I can kind of see what he was meaning but his use of words is all wrong!
He has apologised so let’s move on.
He clearly meant harm. His words sprang from the right motives, but became a but mangled along the way.
So, the apology is very kind, no problem, shake hands, one we go…
I presume that you meant to say ‘he clearly meant no harm’?
He didn’t say being gay was weird, he said that lots of other people think it’s weird, which is different. Let’s focus on battling genuine prejudice and bigotry, rather than berating a man who just chose his words a little unwisely. A non-story that does us no favours if we make a fuss about it.
Exactly. Things have been getting ridiculous recently. Some people do think it’s weird, and who can blame them, if you’re not gay then the whole thing probably does seem a bit weird. Calling homosexuality “weird” is probably one of the most innocent things you can say about it, and this guy didn’t even say it was weird, he said some people think it’s weird. I can’t help but think that if people like him continue to be demonised any time they mention something that is slightly off about gays or homosexuality then it’s just going to cause harm.
he also likened the way people think about gays to the way people think about members of his own religion!! He was empathising with us! I certainly don’t find him offensive at all and am embarrassed that he felt the need to apologise.
I agree. I seldom get the chance, and far less the desire!, to defend a bloody Tory, but even I think this guy’s being treated rather roughly. He was making a valid point, just rather clumsily.
Another stuck up Tory having a pop at the under clases and the Attorney General to boot!
He’s responsible for public prosecutions and I don’t see him getting the Police to arrest Nick Griffin yet???
Craig. He is not stuck up. He is a decent man. Obviously he struggled to make a point and it came out badly, as now seems common ground with many.. Not all Tories are stuck up, nor bad. Give the guy a break. Clumsy wording is his crime. It’s not the worst one
And is this frontbencher going to vote yes for marriage equality I wonder?
“Practising homosexual”, sounds very post World War 2 verbiage. I’ve never heard a straight person described as a practising heterosexual when engaging in sexual activity. I don’t practise my orientation since it isn’t a hobby or a chosen life-style. My life is as valid as any straight person’s. Living one’s life isn’t a practice either. This man has a very poor understanding of terminology.
We’ll find out if he’s “decent’ when he votes yes for equal marriage. I won’t hold my breath on that one. There are far more Tories opposed than in support don’t forget.
Tories could level everything, allow gay marriage, disestablish the church and appoint a gay Prime Minister and twats like you would still complain about something or other.
Get over it.
No, you need to get over yourself. The Tories couldn’t even level a playing field and they certainly wouldn’t even envisage disestablishing the state cult, not in their wildest dreams. They don’t even like the idea of Lords reform because it would displace 26 Anglican clerics.
i don’t believe they said “a little bit weird” too much in the 19th c
Would you prefer “slightly queer?”
‘Orfly queer’, I should think.
It’s ‘practising homosexual’ (as opposed to perfect?) that’s the most outdated part of Grieve’s vocabulary.
I think he said ‘practising’ for the sake of his analogy; i.e. ‘practising member of the CofE’ like ‘practising homosexual’. It’s just that as he’s a bit posh people will jump to the conclusion that’s how he speaks about gay people generally. I thought the analogy was quite amusing :-)
Storm in a teacup.
Why is Chris Bryant delaying his 10 minute rule bill.
In a sense it is good news, as it gives Cameron oodles of time to introduce marriage equality legislation before that.
Although, I don’t think anyone really believes that Cameron has the slightest intention of legislating for marriage equality any more.
Maybe he’s had the nod from Cameron that if he waits then it’ll get government support.
I’m not sure I believe that but you never know.
By the way, is the Attorney General sporting a comb-over hairstyle?
Personally I think it’s a bit weird that someone can be a Tory so it all evens out I suppose.
This wasn’t malicious in the slightest, but hopefully the reaction does mean he’ll think about the language he uses in the future.
Strange as it might seem I find people like Dominic Grieve rather weird.
Who the f@*£ is the attorney general anyway? what does he do and who elected him?
The Attorney General is the chief legal advisor to the British government. He advises them about the legality of laws, proposals etc. It’s a vital role and exists in most countries. He’s appointed to the role, not elected, although the Mr. Grieve is an elected MP.
Could it be that Chris Bryant is delaying introducing his 10 min rule Bill for gay marriage until Feb. 12th because he regards that date as a ‘deadline’ for government action? In other words-he has been given an undertaking that a government gay marriage bill will be introduced-definitely by Feb 12th?
I prefer “mildly exotic” myself :-)
This is a total non-story. Why is PN framing it the way it is? He clearly didn’t say that he thought gay people are weird. And what he said is very true. I’ve no doubt there are loads of people around who don’t ‘get’ homosexuality and find it “weird”.
We are a lot weird.
The world would be a lot duller place without us though.
The biggest news item is Chris Bryant delaying his bill for 3 months and there is only a one liner on it. C’mon PN can’t you get more information from CB on his reasoning behind it?
CB is probably trying to figure out an excuse for claiming rent on a flat whilst at the same time claiming expenses on another property in London on taxpayers’ expense . . . oh well . . . if Labour will fling the mud at David Laws for SAVING the taxpayer money . . .
. . . and again we have ‘mis-words’ . . .
Indeed . . .
I find the concept of a non practising homosexual a bit “weird” but not a practising one.
And I assume non practising Anglicans are all those that tick the Christian box on the consensus form and have a totally different concept of what Christianity is than those practising Anglicans who love to persecute LGBT people.
He is a bit of a twit though and yes I also would like to know whether he supports SSM , perhaps some of the Tory trolls on here can answer that one?
I’ve been practising for years, so I think I’ve got it about right by now.
Comparing LGBT people to members of th Anglican Church, the most powerful and influential anti-LGBT lobbying organisations in the UK is insensiteve and insulting.
You’re evidently far too sensitive and far too easily insulted. How do you cope with the outside world?!
Chris Bryant is a ghastly embarrassing self-promoting whinge-bag. His casual approach to claiming prejudice on behalf of his political opponents may do political favours for himself, but do nothing for the group of people he claims to be ‘defending’ or ‘representing’.
As probably the only person on this site who was actually at the Union debate to hear the remarks, I have to say I sympathise with Grieve. If he accidently called gays ‘weird’, it was in the same breath as calling himself (as a practising Anglican) exactly the same.
Chris Bryant’s speech was terrible – it was a mix of boasts and ad hominem attacks. He wouldn’t shut up about being gay and his personal achievements, and kept going on about the word ‘practising’, asking why the word was used. Grieve stood up to try and explain why some members of the public might use the term, rightly or wrongly. Bryant seized on Grieve’s comment in – probably false – outrage, re-phrased it to the Union very loudly (lots of people couldn’t hear what Grieve said properly) and got everyone riled at Grieve. Grieve did stand up and try and clarify but got shouted down by Bryant’s side.
That is unfortunately student politics – many of them support labour because thats what they feel to be “right”, they don’t listen to the other side of the debate and will misconstrue things to get to their point. Regarding Tuition fees – very few people bring up the fact that Labour introduced the fees and then trebelled them within 10 years, they also misrepresent the repayment system.
Whats up with all the misreporting from Pinknews – leave the sensationalism to the daily mail please.