Female Dr Who?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Female Dr Who?

Page 21 of 23 < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Jul 17 2.12pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Bonobos don't have highly restrictive cultural limitations on who they can have sex with unlike us humans who are forced to masturbate and commonly spend a long period with one partner. That is the price we pay for a civilised existance and one that ultimately gives us the most peace of mind. I think for the most part we choose these restrictions, rather than having to live with them (at least in the UK and similar countries). But we're more complicated than just a simple binary scenario, and as those 'cultural limitations' become more relaxed the more expressive sexually we become, especially as we get older. Humans are just 'dirty' and enjoy sex, and different flavours there of. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Jul 17 2.12pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Bonobos don't have highly restrictive cultural limitations on who they can have sex with unlike us humans who are forced to masturbate and commonly spend a long period with one partner. That is the price we pay for a civilised existance and one that ultimately gives us the most peace of mind.

I think for the most part we choose these restrictions, rather than having to live with them (at least in the UK and similar countries). But we're more complicated than just a simple binary scenario, and as those 'cultural limitations' become more relaxed the more expressive sexually we become, especially as we get older.

Humans are just 'dirty' and enjoy sex, and different flavours there of.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Hrolf The Ganger 27 Jul 17 2.30pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think for the most part we choose these restrictions, rather than having to live with them (at least in the UK and similar countries). But we're more complicated than just a simple binary scenario, and as those 'cultural limitations' become more relaxed the more expressive sexually we become, especially as we get older. Humans are just 'dirty' and enjoy sex, and different flavours there of. Naturally enough. When we have children, for example, most come to realise that sexual promiscuity ultimately plays second fiddle to taking care of our gene investment. We also recognise that we can't continue to play the field as we age because we become less attractive and risk ending up alone. Obviously, some people are more rigid in their observation of religious or cultural directives but we all see an advantage in not pushing out luck when pursuing casual sex. As you say, we do make those choices consciously but are obviously driven by the laws of nature as well as one's we have invented.

Hrolf The Ganger

27 Jul 17 2.30pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I think for the most part we choose these restrictions, rather than having to live with them (at least in the UK and similar countries). But we're more complicated than just a simple binary scenario, and as those 'cultural limitations' become more relaxed the more expressive sexually we become, especially as we get older.

Humans are just 'dirty' and enjoy sex, and different flavours there of.

Naturally enough. When we have children, for example, most come to realise that sexual promiscuity ultimately plays second fiddle to taking care of our gene investment. We also recognise that we can't continue to play the field as we age because we become less attractive and risk ending up alone.
Obviously, some people are more rigid in their observation of religious or cultural directives but we all see an advantage in not pushing out luck when pursuing casual sex. As you say, we do make those choices consciously but are obviously driven by the laws of nature as well as one's we have invented.

Hrolf The Ganger 27 Jul 17 2.32pm
Originally posted by Part Time James So that's basically all my evenings summarised by one line. That's married life for millions I expect.

Hrolf The Ganger

27 Jul 17 2.32pm

Originally posted by Part Time James

So that's basically all my evenings summarised by one line.

That's married life for millions I expect.

Stirlingsays 27 Jul 17 3.11pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Depends how you measure sexuality. 45% of Men and 60% of women interviewed report having had sexual experiences with members of their own gender - which kind of puts a bit of an emphasis on bisexuality with a preferential choice - Which interestingly is reflected among our closest biological relative the Bonobo Chimp. I'd probably argue that the most common of human sexuality is masturbatory. Even among men and women, I reckon people crack one out to their own bass strum more than they have sex. My feeling is that people are sexually defined by pleasure and kinks more than biology or procreation. Is right to limit heterosexuality to just being man on woman, if it involves bondage and non-penetrative orgasm. Not really Jamie.....I don't define my self vaguely for a start. As for your stat in the post I'm replying to....Well, not all sexual contact is fully consensual so I wouldn't say that's attuned to accuracy about their sexuality. When it comes to a person's sexuality how a person defines themselves is the relative statistic. According to the office of national statistics in 2015 your implication is way off. [Link] That has the gay/bisexual population at 1.7 percent...Only 0.6% identified themselves as bisexual...a figure so low I find it hard to believe but there you go. A larger group, 4.1%, refused or didn’t know how to identify themselves. If we generously regard all of the 'don't knows or refused to answer' as all being non heterosexual....In total that's 5.8 percent who view themselves as anything different from straight.....That's what...about 1 in 16 at most. My personal cynicism is that this figure is higher than that as we need to factor in cultural bias towards sexuality and many people's inherent self image attachment to cultural acceptability within their group....For example averages are significantly down in asian or black groups compared to white or mixed. So my personal hunch...though obviously not proven is that it's probably somewhere between 1 in 10-15. Like I was saying earlier in the thread women are more likely to identity as bisexual (0.8%) than lesbian (0.7%), whereas men are more likely to report as gay (1.6%) than bisexual (0.5%). [Link] Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2017 3.13pm) Attachment: sexuality.JPG (24.93Kb) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

27 Jul 17 3.11pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Depends how you measure sexuality. 45% of Men and 60% of women interviewed report having had sexual experiences with members of their own gender - which kind of puts a bit of an emphasis on bisexuality with a preferential choice - Which interestingly is reflected among our closest biological relative the Bonobo Chimp.

I'd probably argue that the most common of human sexuality is masturbatory. Even among men and women, I reckon people crack one out to their own bass strum more than they have sex.

My feeling is that people are sexually defined by pleasure and kinks more than biology or procreation. Is right to limit heterosexuality to just being man on woman, if it involves bondage and non-penetrative orgasm.

Not really Jamie.....I don't define my self vaguely for a start. As for your stat in the post I'm replying to....Well, not all sexual contact is fully consensual so I wouldn't say that's attuned to accuracy about their sexuality.

When it comes to a person's sexuality how a person defines themselves is the relative statistic.

According to the office of national statistics in 2015 your implication is way off.

[Link]

That has the gay/bisexual population at 1.7 percent...Only 0.6% identified themselves as bisexual...a figure so low I find it hard to believe but there you go. A larger group, 4.1%, refused or didn’t know how to identify themselves.

If we generously regard all of the 'don't knows or refused to answer' as all being non heterosexual....In total that's 5.8 percent who view themselves as anything different from straight.....That's what...about 1 in 16 at most.

My personal cynicism is that this figure is higher than that as we need to factor in cultural bias towards sexuality and many people's inherent self image attachment to cultural acceptability within their group....For example averages are significantly down in asian or black groups compared to white or mixed.

So my personal hunch...though obviously not proven is that it's probably somewhere between 1 in 10-15.

Like I was saying earlier in the thread women are more likely to identity as bisexual (0.8%) than lesbian (0.7%), whereas men are more likely to report as gay (1.6%) than bisexual (0.5%).

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2017 3.13pm)

Attachment: sexuality.JPG (24.93Kb)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

npn Crowborough 27 Jul 17 3.18pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Not really Jamie.....I don't define my self vaguely for a start. As for your stat in the post I'm replying to....Well, not all sexual contact is fully consensual so I wouldn't say that's attuned to accuracy about their sexuality. When it comes to a person's sexuality how a person defines themselves is the relative statistic. According to the office of national statistics in 2015 your implication is way off. [Link] That has the gay/bisexual population at 1.7 percent...Only 0.6% identified themselves as bisexual...a figure so low I find it hard to believe but there you go. A larger group, 4.1%, refused or didn’t know how to identify themselves. If we generously regard all of the 'don't knows or refused to answer' as all being non heterosexual....In total that's 5.8 percent who view themselves as anything different from straight.....That's what...about 1 in 16 at most. My personal cynicism is that this figure is higher than that as we need to factor in cultural bias towards sexuality and many people's inherent self image attachment to cultural acceptability within their group....For example averages are significantly down in asian or black groups compared to white or mixed. So my personal hunch...though obviously not proven is that it's probably somewhere between 1 in 10-15. Like I was saying earlier in the thread women are more likely to identity as bisexual (0.8%) than lesbian (0.7%), whereas men are more likely to report as gay (1.6%) than bisexual (0.5%). [Link] Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2017 3.13pm) Can't believe that. I've done extensive film documentary research and it seems ALL female babysitters, and the vast majority of nurses and hotel maids are well up for a bit of girl-on-girl at a moment's notice.

npn

Crowborough 27 Jul 17 3.18pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

When it comes to a person's sexuality how a person defines themselves is the relative statistic.

According to the office of national statistics in 2015 your implication is way off.

[Link]

So my personal hunch...though obviously not proven is that it's probably somewhere between 1 in 10-15.

Like I was saying earlier in the thread women are more likely to identity as bisexual (0.8%) than lesbian (0.7%), whereas men are more likely to report as gay (1.6%) than bisexual (0.5%).

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2017 3.13pm)

Can't believe that. I've done extensive film documentary research and it seems ALL female babysitters, and the vast majority of nurses and hotel maids are well up for a bit of girl-on-girl at a moment's notice.

Stirlingsays 27 Jul 17 3.42pm
Originally posted by npn Can't believe that. I've done extensive film documentary research and it seems ALL female babysitters, and the vast majority of nurses and hotel maids are well up for a bit of girl-on-girl at a moment's notice. I have this notion that young nurses are definitely more 'up for it' than the general population....I base this notion upon a sample size of one. Ah, the joys of being in your twenties. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2017 3.43pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

27 Jul 17 3.42pm

Originally posted by npn

I have this notion that young nurses are definitely more 'up for it' than the general population....I base this notion upon a sample size of one.

Ah, the joys of being in your twenties.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2017 3.43pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 27 Jul 17 10.57pm
Not to be left out, Star Trek are getting in on the act. Out of interest can Dr Who claim to have had a disabled charachter in Davros? [Link] Pro USA & Israel

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 27 Jul 17 10.57pm

Not to be left out, Star Trek are getting in on the act. Out of interest can Dr Who claim to have had a disabled charachter in Davros?

[Link]

Pro USA & Israel

johnno42000 28 Jul 17 5.51am
If they aren't defined by their sexuality, why come out and say they are gay? 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

johnno42000

28 Jul 17 5.51am

If they aren't defined by their sexuality, why come out and say they are gay?

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Jul 17 11.00am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Naturally enough. When we have children, for example, most come to realise that sexual promiscuity ultimately plays second fiddle to taking care of our gene investment. We also recognise that we can't continue to play the field as we age because we become less attractive and risk ending up alone. Obviously, some people are more rigid in their observation of religious or cultural directives but we all see an advantage in not pushing out luck when pursuing casual sex. As you say, we do make those choices consciously but are obviously driven by the laws of nature as well as one's we have invented. I like this, because I worked in the court service as a divorce officer, and that destroyed my optimism that people are generally monogamous rather than monogamous based on their option. For me, sex is sex, its not the same as love. That said I don't have an interest in screwing around etc it seems like a lot of effort. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 28 Jul 17 11.00am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Naturally enough. When we have children, for example, most come to realise that sexual promiscuity ultimately plays second fiddle to taking care of our gene investment. We also recognise that we can't continue to play the field as we age because we become less attractive and risk ending up alone.
Obviously, some people are more rigid in their observation of religious or cultural directives but we all see an advantage in not pushing out luck when pursuing casual sex. As you say, we do make those choices consciously but are obviously driven by the laws of nature as well as one's we have invented.

I like this, because I worked in the court service as a divorce officer, and that destroyed my optimism that people are generally monogamous rather than monogamous based on their option.

For me, sex is sex, its not the same as love. That said I don't have an interest in screwing around etc it seems like a lot of effort.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Part Time James 28 Jul 17 11.02am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I like this, because I worked in the court service as a divorce officer, and that destroyed my optimism that people are generally monogamous rather than monogamous based on their option. For me, sex is sex, its not the same as love. That said I don't have an interest in screwing around etc it seems like a lot of effort. It isn't if you have a POF profile and low standards.

Part Time James

28 Jul 17 11.02am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I like this, because I worked in the court service as a divorce officer, and that destroyed my optimism that people are generally monogamous rather than monogamous based on their option.

For me, sex is sex, its not the same as love. That said I don't have an interest in screwing around etc it seems like a lot of effort.

It isn't if you have a POF profile and low standards.

Ray in Houston Houston 28 Jul 17 4.44pm
Originally posted by johnno42000 If they aren't defined by their sexuality, why come out and say they are gay? Coming out was a big issue back in the days when homosexuality was against the law and/or legally discriminated against. In the more enlightened world we live in now, it's less important and, almost contradictory for exactly the reason you state. Unfortunately, especially in the US and especially down here in the "Bible Belt", gay rights (and women's rights and minorities' rights) are under constant assault. It's still legal in the majority of states (it's over 30, I believe) to discriminate against homosexuals at work and in housing. So, it's still, unfortunately, necessary for a gay person who comes out if, for no other reason, than to show those around them - many of whom may have a negative, stereotypical opinion of homosexuality - that it's ok to be gay. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Ray in Houston

Houston 28 Jul 17 4.44pm

Originally posted by johnno42000

If they aren't defined by their sexuality, why come out and say they are gay?

Coming out was a big issue back in the days when homosexuality was against the law and/or legally discriminated against. In the more enlightened world we live in now, it's less important and, almost contradictory for exactly the reason you state.

Unfortunately, especially in the US and especially down here in the "Bible Belt", gay rights (and women's rights and minorities' rights) are under constant assault. It's still legal in the majority of states (it's over 30, I believe) to discriminate against homosexuals at work and in housing.

So, it's still, unfortunately, necessary for a gay person who comes out if, for no other reason, than to show those around them - many of whom may have a negative, stereotypical opinion of homosexuality - that it's ok to be gay.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Stirlingsays 28 Jul 17 5.10pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Coming out was a big issue back in the days when homosexuality was against the law and/or legally discriminated against. In the more enlightened world we live in now, it's less important and, almost contradictory for exactly the reason you state. Unfortunately, especially in the US and especially down here in the "Bible Belt", gay rights (and women's rights and minorities' rights) are under constant assault. It's still legal in the majority of states (it's over 30, I believe) to discriminate against homosexuals at work and in housing. So, it's still, unfortunately, necessary for a gay person who comes out if, for no other reason, than to show those around them - many of whom may have a negative, stereotypical opinion of homosexuality - that it's ok to be gay. It's ok to be gay, sure it is...No one should be ashamed of their nature. However there are problems in this when we start to widen this 'accept nature' idea. It's why I reject an equality argument and instead push a fairness one. I would argue, that it's also ok not to view heterosexuality and homosexuality as equal in worth to humanity. They just aren't. However, It's just not ok to make homosexuals suffer for what is predominantly 'nature given', where it can be reasonably avoided. Much in the same way it isn't ok to treat small or short or low IQ people badly. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

28 Jul 17 5.10pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

It's ok to be gay, sure it is...No one should be ashamed of their nature. However there are problems in this when we start to widen this 'accept nature' idea. It's why I reject an equality argument and instead push a fairness one.

I would argue, that it's also ok not to view heterosexuality and homosexuality as equal in worth to humanity. They just aren't.

However, It's just not ok to make homosexuals suffer for what is predominantly 'nature given', where it can be reasonably avoided. Much in the same way it isn't ok to treat small or short or low IQ people badly.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

johnno42000 28 Jul 17 5.54pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Coming out was a big issue back in the days when homosexuality was against the law and/or legally discriminated against. In the more enlightened world we live in now, it's less important and, almost contradictory for exactly the reason you state. Unfortunately, especially in the US and especially down here in the "Bible Belt", gay rights (and women's rights and minorities' rights) are under constant assault. It's still legal in the majority of states (it's over 30, I believe) to discriminate against homosexuals at work and in housing. So, it's still, unfortunately, necessary for a gay person who comes out if, for no other reason, than to show those around them - many of whom may have a negative, stereotypical opinion of homosexuality - that it's ok to be gay. My apologies. I forgot to put the link to the new Star Trek film that was in the post above mine (old age), I didn't mean in general, just in relation to that article [Link] “We’re at a point in time where people aren’t defined by their sexuality,” says Aaron Harberts Edited by johnno42000 (28 Jul 2017 5.56pm) 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

johnno42000

28 Jul 17 5.54pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

My apologies. I forgot to put the link to the new Star Trek film that was in the post above mine (old age), I didn't mean in general, just in relation to that article [Link]

“We’re at a point in time where people aren’t defined by their sexuality,” says Aaron Harberts

Edited by johnno42000 (28 Jul 2017 5.56pm)

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Hrolf The Ganger 28 Jul 17 6.00pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays It's ok to be gay, sure it is...No one should be ashamed of their nature. However there are problems in this when we start to widen this 'accept nature' idea. It's why I reject an equality argument and instead push a fairness one. I would argue, that it's also ok not to view heterosexuality and homosexuality as equal in worth to humanity. They just aren't. However, It's just not ok to make homosexuals suffer for what is predominantly 'nature given', where it can be reasonably avoided. Much in the same way it isn't ok to treat small or short or low IQ people badly. I'm not sure where equality comes into it where gay people are concerned other than the quality of being human. Equality does not depend on similarity. Men and women are different and surely each is better at some things than the other. That should not alter their status as people. The only thing that homosexuality generally lacks is an opportunity to reproduce.

Hrolf The Ganger

28 Jul 17 6.00pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I would argue, that it's also ok not to view heterosexuality and homosexuality as equal in worth to humanity. They just aren't.

I'm not sure where equality comes into it where gay people are concerned other than the quality of being human. Equality does not depend on similarity.
Men and women are different and surely each is better at some things than the other. That should not alter their status as people. The only thing that homosexuality generally lacks is an opportunity to reproduce.

Stirlingsays 28 Jul 17 6.14pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I'm not sure where equality comes into it where gay people are concerned other than the quality of being human. Equality does not depend on similarity. Men and women are different and surely each is better at some things than the other. That should not alter their status as people. The only thing that homosexuality generally lacks is an opportunity to reproduce. Well, yes....still that one difference can be rather an important difference. Are you allowed to prefer your only son to be straight for example? Are you a terrible person for preferring your lineage to continue?....I think it's an irrationality to be told that 'discriminating' between two things is wrong. As for equality in terms of the law.....well yeah but then we get activists selectively taking Christian bakers to court for discrimination.....apparently you can't even passively refuse a job. That particular case made me take stock of the whole situation again. I don't want us to return to hotels having, 'no irish' , 'no blacks' signs in their windows. But I also didn't like how those activists behaved....I'm genuinely mixed up about that issue. Maybe refusing a job just as long as you don't give a reason....Mind you, I'm not sure that works well either. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Jul 2017 6.33pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

28 Jul 17 6.14pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Well, yes....still that one difference can be rather an important difference.

Are you allowed to prefer your only son to be straight for example? Are you a terrible person for preferring your lineage to continue?....I think it's an irrationality to be told that 'discriminating' between two things is wrong.

As for equality in terms of the law.....well yeah but
then we get activists selectively taking Christian bakers to court for discrimination.....apparently you can't even passively refuse a job.

That particular case made me take stock of the whole situation again. I don't want us to return to hotels having, 'no irish' , 'no blacks' signs in their windows. But I also didn't like how those activists behaved....I'm genuinely mixed up about that issue.

Maybe refusing a job just as long as you don't give a reason....Mind you, I'm not sure that works well either.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Jul 2017 6.33pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Hrolf The Ganger 28 Jul 17 7.57pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Well, yes....still that one difference can be rather an important difference. Are you allowed to prefer your only son to be straight for example? Are you a terrible person for preferring your lineage to continue?....I think it's an irrationality to be told that 'discriminating' between two things is wrong. As for equality in terms of the law.....well yeah but then we get activists selectively taking Christian bakers to court for discrimination.....apparently you can't even passively refuse a job. That particular case made me take stock of the whole situation again. I don't want us to return to hotels having, 'no irish' , 'no blacks' signs in their windows. But I also didn't like how those activists behaved....I'm genuinely mixed up about that issue. Maybe refusing a job just as long as you don't give a reason....Mind you, I'm not sure that works well either. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Jul 2017 6.33pm) I certainly want my son to be straight because I'd like some grand children and a happy life for him. If he wasn't, there is nothing I could do about it. I have no time for rejecting homosexuality on religious grounds as I find religion too inflexible and irrational. If you don't want to sell someone a cake then don't say it's because they are gay. You can't discriminate against people because of their religion but you can if that involves the mistreatment of others. People can think what they like but actions are a different matter.

Hrolf The Ganger

28 Jul 17 7.57pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Well, yes....still that one difference can be rather an important difference.

As for equality in terms of the law.....well yeah but
then we get activists selectively taking Christian bakers to court for discrimination.....apparently you can't even passively refuse a job.

Maybe refusing a job just as long as you don't give a reason....Mind you, I'm not sure that works well either.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Jul 2017 6.33pm)

I certainly want my son to be straight because I'd like some grand children and a happy life for him. If he wasn't, there is nothing I could do about it.
I have no time for rejecting homosexuality on religious grounds as I find religion too inflexible and irrational. If you don't want to sell someone a cake then don't say it's because they are gay. You can't discriminate against people because of their religion but you can if that involves the mistreatment of others. People can think what they like but actions are a different matter.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 28 Jul 17 8.16pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I certainly want my son to be straight because I'd like some grand children and a happy life for him. If he wasn't, there is nothing I could do about it. I have no time for rejecting homosexuality on religious grounds as I find religion too inflexible and irrational. If you don't want to sell someone a cake then don't say it's because they are gay. You can't discriminate against people because of their religion but you can if that involves the mistreatment of others. People can think what they like but actions are a different matter. Can't lgbt people have happy lives then? Inadvertently, the mask slips further...

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 28 Jul 17 8.16pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I certainly want my son to be straight because I'd like some grand children and a happy life for him. If he wasn't, there is nothing I could do about it.
I have no time for rejecting homosexuality on religious grounds as I find religion too inflexible and irrational. If you don't want to sell someone a cake then don't say it's because they are gay. You can't discriminate against people because of their religion but you can if that involves the mistreatment of others. People can think what they like but actions are a different matter.

Can't lgbt people have happy lives then?

Inadvertently, the mask slips further...

Hrolf The Ganger 28 Jul 17 8.22pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Can't lgbt people have happy lives then? Inadvertently, the mask slips further... What an immature little man you are. I think that many gay people are unhappy but I can't prove it, just like you can't prove they are happy. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (28 Jul 2017 8.25pm)

Hrolf The Ganger

28 Jul 17 8.22pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Can't lgbt people have happy lives then?

Inadvertently, the mask slips further...

What an immature little man you are.

I think that many gay people are unhappy but I can't prove it, just like you can't prove they are happy.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (28 Jul 2017 8.25pm)

wordup 28 Jul 17 8.47pm
Originally posted by johnno42000 If they aren't defined by their sexuality, why come out and say they are gay? Because people are usually automatically assumed to be heterosexual and so if someone isn't it tends to come up at some stage. "do you have a girlfriend, mate?" "no, i'm gay" "farkinn ell geezer, keep that sh!t to yourself!"

wordup

28 Jul 17 8.47pm

Originally posted by johnno42000

If they aren't defined by their sexuality, why come out and say they are gay?

Because people are usually automatically assumed to be heterosexual and so if someone isn't it tends to come up at some stage.

"do you have a girlfriend, mate?"

"no, i'm gay"

"farkinn ell geezer, keep that sh!t to yourself!"

wordup 28 Jul 17 8.55pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I certainly want my son to be straight because I'd like some grand children and a happy life for him. If he wasn't, there is nothing I could do about it. I have no time for rejecting homosexuality on religious grounds as I find religion too inflexible and irrational. If you don't want to sell someone a cake then don't say it's because they are gay. You can't discriminate against people because of their religion but you can if that involves the mistreatment of others. People can think what they like but actions are a different matter. 1 - Gays aren't infertile 2 - If you talk about having a gay son like it's a failing, your son may well be unhappy. If you love and embrace a person for who they they most likely will not be unhappy whatever their sexuality is.

wordup

28 Jul 17 8.55pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I certainly want my son to be straight because I'd like some grand children and a happy life for him. If he wasn't, there is nothing I could do about it.
I have no time for rejecting homosexuality on religious grounds as I find religion too inflexible and irrational. If you don't want to sell someone a cake then don't say it's because they are gay. You can't discriminate against people because of their religion but you can if that involves the mistreatment of others. People can think what they like but actions are a different matter.

1 - Gays aren't infertile

2 - If you talk about having a gay son like it's a failing, your son may well be unhappy. If you love and embrace a person for who they they most likely will not be unhappy whatever their sexuality is.

Page 21 of 23 < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Female Dr Who?

Site Map