Comments on: Commons debate: from born again to born with two mummies

By: David S

David S — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:31:00 +0000

"And furthermore", I don't insult people on here with whom I disagree.

By: David S

David S — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:10:00 +0000

ZekeOur laws and policies are determined by those who are entitled to vote in Local and General Elections, and those who are entitled to vote in these elections are citizens of the UK and the European Union. For the record, I have never criticised American policy or the laws of the US as I am not a citizen of that country, neither am I particularly interested in what happens there. The US is a democracy, and it is up to its citizens to determine how it is run. I am, however, concerned about how GLBT are treated in countries like Saudia Arabia and Iran, where there is no democracy and where gay people have an absolutely dreadful time. And to Robert ex-pat Brit, may I say that my opinion has nothing to do with insecurity or superiority, but is based on a set of values that says it is discorteous to criticise the affairs of another sovereign country. There is a difference – a difference that does not appear to have been recognised here.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:08:00 +0000

Zeke, as a native born Brit living in the U.S., you do have a point. It seems that any criticism of my country's policies, politics, equality issues by other not born here is NEVER welcome or accepted, even if there is something inherently wrong. Many who post here can't accept criticism of any kind even less so if you're not a Brit. Its called insularity, a false sense of superiority, blind patriotism if you like, no matter what. Its what we're now seeing in right wing politics in the U.S. Anyone who criticises U.S. policy in Iraq for instance is considered unpatriotic and un-American. Its nothing new. What it does tell you is that when people feel inadequate or insecure, they lash out because in the final analysis, the truth ALWAYS hurts. They either accept the truth or they don't, as you've proved in this instance.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:27:00 +0000

Zeke, the state pension age for men and women is being equalised. There's a gradual increase in the female State pension age for those women born between 1950-55 as it would be unfair to have a change from 60 to 65 for those born after a specific date. So the issue is being addressed. And yes it was unfair against men.In fact the State pension age is being increased from age 65 in the future and that will affect some of those reading this discussion.Originally, State pensions were not that expensive for the country to provide as not many lived too long after starting to receive it. That clearly isn't the case now and so the starting age has been raised.And don't even get me started on how Gordon Brown has screwed up the best private sector pension provision in Europe with his £5 billion a year tax grab while doing nothing to address the massive unfunded public sector pension liability.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Zeke

Zeke — Wed, 14 May 2008 05:36:00 +0000

And furthermore, what gave me the right to comment on English or EU policy was a little thing called the Revolutionary War of 1776 that gave people like me FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Sorry if you are under some delusion that you are the queen of the universe or if you got the impression that the Motherland is above question from the "colonists" but it's 2008, the internet age. We're allowed to complain about our own and other people's country's policies without losing our heads at the end of a blade.Too bad if that doesn't work for you.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Zeke

Zeke — Wed, 14 May 2008 05:27:00 +0000

David S, I am well aware that the US has major problems but we don't give one gender their pension 5 years earlier than the other and fathers can and do get custody of their children.My comment was not so much intended to disparage England as much as it was an honest question about whether or not English law allows for fathers to win custody of their children and to ask why the pension law is the way it is.Don't try to tell me that you, with all your self-righteousness, have never questioned or negatively commented on American policies.Rather than attempting to answer my honest questions you choose to be an class-A asshole so to you I say BITE ME!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: David S

David S — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:43:00 +0000

I am not quite sure what makes you think you have the right pass comment on UK or EU social policy. Given the pretty dreadful record of GLBT rights in your own country, might I respectfully request that you concentrate your efforts on resolving those issues and that you keep your nose out of our business?Moving on, I've read the article and was quite shocked by the bias displayed by the editor and some of the insults hurled at members of Parliament, whether elected or not. I'll come back to this in a moment.Geraldine Smith is not vicious at all! She merely expressed the opinion that to deny any knowledge of, or contact with their biological father is unfair to the child – and I have to say that I agree with her. Surely I can't be the only gay man who feels that some of what is being proposed in this Embryology Bill is wrong. In any situation where both parents are of the same sex, it is the child that is being denied the opportunity to discover what it is like to have a parent of the other gender, whatever gender that may be. My parents, for example, taught me valuable lessons about how to relate to either sex. My relationship with my mum and my dad are the same, but subtly different at the same time – if that makes sense. And I believe that a child should be able to have these experiences.And as for Mr Grew's comments on the viciousness and arrogance of our elected MPs, perhaps he ought to examine himself first. He may come to the conclusion that he is not perfect himself, although I doubt it.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Zeke

Zeke — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:44:00 +0000

These stories are always so confusing and upsetting to me as an American who isn't familiar with British family law.When I read these stories, even one's that are written by pro-gay, pro gay parent writers, I get the distict impression that fathers in England have NO rights. Does divorce in England automatically mean that the father loses custody and is charged with child support? Do fathers have no right to sue for custody? Do they have the right but no chance of winning?Additionally, I keep reading things like, "In line with this government policy, the Bill provides for civil partners and same-sex female couples to be named as the parents on birth certificates." What about same-sex male couples? I read time and time again about how a woman in a civil partnership with another woman will automatically be put on the birth certificate of her partner's child but that option isn't available to men is civil partnerships. They have to go through the extra time, effort and expense of adoption making their relationship to the child "adoptive" parent as opposed to "parent" that lesbian couples will have. How is that fair and equal treatment?It seems to me that in England, and across Europe, gender biases and gender roles are fine and good as long as they result in a positive bias for women or a negative bias against men.An example would be the pension law in England. How is it fair that women get their pensions five years earlier than men (who, by the way die about five years earlier). So the people who pay the most into the system get the least out but it seems that no one, not even men in England see this as an issue of fairness. When the European court ruled that it was gender biased to deny a male to female transexual her right to take her pension five years earlier than than she would have been had she remained a man, I was shocked that NO ONE in the English gay press or in the comments sections brought up what seemed completely obvious to me. HOW ON EARTH IS IT A GENDER BIAS WHEN IT'S A TRANSEXUAL BUT NOT A GENDER BIAS TO GIVE WOMEN THEIR PENSION FIVE YEARS EARLIER THAN MEN? Can anyone answer why this phenomenom exists? Can any English males explain to me why no one is suing over this clear and VERY costly anti-male bias?

(Report comment to the moderator)