Your twists serve only to show how little nuance you have in your ability to process information and how very polarised your understanding is.
From a feminist point of view I believe two women marrying is a wonderful thing and is no way "degrading".
And the Baroness was concerned how the term ‘marriage’ being used in law would impact the rights and women and girls.
A feminist point of view would look at the ramifications of the law and where conflicts arise, work out solutions.
I don’t have to remind you that there were lesbian feminists concerned about the use of the word marriage as well. We have repeatedly reminded you of that. Which you ignore.
From a feminist point of view I believe two women can raise a child just as well as any straight couple.
And again your simplistic cutting off all the nuance shows you again cannot see this from a child-centred perspective. And you cannot understand that many feminists also take a child centred perspective.
Plus your overly simplistic statement denies the impact on exploited women in the production of eggs and surrogacy.
You cannot detach the exploitation of women from the ‘fertility equality’ agenda.
From a feminist point of view I do not believe that there should be a different age of consent for a woman if she choses to take a female lover instead of a male lover.
This has been mentioned by vest.
Maybe hearache will now answer whether they will vilify publicly here and every social media platform, Peter Tatchell who is well known, although has tried to deny it, for stating not all intergenerational sex involving children is sex abuse… and supported keeping an underage wife together with her adult husband more recently. Amongst other things Tatchell has done and said.
Seems kind of pertinent that hearache finally answers whether they will go vilify Peter Tatchell and others with the same evangelical zeal as they demonise women who disagree with hearache.