?

Maybe I existed in a time before alternative legal partnerships of any kind for any couple existed outside marriage?