What. The. Fcuk?

[Prufrock]

Irrational hatred feeds on fear, feeds on the need for a scapegoat, and feeds most of all on ignorance. One person says something a bit edgy in a pub to do with race, or sexuality, or whatever, and a mob mentality develops and from there people solidify their fears and prejudices. We need to stand up and say, 'what? that's bollocks'. People opinions are massively influenced by those of others, unchecked they reach a pitch beyond reasoned argument, questioned ignorance and hatred can be fought. You'll never completely beat bigotry and ignorance, but to aim for perfection and acheive improvement is surely better than sit in silence and what until it is your turn to be persecuted. Pastor Niemoller's 'First they came for..' is worth bearing in mind.

<sigh> get some bloody work done.

So we are allowed to supress the natural emotion of hatred, because some non-ignorant Western people say it's not acceptable? You have just been conditioned into thinking that because "Society" tells you it is so. So from someone with a natural talent for learning, it's absolutely fine and dandy.

However, my natural talent (hypothetically) is "law of the jungle and survival of the fittest". Perfectly natural traits of human nature. I'd much prefer a society that played to my strengths thanks, so I'll take off you weedy intellectuals what I need to survive. You're only right and I'm only wrong because the society we live in says it's so.

True but I get to tell you fables about brains over brawn and confuse you into living by my rules .

In the end you are right, it's true because society says so, but I'd like to think that's because it makes sense. If you wanted to go down that route you could have opened 3 pages back with 'morality is a human construct' and well, I'd have had no response. It's a human construct but one constructed for the good of humanity. We make rules like no murder, less hatred then the human race flourishes. Except then when things go wrong, we become more insular in our self preservation. Society's job for me is to stop that resluting in hatred. Or something. Anyway bugger work, I'm off for a baguette and a pint or six and watch Barca -Chelsea.

I'm stunned - you've actually done less work this afternoon than a striking Frenchman....How can you say bugger work?

Says the one?! And you've been getting paid . Not my fault there's no uni to go to...

[TANGODANCER]

Whenever the subject of Homosexuality rights and wrongs arises I'm always reminded of someone (forgotten who), when asked how he would feel if he walked in and found his son making love to another male, said "I'd just have to accept it, but he'd bloody well better be the one on top". That sorts that one out then.

[Dujon]

Prufrock, getting back to the original premiss. My guess is that most homophobia results from the fact that the majority of those with such an outlook view homosexuals as perverts. Please do not take offence at that statement. The question then is 'why is it so?'

As best I can work out it is the preponderance of press coverage highlighting sexual child abuse involving boys even though there are just as many instances of abuse of girls. To clarify that: I think that in the mind of most people (including my own) there is (or seems to be) an imbalance between incidents of homosexual/heterosexual child abuse when compared to the the mix of the (genuine) homo/hetero population.

Please note that I am not blaming the press for their reporting of such incidents, in fact I applaud them. Perhaps I am biased in some manner or other as I flattened the nose of such a deviate when, as a sixteen/seventeen year old, he touched me where he shouldn't have done. Naive as I might have been at that time, as I had never heard of homosexuality, I wonder, Prufrock, what you might have done in the same situation should a woman have done the same to you?

My cyberfriend, I am sure that I have worked with and got on well with many who were homosexual. I have also worked with others who flaunted their sexual preference and, for reasons not known to me, seemed to believe that for some reason or other thought they were 'better' than the rest of us peasants.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Prufrock, getting back to the original premiss. My guess is that most homophobia results from the fact that the majority of those with such an outlook view homosexuals as perverts. Please do not take offence at that statement. The question then is 'why is it so?'

As best I can work out it is the preponderance of press coverage highlighting sexual child abuse involving boys even though there are just as many instances of abuse of girls. To clarify that: I think that in the mind of most people (including my own) there is (or seems to be) an imbalance between incidents of homosexual/heterosexual child abuse when compared to the the mix of the (genuine) homo/hetero population.

Please note that I am not blaming the press for their reporting of such incidents, in fact I applaud them. Perhaps I am biased in some manner or other as I flattened the nose of such a deviate when, as a sixteen/seventeen year old, he touched me where he shouldn't have done. Naive as I might have been at that time, as I had never heard of homosexuality, I wonder, Prufrock, what you might have done in the same situation should a woman have done the same to you?

My cyberfriend, I am sure that I have worked with and got on well with many who were homosexual. I have also worked with others who flaunted their sexual preference and, for reasons not known to me, seemed to believe that for some reason or other thought they were 'better' than the rest of us peasants.

Not that it matters, Dujon, but I think Prufrock said he was heterosexual. He was arguing from principle not persuasion. So his reaction might not have been to thump the lady....

[Prufrock]

Prufrock, getting back to the original premiss. My guess is that most homophobia results from the fact that the majority of those with such an outlook view homosexuals as perverts. Please do not take offence at that statement. The question then is 'why is it so?'

As best I can work out it is the preponderance of press coverage highlighting sexual child abuse involving boys even though there are just as many instances of abuse of girls. To clarify that: I think that in the mind of most people (including my own) there is (or seems to be) an imbalance between incidents of homosexual/heterosexual child abuse when compared to the the mix of the (genuine) homo/hetero population.

Please note that I am not blaming the press for their reporting of such incidents, in fact I applaud them. Perhaps I am biased in some manner or other as I flattened the nose of such a deviate when, as a sixteen/seventeen year old, he touched me where he shouldn't have done. Naive as I might have been at that time, as I had never heard of homosexuality, I wonder, Prufrock, what you might have done in the same situation should a woman have done the same to you?

My cyberfriend, I am sure that I have worked with and got on well with many who were homosexual. I have also worked with others who flaunted their sexual preference and, for reasons not known to me, seemed to believe that for some reason or other thought they were 'better' than the rest of us peasants.

Not that it matters, Dujon, but I think Prufrock said he was heterosexual. He was arguing from principle not persuasion. So his reaction might not have been to thump the lady....

Indeed, Monty has it right...so it would depend how pretty the lady was ...

To the serious matter of your post, I'm not sure so much it's the idea that all gay men are perverts in terms of what I assume you are driving at, the sterotypical public school teacher, more I think that is just an easy example for people of a certain generation of the idea behind it all that being gay is 'wrong'. The whole 'peccatum contra naturam' thing. I've heard people my age, who aren't aware of that public school idea talk about it being unnatural.

There are people for whom that belief has been too ingrained. You argue that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom, or that they are preching about something being 'unnatural' whilst in a metal box travelling at 40 MPH half a mile under the ground listening to a metal music producing machine, and, whilst they'll have no answer, they'll still reply with 'yeah, but, it's wrong innit?'. I don't think deep down those people do believe it's wrong, but it's become part of the way they define themselves. A lot of people, however, aren't so ingrained in their views. And if people like this professor are allowed to talk about homosexuality as a disease, then that is going to influence people and propogate ignorance.

I'm not (:D thanks TD) gay myself, nor am a asian, or a woman, but I care strongly, really strongly about equality and tolerance, and the idea that this madman is allowed to come and spout such ignorance to a large audience apalls me.

[TANGODANCER]

Is a quick edit needed there old buddy?

[BWFC_Insane]

Is a quick edit needed there old buddy?

I think it is TD!

[superjohnmcginlay]

I told you all a few pages back. This is his way of "coming out". Endless Waffle.

[Prufrock]

Freudian slip! (i want to kill my mum and f*ck me dad....god, I hope he doesn't read this board)

[Worthy4England]

Not that it matters, Dujon, but I think Prufrock said he was heterosexual. He was arguing from principle not persuasion. So his reaction might not have been to thump the lady....

Indeed, Monty has it right...so it would depend how pretty the lady was ...

Hold on a flipping mo. Queer bashing is a no-no because it shows lack of intelligence, but munter thumping is ok?

[Prufrock]

Not that it matters, Dujon, but I think Prufrock said he was heterosexual. He was arguing from principle not persuasion. So his reaction might not have been to thump the lady....

Indeed, Monty has it right...so it would depend how pretty the lady was ...

Hold on a flipping mo. Queer bashing is a no-no because it shows lack of intelligence, but munter thumping is ok?

If she sexually assaults me...and she's not pretty....i mean, Im not a monster, there are conditions, it's not always acceptable .

I've admitted to matricide and incest too, I'm a veritable loose canon. Do as I say, not as....

[Dujon]

Indeed, Monty has it right...so it would depend how pretty the lady was ...

Indeed, Prufrock, I have no truck with your sentiments. I do though consider that the homosexuals among us would further their cause better (if you know what I mean) by just being themselves - in the sense of normal citizens - and get on with life. To be honest I suspect that most do, but a significant proportion do not. Here in Sydney we have an annual 'Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras' which, in my opinion, has long passed its use by date. It began as a sort of protest by those of that bent in order to highlight their perceived inequities of perception and treatment in comparison to those accorded heterosexuals. In that the organisers were successful.

Whilst at times the parodies and puns and peccadilloes on display at these extravaganzas can be clever, even witty, they do also, again in my opinion, point up the insecurities of the participants. Why? Well it's no longer necessary. To the best of my knowledge (barring the civil union or 'marriage' - I'd have to check) homosexual activities of either gender are now treated in the same manner as those of heterosexuals. Good stuff, but why does our local government subsidise the damn thing? Buggered if I know, mate.

Getting back to your original comment (about time!) your philosophic non-friend has every right to rabbit on about his so-called belief. Let him prove it in a rigorous and proper manner - after all science has always used the mantra that any theory or hypothesis is only as good as the results of its testing.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Indeed, Monty has it right...so it would depend how pretty the lady was ...

Indeed, Prufrock, I have no truck with your sentiments. I do though consider that the homosexuals among us would further their cause better (if you know what I mean) by just being themselves - in the sense of normal citizens - and get on with life. To be honest I suspect that most do, but a significant proportion do not. Here in Sydney we have an annual 'Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras' which, in my opinion, has long passed its use by date. It began as a sort of protest by those of that bent in order to highlight their perceived inequities of perception and treatment in comparison to those accorded heterosexuals. In that the organisers were successful.

Whilst at times the parodies and puns and peccadilloes on display at these extravaganzas can be clever, even witty, they do also, again in my opinion, point up the insecurities of the participants. Why? Well it's no longer necessary. To the best of my knowledge (barring the civil union or 'marriage' - I'd have to check) homosexual activities of either gender are now treated in the same manner as those of heterosexuals. Good stuff, but why does our local government subsidise the damn thing? Buggered if I know, mate.

Getting back to your original comment (about time!) your philosophic non-friend has every right to rabbit on about his so-called belief. Let him prove it in a rigorous and proper manner - after all science has always used the mantra that any theory or hypothesis is only as good as the results of its testing.

Dujon, is this an Australianism - over here it means you would have nothing to do with his sentiments, but the sense you use it seems to imply you have no argument with them? Just curious.

[Dujon]

Not at all, Monty. I was thinking more along the lines of a person who, chest out and bellicose, struts around proclaiming to one and all his or her claim to rightness.

No . . . you are quite right, I was somewhat lax in my use of our language. It seems though that my following comments were clear enough to overcome my infelicity.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Indeed, Monty has it right...so it would depend how pretty the lady was ...

Indeed, Prufrock, I have no truck with your sentiments. I do though consider that the homosexuals among us would further their cause better (if you know what I mean) by just being themselves - in the sense of normal citizens - and get on with life. To be honest I suspect that most do, but a significant proportion do not. Here in Sydney we have an annual 'Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras' which, in my opinion, has long passed its use by date. It began as a sort of protest by those of that bent in order to highlight their perceived inequities of perception and treatment in comparison to those accorded heterosexuals. In that the organisers were successful.

Whilst at times the parodies and puns and peccadilloes on display at these extravaganzas can be clever, even witty, they do also, again in my opinion, point up the insecurities of the participants. Why? Well it's no longer necessary. To the best of my knowledge (barring the civil union or 'marriage' - I'd have to check) homosexual activities of either gender are now treated in the same manner as those of heterosexuals. Good stuff, but why does our local government subsidise the damn thing? Buggered if I know, mate.

Getting back to your original comment (about time!) your philosophic non-friend has every right to rabbit on about his so-called belief. Let him prove it in a rigorous and proper manner - after all science has always used the mantra that any theory or hypothesis is only as good as the results of its testing.

They've still got that in Manchester I think. Think its just another excuse for a piss up though.

[blurred]

To the best of my knowledge (barring the civil union or 'marriage' - I'd have to check) homosexual activities of either gender are now treated in the same manner as those of heterosexuals.

Are the ages of consent the same over there?

Good stuff, but why does our local government subsidise the damn thing?

Probably because it's a massive boon for business, and encouraging that many people into the city for the day has a massive pay-off in revenue terms.

[TANGODANCER]

Manchester has a well established Gay Village, only a couple of hundred yards away fro my workplace, its most famous resident being a bronze statue of Alan Turing, the father of computer science. The apple in his hand is representative of the one filled with cyanide that he committed suicide with after being ordered to undergo hormone treatment in 1952.

[Puskas]

Manchester has a well established Gay Village, only a couple of hundred yards away fro my workplace, its most famous resident being a bronze statue of Alan Turing, the father of computer science. The apple in his hand is representative of the one filled with cyanide that he committed suicide with after being ordered to undergo hormone treatment in 1952.

Not merely the father of computer science, but, more importantly, the greatest English mathematician of the 20th Century. Possibly ever. When I used to dabble in maths, my area was the one he created.

I didn't realise there was a statue of him - thanks for pointing that out. It seems better than his other memorial - that unpleasant stretch of road now called Alan Turing Way...

[Bruce Rioja]

Are the ages of consent the same over there?

Ah yes. I remember watching on the news when a load of Hom's decided to take to the streets of Manchester, marching to bring the age of homosexual consent down to 16. Strangely enough I didn't see many 16 year old boys on this march like!

[boltonboris]

Indeed, Monty has it right...so it would depend how pretty the lady was ...

Indeed, Prufrock, I have no truck with your sentiments. I do though consider that the homosexuals among us would further their cause better (if you know what I mean) by just being themselves - in the sense of normal citizens - and get on with life. To be honest I suspect that most do, but a significant proportion do not. Here in Sydney we have an annual 'Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras' which, in my opinion, has long passed its use by date. It began as a sort of protest by those of that bent in order to highlight their perceived inequities of perception and treatment in comparison to those accorded heterosexuals. In that the organisers were successful.

Whilst at times the parodies and puns and peccadilloes on display at these extravaganzas can be clever, even witty, they do also, again in my opinion, point up the insecurities of the participants. Why? Well it's no longer necessary. To the best of my knowledge (barring the civil union or 'marriage' - I'd have to check) homosexual activities of either gender are now treated in the same manner as those of heterosexuals. Good stuff, but why does our local government subsidise the damn thing? Buggered if I know, mate.

Getting back to your original comment (about time!) your philosophic non-friend has every right to rabbit on about his so-called belief. Let him prove it in a rigorous and proper manner - after all science has always used the mantra that any theory or hypothesis is only as good as the results of its testing.

Homophobe