I am shocked;…

and also horrified!

Not by the simple fact that some bent celebrity bloke and his legally-acquired rent boy have hurriedly left their ‘glamorous honeymoon tour’ in Honduras, as they literally had it coming; but shocked by the simple truth that neither Fry, who is a talented actor and comedian, and therefore fairly well educated, nor his bent ‘wusband’ had actually bothered to check on T’Internet regarding Honduras’ attitude to shirt-lifters and similar perverts.

5 comments for “I am shocked;…

  1. James Strong
    June 14, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    Interesting to find on a libertarian site such use of emotive language showing clear disapproval of homosexuals.

    Why do you care if they are ‘bent’, ‘shirt-lifters’ or ‘perverts’?

    Do you speculate on the favourite sexual positions of married friends and acquaintances? Do you approve or disapprove of the sex toys that they might or might not use?
    Or do you think it is none of your business? Let me help you here: it is none of your business.

    There are plenty of other reasons to dislike Stephen Fry.He’s a precious and pompous luvvie.

    • John
      June 14, 2015 at 5:57 pm

      It probably is none of our business, but it’s also none of Fry’s business to visit a foreign country, and then moan, wail and generally have a bloody great wet tantrum when they don’t agree with his open homosexuality.

      As usual with Fry, it’s all about him.

    • June 15, 2015 at 9:28 am

      I think Peter puts it well below. Why is it not libertarian to oppose what we see as wrong? On a libertarian site, surely we condone as much opinion as we can, including yours, including mine.

      On the issue of banning, I’m largely with you in that the absolute minimum should be banned or interfered with. Where I draw the line is when a group tries to impose something on us, e.g. the radical Muslims, the gay mafia.

      That’s indeed then a libertarian issue and it becomes painfully obvious that libertarianism, when it grows up, becomes classical liberalism. When it remains childlike and personal, then it is licentiousness.

      The eternal battle is where to draw the line. IMHO, smokers were doing no one any harm. My metabolism won’t take excessive smoke, therefore, though I’d love to sit in a pub with my smoky drinky mates, I can’t do it, healthwise. I don’t want them banned though.

      My strategy is to be on the end of the table nearest the door and then every time someone came in, I could breathe. I’d like to see smoking and non-smoking areas in the pub. A general ban though is simply not right.

      If a smoker came over to our table and deliberately sat beside me, blowing smoke across my meal, that’s another matter. Not that any smoker I’ve known has ever done that.

      The issue comes down, as always, to if someone is laying something on you, deliberately so or if they’re in their own private space doing what they do.

      And not only are you within your rights to put your view, but we’re within our rights to answer it and that is healthy as far as I can see.

  2. Peter Whale
    June 14, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    Hi James I do not like or condone wife swapping, under age sex, threesomes, homosexuality, or any deviancy that is not my ideal relationship, which happens to be male and female monogamous marriage. That does not mean I would ban or legislate against it. It is just not for me and I would advocate against it. If you find it hard to accept my position that is okay for I find it hard to accept yours.

  3. Errol
    June 16, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    I am against gay marriage. I don’t really understand gays but I’ll respect their choices. That said, I find the language used inappropriate and insulting. Yes, Hondouras was a silly place to go (but then considering most of the world is no where near as oppressive in it’s enforced tolerance as the UK) not surprising it didn’t end well.

    Surely more depth would have been gained from comparing UK society and Hondouran and the respective tolerances would be more practical?

Comments are closed.