Of course it isn't true (because Mr Hague says it isn't) but it does buck up the media between now and when Parliament starts again.

I have just returned from a trip to Brighton and shared a twin room with another bloke. Does that mean i'm gay then?

Depends what you shared Angel. I've shared much more than a room in Brighton myself.

For God's sake - why should he have to defend himself? Why did that Lib Dem guy have to resign? The answer is - homophobia is still alive and well - in many cases disguised as paedophobia; if you can't get 'em for being gay (or bisexual), pretend they are child abusers.

They will be breaking windows soon.

Kristallnacht.

I think the problem with some is hypocrisy. There has been many a politician that has condemned homosexuality publicly only to be later revealed as being homosexual or bisexual themselves.

The media are sort of disguising it as nepotism. Another MP employing their unqualified lover/spouse as an aide on govt salary. The gay stories are just bonus tittle tattle and the DM has been publishing the picture of Hague in tight clothes campily walking along the Thames with his aide. There was another MP 'outed' a few years ago for sharing a hotel room with a male colleague because it was more 'cost effective'.

Yes - I think I hate the media attempts to disguise their homophobia almost more than the "scandal" itself.

There's nothing wrong with buggering boys - as long as he's doing what he enjoys.

I used to loathe Hague, probably because of the memory of THAT youthful appearance at the Tory Conference, but I've come to regard him as quite likeable. He doesn't seem to take himself that seriously. It's sad how the so-called liberal press, that claims to be so opposed to homophobia, continues to seize on such rumours with such relish when it suits them.

Angel wrote:
I have just returned from a trip to Brighton and shared a twin room with another bloke. Does that mean i'm gay then?

If it were another part of the UK, angel, then it probably wouldn't mean anything ... but as it was Brighton, then, well, YES !

JK2006 wrote:
For God's sake - why should he have to defend himself?

I agree entirely ... BUT when someone is paying someone (out of public funds) to do a job (for the public good?) we have a right to enquire.

Any politician (or anyone else) can shag as many boys, girls, giraffes (as long as the giraffe doesn't mind) as they want - as long as I am NOT paying for it !

So now we are all GAY as well !!

Smearing has never been so much fun. New Labour sure cant stop smearing even in opposition,

I agree with JK. There is a huge amount of Homophobia around in the media and Government.

Ironic when many are in fact Gay themselves......

So any men who sleep in Brighton in the same building or room are automatically Gay......what a scary thought.....I suppose it is like going to a School Carol Concert - you are a paedophile unless you can bring along a CRB check with you.......

What an amazing country we now live in - where everyone is suspected of being something that they are not unless they can prove otherwise......

I also find it disturbing that anyone that does not agree with gay sex on religious grounds in labelled as homophobic. Homophobia is an irrational fear of Homosexuals causing discrimination in some instances. Those that are opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds oppose the practice of homosexuality. They are not afraid of the people nor is irrationality a factor since their views can be rationalized as religious belief and any resulting discrimination cannot be counted as homophobia
Regarding those that are actually homophobic (and I imagine there are very few that qualify by definition). It is not illegal and sufferers should not be castigated but counselled or similar.

What happens between two (or more!) consenting people in their bedroom (or any other room in private!) and harming no one else is nothing to do with me whatsoever. Being blunt, anal sex is something that doesn't do anything for me whatsoever but then that is also being rather assuming that all gay men partake in that - its like assuming all hetero couples have vaginal sex!

steveimp wrote:
What happens between two (or more!) consenting people in their bedroom (or any other room in private!) and harming no one else is nothing to do with me whatsoever. Being blunt, anal sex is something that doesn't do anything for me whatsoever but then that is also being rather assuming that all gay men partake in that - its like assuming all hetero couples have vaginal sex!
Incest between consenting adults (say a father and son)harms nobody but somehow I find it disturbing on a moral level despite the fact that nobody is being harmed. I think the fact that nobody is being harmed is irrelevant where moral matters are concerned since morality is not a question of harm but rather is a question of right or wrong.

anon wrote:
I think the fact that nobody is being harmed is irrelevant where moral matters are concerned since morality is not a question of harm but rather is a question of right or wrong.

So who (or what) decides what is right or wrong ?

What gives ANYONE the right to impose their prejudice on others ?

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:
I think the fact that nobody is being harmed is irrelevant where moral matters are concerned since morality is not a question of harm but rather is a question of right or wrong.

So who (or what) decides what is right or wrong ?

What gives ANYONE the right to impose their prejudice on others ?

Exactly!

But then religion still has it's doctrines - why we can't shop properly on a Sunday and ridiculous laws still on statute that say you can't buy a bible on 'the holy day' but can buy a jazz mag.

we are going backwards as far as 'morals' go.

This 'scandal' is like something out of the 1950s. 2 blokes sharing a room in Brighton ( that is a hoot you must admit) but why did the poor guy have to resign ?

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:
I think the fact that nobody is being harmed is irrelevant where moral matters are concerned since morality is not a question of harm but rather is a question of right or wrong.

So who (or what) decides what is right or wrong ?

What gives ANYONE the right to impose their prejudice on others ?
I suppose we the people give the governments our consent in allowing them to decide what is right and wrong. It is currently illegal in Britain for a father to have sex with his 18 year old son. Is the government 'imposing its perjudice'on others in this regard in your opinion?

anon wrote:
I suppose we the people give the governments our consent in allowing them to decide what is right and wrong. It is currently illegal in Britain for a father to have sex with his 18 year old son. Is the government 'imposing its perjudice'on others in this regard in your opinion?

Whether it is illegal (or not) for a father to have sex with his own son isn't the point here (and I'm not actually sure that it is illegal anyway!)

The fact is that 2 consenting adults (that currently means over 16's) can do whatever they like in private - and they don't need the consent (or approval) of anyone else.

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:
I suppose we the people give the governments our consent in allowing them to decide what is right and wrong. It is currently illegal in Britain for a father to have sex with his 18 year old son. Is the government 'imposing its prejudice'on others in this regard in your opinion?

Whether it is illegal (or not) for a father to have sex with his own son isn't the point here (and I'm not actually sure that it is illegal anyway!)
[i]
The fact is that 2 consenting adults (that currently means over 16's) can do whatever they like in private - and they don't need the consent (or approval) of [i]anyone else.
You said "So who (or what) decides what is right or wrong ?" and you implied that you "object to others imposing their prejudice on us". My point IS valid here since I am challenging the latter objection.
Your belief that consenting adults are free to carry out sexual intercourse in private is incorrect (in the UK). Two adults (father and son for instance) may not have sexual intercourse under incest laws (sexual offences act 2003. Your position is that the government is imposing its values on persons and under your criteria, the father and son should be able to have sexual intercourse with impunity. In this and other instances, I see a case for government imposing it's moral code or as you call it, prejudice!