Baht Simpson

RIP. So much grief for so many families now.

I'm afraid there are too many here ready for a fight rather than a debate. And too much tribalism.

Maybe ground rules, but then it needs constant moderation and there are some on here who troll and wouldn't abide by the rules anyway. I often think that there are some people on here who clearly aren't stupid but allow their prejudices dictate the presentation of their arguments. It's a shame.

It's not just a housing issue. People on the streets are there because of lack of money, alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness etc. I realise that immigration is your pet issue but turfing immigrants out of hotels and putting the homeless in there isn't solving the problem.

O.K. I see what you mean now. I thought you meant resolution as in resolving a problem. It's customary to start a formal debate here with "this house believes", a proposition or premise. A resolution in U.K. Parliament is more to express an already debated issue that is then voted on.

You don't start a debate with a resolution you start with a premise. But full resolution of the problem of homelessness is not what the article was about, it was about taking steps to de-criminalize vagrancy and providing further money to address the root problems. I showed that in my previous post. Nobody has a magic wand to eradicate homelessness overnight because there are complex issues above and beyond people not having a roof over their head. At least this is a start and should be commended.

Lol. Classic Jordan Peterson-type reply. Refusing to answer a simple yes or no question then saying what do you mean by initiative? You really need to learn how to debate properly. But since you won't I'll play your game for a bit. Do you agree with de-criminalizing vagrancy? Do you agree with this? "In response to these figures, Labour has pledged an additional £233 million for homelessness services this financial year, with total investment for 2025–26 approaching £1 billion. Rayner's department stated the funding will help keep more families out of temporary accommodation and “tackle rough sleeping head-on.” Do you agree with this? "At the same time, new laws will be introduced to target behaviour linked to organised begging and criminal trespass. These new offences—facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime—are designed to close the gaps left by the Vagrancy Act’s repeal." Those are the initiatives. Or as the Telegraph itself puts it "As the UK prepares to take a new path on homelessness, Rayner’s announcement marks a deliberate effort to offer dignity and practical support rather than punishment to those sleeping rough—turning away from a punitive legacy that has endured for over 200 years." So I ask again do you agree with these or not? P.S. Don't go down the 'this won't solve all the homelessness' route because that's not what they are saying.

Pathetic response. Instead of answering a question that only required a yes or no answer you deflect by questioning my understanding of the initiative. Nice try but perhaps just answer the question.

So you support Rayner's initiative then.

Yes, but I think there are many more reasons. I remember one homeless person when asked why he was homeless said that you're only one bad divorce away from sleeping rough. Alcoholism, drugs and mental dsorders clearly play a big part.

Not necessarily. Dry eyes can lead the tear ducts to overproduce. I found that eye drops can help temporarily to lubricate the eyes but the advice is to not overuse them,so it can come back. It's bit of a vicious circle and exacerbated by the heat.

Gay was originally used as a term for immoral straights. A bit of history for you. "The word may have started to acquire associations of sexual immorality as early as the 14th century, but had certainly acquired them by the 17th. By the late 17th century, it had acquired the specific meaning of "addicted to pleasures and dissipations", an extension of its primary meaning of "carefree" implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, and a gay house a brothel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay It's usage declined but was retained by the LGBT+ community as an umbrella term for same-sex attraction.

Pet Shop Boys - Try It (I'm In Love With A Married Man)

Oops! I married a gay man. https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSkuLd94v/ Each to his own I guess. It's Tiktok so a pinch of salt may be needed.

Ladyboy Ga-Ga?

Of course not. That would be dishonest. I would return the 6m I found to it's rightful owner. 😏

Don't paraphrase my words. I didn't say they changed their position, I said they are actively campaigning now. See here: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/lawmakers-9-states-propose-measures-undermine-sex-marriage-rights-rcna193743 As I said in my post above with TCM I'm not interested in debating trans issues, so you'll have to rant at someone else. As for your last paragraph you have no idea what I think about those issues. Just easier to assume and criticise first isn't it? But for your information my interest in the midterms is zero. I'm British.

I understand the concerns on both those issues but that doesn't excuse attacking people and calling for bans on Pride, name calling etc. Its the religious right who are actively campaigning now to repeal marriage equality, in the U.S. at least. Once they get that it will be other hard fought for gay rights under fire.

I won't be drawn on the Palestine/Israel question either here or in real life because it's so divisive and people will interpret anything you say as taking sides. As I said, it never ends well. Similar with the Trump thing. It's just too tribalistic. I only mention Gays For Trump as it's LGBT related, which I know a bit about. Even trans issues I only interject if I see something that is evidently untrue, unfair or plainly anti-LGBT. As for being opinionated that infers arrogant views. Having forthright opinions isn't arrogance.

Of course not. It would be man and man or woman and woman. Spousal support would be defined by factors other than gender. The same applies in straight marriage, although often it goes to the woman because of personal circumstances.

Exactly, and I would just add that, lose visibility and things would start going backwards very quickly. Steps are already being taken by the religious right to reverse equal marriage rights.

No, I've not commented on the Palestine issue on this site. I've actively avoided it because it never ends well. Just one comment in response to TCMs Queers For Palestine assertion because it's about an LGBT matter. Nothing about the current situation. Please don't misrepresent me.

Their founder Jeff Giesa wouldn't agree with you. "Giesea was not publicly involved in the 2020 election and has since denounced Trump. Reflecting on his past support for Trump, Giesea wrote in a 2022 blog post that, "By the 2020 election, I had lost passion for Trump and didn’t participate" while advocating that the American Right break from Trump.[20] In another post, he described January 6 as a "coordinated attempt to interfere in the electoral process" and described how this realization impacted him personally.[21] In June 2023, he endorsed Biden in an article titled, "The Trumpist Case for Biden." He wrote that "President Biden is more authentically pro-America than any of the leading Republican candidates including Trump or DeSantis."[22] In August 2024, he endorsed Kamala Harris for President, writing that "Trump is fundamentally unfit."[23] Wikipedia. Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

You get misinformed people in any community. Like Gays For Trump. You also get extreme views in any religion, like the Christian pastor who said he would gladly shoot gays in the head. I'm not interested in discussing anything about the Palestine/Israel issue.

Thanks for the compliment Dave. Happy Pride to you too. ❤️ 😀