Friday, December 31, 2010

A reminder

Despite what ITV News might report (as they did the other night), David Furnish is not married to Elton John.

While we're on the subject have you heard any feminists commenting on the implications of a relationship whereby the bodies of two women are used as objects (one to supply an egg, the other a womb) to fulfil the wish of two very rich men to have a child?

****Silence*** ***distant bell rings***

Me neither. I suppose we've known for a while that homosexual ranks above female in Victimhood Poker.

Labels: ,

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correct on all fronts there!

8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said Paulinus.

If a man had paid a woman for sex (e.g. Jeffrey Archer) they and was exposed by the press they would have been pilloried (not literally) by the public.

Why do certain elements of the public then think that it is OK to pay to use two women's bodies, one of them for nine months?

9:16 PM  
Anonymous A different Anonymous from the last one. said...

I can't help but wonder how narrow the parameters are when it comes to the civil-rights brigade's understanding / definition of people trafficking.

I'm all for adoption, but, i can't help but wonder just what part "quid pro quo" played in this arrangement in order to fulfil some sort of misplaced parental fantasy on the part of Mr Dwight and his partner.

Odd, innit?

8:40 PM  
Blogger Paulinus said...

Why do certain elements of the public then think that it is OK to pay to use two women's bodies, one of them for nine months?

Because they are celebs? Or gay? Or both.

I can't help but wonder how narrow the parameters are when it comes to the civil-rights brigade's understanding / definition of people trafficking.

Good point. Just like they get a bit selective when it comes to the rights of a child not to be ripped from he safest place it knows - its mother's womb.

BTW you could always give yourself a monicker - it's not easy working out which anonymous is which.

11:31 PM  
Blogger Apostolate of the Laity said...

I agree with the point you're making.

I also think it is pretty ignorant to include the link to 'victimhood poker'. I get the point it's making, but it's tasteless, ignorant, and takes the piss. Particularly tastless is the inclusion of a disabled boy and the destitute.

I would also say that many of the 'victims' black, native Americans, Hispanics,women,oriental,disabled, destitute, have experienced real hardship and persecution in the past, because of Westerners, White people, Christians, and men.

Why clump these groups together with two millionaire homosexuals who have carried out perverse actions?

3:07 PM  
Blogger Paulinus said...

Sorry you feel that way.

I'm glad you get the point being made. I disagree, however, about your conclusions. I think it's taking the piss out of those who claim to represent said groups - usually shakedown merchants with no real interest in justice.

9:23 PM  

<< Home