Lezza queens
#1
Thread Starter









Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,555

Someone sounds confused. Can't be dementia as has always been irrational.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-lesbian-queen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-lesbian-queen
#2
Someone sounds confused. Can't be dementia as has always been irrational.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-lesbian-queen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-lesbian-queen
And I live in Australia!
#4
BE Forum Addict








Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,396











The point he make about this specific legislation being rushed and not thought through makes sense.
#5
He's obviously not up on his history, as well as being viciously loony.
Both Edward II and James I are considered to have been gay, and Mary I was thought to be a lezza. Hell, Sir Walter Raleigh is reported to have joked that “King Elizabeth†had been succeeded by “Queen James".
Didn't seem to slow them up any.
Both Edward II and James I are considered to have been gay, and Mary I was thought to be a lezza. Hell, Sir Walter Raleigh is reported to have joked that “King Elizabeth†had been succeeded by “Queen James".
Didn't seem to slow them up any.
#7
'Joking' about marrying your sister or daughter does his cause no good whatsoever. Makes him appear even more ridiculous.
#11
Thread Starter









Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,555

And the Queens kids have an above average marriage failure rate.
He's obviously not up on his history, as well as being viciously loony.
Both Edward II and James I are considered to have been gay, and Mary I was thought to be a lezza. Hell, Sir Walter Raleigh is reported to have joked that “King Elizabeth†had been succeeded by “Queen James".
Didn't seem to slow them up any.
Both Edward II and James I are considered to have been gay, and Mary I was thought to be a lezza. Hell, Sir Walter Raleigh is reported to have joked that “King Elizabeth†had been succeeded by “Queen James".
Didn't seem to slow them up any.
#12
BE Forum Addict








Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,396











As far as I'm aware, the legislation being rushed through does not alter the table of prohibited relatives one is allowed to marry. Therefore the legislation would allow marriage between such relatives as you mention. It is a serious point.
#13




What a dill.