MP under fire for gay consent views (From Daily Echo)

Labour's sexualisation of children is hardly a record to be proud of. Lewis was just stating facts, Labour have no good reason to throw stones given the appalling rates of under age girls becoming pregnant in this area.

so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

Ha! Mr Lewis won't be MP much longer.
Labour support will collapse and go to Lib Dem Colonel Scrivens.
Provided Ukip continue to make inroads into Tory vote it will be bye bye Mr Lewis!
LOL!! I wonder if Ukip need any help canvassing or delivering leaflets?

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

real name mr hunt freemantle

I imagine Lewis' views will go down very well with the fox- and gay-hating bigots which are so abundant in the New Forest.
We can only hope that some of them will be confused by Scrivens' pretentious "Colonel" tag and think he's the Tory.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

I usually agree with freemantlgirl2 but not on this occassion. Two guys having sex is disgusting and dirty, however what makes it worse is when the whole affair snowballs into the guys wanting to get married and have children. How can a child understand his parents and have a decent upbringing when his dads are having sex in the same house that he is being brought up in? I dont mind gay guys as such, they don't harm anyone that I know of, in fact they are quite possibly more mellow and chilled out than most people but I think the whole gay sex thing is freakish, and that a moral society should be built upon a natural family with a mum and dad.
That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt.

Brite Spark wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

I usually agree with freemantlgirl2 but not on this occassion. Two guys having sex is disgusting and dirty, however what makes it worse is when the whole affair snowballs into the guys wanting to get married and have children. How can a child understand his parents and have a decent upbringing when his dads are having sex in the same house that he is being brought up in? I dont mind gay guys as such, they don't harm anyone that I know of, in fact they are quite possibly more mellow and chilled out than most people but I think the whole gay sex thing is freakish, and that a moral society should be built upon a natural family with a mum and dad. That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt.

You're not wrong, I agree with you about children. I'm so old fashioned I think it's better for children to have 2 married parents too. I wonder what the left think about that?

Like most posters here I despise Julian Lewis and hope he will be deposed (sadly he won't be). I just deplore the notion that somehow facts and proven reality can be sacrificed in the interests of policitcal correctness. It wa proved long ago that HIV-AIDS is transmitted more freely among the gay community not only because of the physiology but also because of promiscuity. I can;' stand the man but for Gods sake stop pretending that fact is fiction - there are much better ways to nail him

Condor Man wrote:

Brite Spark wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

I usually agree with freemantlgirl2 but not on this occassion. Two guys having sex is disgusting and dirty, however what makes it worse is when the whole affair snowballs into the guys wanting to get married and have children. How can a child understand his parents and have a decent upbringing when his dads are having sex in the same house that he is being brought up in? I dont mind gay guys as such, they don't harm anyone that I know of, in fact they are quite possibly more mellow and chilled out than most people but I think the whole gay sex thing is freakish, and that a moral society should be built upon a natural family with a mum and dad. That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt.

You're not wrong, I agree with you about children. I'm so old fashioned I think it's better for children to have 2 married parents too. I wonder what the left think about that?

Yeah we agree .......you are old fashioned..........a
nd the forest will be a better place without Lewis......well said Condor..............
...you did say that didn't you ?????

Down in the forest something stirred...... Julian Lewis has just been sacked and Julian Clary will take his place. And in a show of support for the new candidate David Cameron will appear in full drag for next week's TV debate, as the one at the moment is so boring!

The death knell of this last Labour government will have the epitaph
You can have sex with a 16 year old boy but you cant give him a cigarette afterwards
Just goes to prove that labour fiddled whilst Rome burnt, banned foxhunting, increased the age for smoking, lowered the age for male homosexuals etc.
Meanwhile the nhs is struggling, the economy is collapsing, and we are being overrun by illegal immigrants.
Do you really want another 5 years incompetence? If not for Gods sake kick the Labour party out!

Where is Mark Oaten when you need him?

Brite Spark wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

I usually agree with freemantlgirl2 but not on this occassion. Two guys having sex is disgusting and dirty, however what makes it worse is when the whole affair snowballs into the guys wanting to get married and have children. How can a child understand his parents and have a decent upbringing when his dads are having sex in the same house that he is being brought up in? I dont mind gay guys as such, they don't harm anyone that I know of, in fact they are quite possibly more mellow and chilled out than most people but I think the whole gay sex thing is freakish, and that a moral society should be built upon a natural family with a mum and dad. That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt.

At least they dont get pregnant and want a council house!

geoff51 wrote:

Brite Spark wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

I usually agree with freemantlgirl2 but not on this occassion. Two guys having sex is disgusting and dirty, however what makes it worse is when the whole affair snowballs into the guys wanting to get married and have children. How can a child understand his parents and have a decent upbringing when his dads are having sex in the same house that he is being brought up in? I dont mind gay guys as such, they don't harm anyone that I know of, in fact they are quite possibly more mellow and chilled out than most people but I think the whole gay sex thing is freakish, and that a moral society should be built upon a natural family with a mum and dad. That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt.

At least they dont get pregnant and want a council house!

brite can i scare the living pants of you, two guys having sex has been around longer than marriage has, same has two females having sex been around just has long, and only become abnormal and disgusting because of the church brainwashing people. check you history out.

geoff51 wrote:

Brite Spark wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

I usually agree with freemantlgirl2 but not on this occassion. Two guys having sex is disgusting and dirty, however what makes it worse is when the whole affair snowballs into the guys wanting to get married and have children. How can a child understand his parents and have a decent upbringing when his dads are having sex in the same house that he is being brought up in? I dont mind gay guys as such, they don't harm anyone that I know of, in fact they are quite possibly more mellow and chilled out than most people but I think the whole gay sex thing is freakish, and that a moral society should be built upon a natural family with a mum and dad. That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt.

At least they dont get pregnant and want a council house!

per proportion of society gays pay the most in tax, so you're indeed correct.

Like most unintelligent people Southy just scatters a few unrelated random facts rather than anything relevant to the issue. Nobody disputes where AIDs came from - it is irrelevant so why you brought it up only you know..... Well actually it is because your reaction to any debate is to just google a few keywords and spout some wikipedia as though it constitutes reasoned debate. I repeat that it is a matter of statistical fact that AIDS spread far quicker in the gay community for the reasons stated, so don't try to deny it just to attack Julian Lewis. It is far easier to atack him on his competence as an MP. It's nothing to so with homophobia, just simple plain statistical fact. We both despise Julian Lewis so why you choose to muddy the issue with your usual irrelevant random data is beyond me.

Brite Spark wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

I usually agree with freemantlgirl2 but not on this occassion. Two guys having sex is disgusting and dirty, however what makes it worse is when the whole affair snowballs into the guys wanting to get married and have children. How can a child understand his parents and have a decent upbringing when his dads are having sex in the same house that he is being brought up in? I dont mind gay guys as such, they don't harm anyone that I know of, in fact they are quite possibly more mellow and chilled out than most people but I think the whole gay sex thing is freakish, and that a moral society should be built upon a natural family with a mum and dad. That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt.

Yeah your right there about 'That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt'
Bet it's a different story if you saw two girls having sex!!
It's 2010 m8, get real!

WoolstonSean wrote:

Brite Spark wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

I usually agree with freemantlgirl2 but not on this occassion. Two guys having sex is disgusting and dirty, however what makes it worse is when the whole affair snowballs into the guys wanting to get married and have children. How can a child understand his parents and have a decent upbringing when his dads are having sex in the same house that he is being brought up in? I dont mind gay guys as such, they don't harm anyone that I know of, in fact they are quite possibly more mellow and chilled out than most people but I think the whole gay sex thing is freakish, and that a moral society should be built upon a natural family with a mum and dad. That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt.

Yeah your right there about 'That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt' Bet it's a different story if you saw two girls having sex!! It's 2010 m8, get real!

why should it be any different now to what it was in the past? why as a society are we tolerant of family breakdown when it's the largest cost in terms of benefit payouts.

As for the HIV comments the first person in the UK to die from it was a gay bloke called Terrence Higgins (hence the name of the charity). I don't know what the % is of deaths between gay and straight people now as it has probably evened out. That said, anyone who engages in unprotected sex runs the risk of all sorts of problems.

Southy - what do mean "My" religious fanatics?" I'm an atheist. You were so busy telling everyone last week that Jesus was a socialist so therefore they must be YOUR religious fanatics.They are nothing to do with me.

WoolstonSean wrote:

Brite Spark wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: so it's ok for a person of 16 to have consensual hetero sex but not for someone who is gay. Join the 21st century and equality Lewis!! there are far more heterosexual couples spreading all sorts of STD's, bringing babies into the world before they're ready than the risk of two consensual 16 year olds spreading HIV. What a ... well I won't say but it begins with a K!

I usually agree with freemantlgirl2 but not on this occassion. Two guys having sex is disgusting and dirty, however what makes it worse is when the whole affair snowballs into the guys wanting to get married and have children. How can a child understand his parents and have a decent upbringing when his dads are having sex in the same house that he is being brought up in? I dont mind gay guys as such, they don't harm anyone that I know of, in fact they are quite possibly more mellow and chilled out than most people but I think the whole gay sex thing is freakish, and that a moral society should be built upon a natural family with a mum and dad. That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt.

Yeah your right there about 'That's me old fashioned and wrong no doubt' Bet it's a different story if you saw two girls having sex!! It's 2010 m8, get real!

what happens between two consenting people is frankly none of our business, ok you find it freakish fair enough but we're not asking you to do it. There may be some 'freakish' behaviour you're indulging in that we don't much want to do either lol. HOwever, making his own homophobia into a political debate is missing the point, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY - so therefore goes for an easier target...... he has been coming out with these 'bloomers' for years!! It's the 21st century for goodness sakes.
ps Brite Spark, I don't mind if you don't agree with me but the guy was right who wrote that it's a different matter when it comes to two girls having sex for the majority of men, unless of course it's their daughter....

Safe sex has to be promoted to both the gay and straight community. I won't get onto the having children debate but you know where i stand on that one. Far better that a child is in a safe, secure loving home than being cooped up in a small flat with two parents who are still kids themselves...

me, I haven't watched the debates, for me this is about POLICIES not people... anyone can talk the talk, some better than others, but can they walk the walk......

I don't like Tory toffs but I do like free speech, which includes expressing a personal opinion about the dangers of homosexual sex in a letter. Equally, I applaud the couple who were criticised for denying a homosexual couple a bed in their home, B&B or not. An Englishman's home etc etc.

AndyAndrews wrote:
I don't like Tory toffs but I do like free speech, which includes expressing a personal opinion about the dangers of homosexual sex in a letter. Equally, I applaud the couple who were criticised for denying a homosexual couple a bed in their home, B&B or not. An Englishman's home etc etc.

So 12th century . . .

Andy Andrews said
.
"Equally, I applaud the couple who were criticised for denying a homosexual couple a bed in their home, B&B or not. An Englishman's home etc etc.
.
The only problem Andy is when they run the home as a business i.e. a B & B then they cannot discriminate

The Wickham Man wrote:
Southy - what do mean "My" religious fanatics?" I'm an atheist. You were so busy telling everyone last week that Jesus was a socialist so therefore they must be YOUR religious fanatics.They are nothing to do with me.

i was using it has a general term not meaning yours in partially but has people we know about and what they are like, if you know what i mean.
i also said in the pass if those jesus believers that jesus was the son of god and he will return then gandhi was that second coming. he fits the bill perfect.
what i was pointing out when i said jesus was a socialist was because he acted and preach socialism, but the church being what it is do not practise in what it preach none of mono religion do, or they would be practising socialism and supporting it all the time, but the truth is that religion is and all ways has been controlled by your right wing aka capitalist after all religion is a great money earner and a mass control over its congregation.
its no mistake that most atheists are socialists.

southy wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:
Southy - what do mean "My" religious fanatics?" I'm an atheist. You were so busy telling everyone last week that Jesus was a socialist so therefore they must be YOUR religious fanatics.They are nothing to do with me.

i was using it has a general term not meaning yours in partially but has people we know about and what they are like, if you know what i mean.
i also said in the pass if those jesus believers that jesus was the son of god and he will return then gandhi was that second coming. he fits the bill perfect.
what i was pointing out when i said jesus was a socialist was because he acted and preach socialism, but the church being what it is do not practise in what it preach none of mono religion do, or they would be practising socialism and supporting it all the time, but the truth is that religion is and all ways has been controlled by your right wing aka capitalist after all religion is a great money earner and a mass control over its congregation.
its no mistake that most atheists are socialists.

" . . . its no mistake that most atheists are socialists."

I'm not a Socialist.

And, I live in the 21st century not in the 80s let alone the Tolpuddle Martyr era.

And, I can spell too.

And, I can recognise a "comma" when I see one.

And, I think you'll take your cloth cap off in respect and guiltily will brush away a small tear when Mrs T pops her clogs.

Factual evidence? Got any factual evidence supporting your claim of a majority of non-belivers believing in Socialism? Just one eensy-teensy tiny, microscopic fact would suffice.

;-)

Dr Julian Lewis should be sacked for what he has said, and yes some of the things you say are right.
But let’s get one thing straight, as a gay person, you do not catch AIDS, the first thing that you get is HIV which is something totally different. If you catch HIV it does not mean a death sentence, you can now live for quite a few years with treatment. What you may eventually die of is something else, brought on by the HIV.
For the record there are more cases of HIV being recorded amongst the heterosexual community than the gay community. I do not defend the promiscuity that goes on in both worlds, so some when in a glass house do not throw stones they may come back to hit you.
When you look at the gay community or what is referred to as the pink pound, they are exploited alot more, they will pay more in the way of taxes, they cannot claim child benefit, or any other of that sort of benefit.
Moving on to the point about a 16 year old not being allowed to go up to the front line and fight, it use to be that they had to be 18 which is only 2 years older than that, so what is the difference, do people not realise that at least by lowering the age to 16, they would not be making the young people that are gay and sexually active at that age committing a criminal act. How someone can compare this sort of thing to smoking bears no comparison, at least if the two people take the necessary precautions, surely it is up to them. You cannot say that a 16 year old person does not know what they are doing.
How many married men are there that play both worlds and go home to their wife and children as if nothing has happened, that figure I would say is quite high, and it may be them that are the first to condemn the gay man.
Dr Julian Lewis is one of the old Tory brigade, and should start to live in the 21st century. Was it not his party that would not look favourably upon some one who was gay standing for parliament as a Tory, until Alan Duncan, Matthew Paris came out. At least with Labour Chris Smith now Baron Smith of Finsbury, he was openly gay, and all the publicity that was made by the Tory Party over Ben Bradshaw when he first stood as a parliamentary candidate in Exeter.
This just shows that they are the same old Tories, just been re-badged and I hope that in a few days that Mr Cameron will do the honourable thing and fall on his sword, and be another ex leader of the Conservative Party.

As a young person in New Forest East constituency I agree with Julian Lewis' actions, any methods to prevent the spread of aids is a good step to take. Recently the increase in sexual activity across the globe has led to a larger spread of STD's/STI's and I believe this is because of the larger awareness of sex that young people have (and shockingly that age is now getting even younger.) I would not consider myself a tory voter but this seems like a low political stunt from the labour party. Peter Sopowski (labour candidate) came into my college last week, as part of a question and answers session to increase participation. He was awful, I along with my friends went along to the session, open minded but we were all shocked at how well he managed to be completely clueless on what his OWN parties policies actually were, even about information on universities, something which when going to a COLLEGE with STUDENTS you would surely prepare for? Many students walked out on the session frustrated that he would not actually answer a single question, simply sidestepped them by explaining what Lib Dems and the Tories planned to do. Looks like Sopowski is desperately trying to make up for what he lacks in knowledge with low underhand techniques.