We have indeed and your point is valid. For me, it just doesn't compensate the harm done to gay acceptance.
No, its not journalistic ethics. It's about politicians being required to express right views quickly & convincingly.
-
-
You argue he was badgered, or harassed.
-
Yes, but I'm not complaining abt an aggressive journalist but wider attitude of thinking we have right to demand internal purity
-
That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking Tim Farron to not damage gay acceptance and not disrespect gay people.
-
We can insist that our party leader express our values, or choose another party. If not, what's the point of the LibDems?
-
Might as well accept any views (EDL? UKIP?) just to be sure we don't restrict people too much.
-
I've said everything I have to say & would like to stop now.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And this being regarded as more important than liberal ethos of different personal views subordinated to universal hum rights
-
Not by me. What really matters is what Tim Farron said, and he said something bad.
-
Yes, I get that you thinking someone not denying that their religion regards gay sex as a sin fast enough is really bad.
-
I disagree for the reasons I've given & despite hating that idea myself as I wrote in my piece.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.