PDA

View Full Version : Peck on the lips


Bronx
23rd Jan 2015, 13:33
Security guard fired - BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30940804)


The guard said the pair were making other customers feel uncomfortable.


Who was being inconsiderate?
The guard or the gay guys kissing in an eatery?

maliyahsdad2
23rd Jan 2015, 13:41
The Guard of course, However Leicester has a certain demographic who would probaly tolerate men kissing public less than most.

Shows how bad the area is though if McDonalds have a bouncer!

Ballywalter Flyer
23rd Jan 2015, 13:45
I think the idea is that the bouncer throws customers IN to the store

Capetonian
23rd Jan 2015, 13:54
Didn't something similar happen in Gayville - I mean Brighton - recently.

If they are going enforce this - and my view is that it's wrong and possibly illegal for them to do so - then it should apply equally to all couples kissing. Then what about a parent kissing a child?

ExXB
23rd Jan 2015, 14:34
So MacDoDo, as it is known here, says this guy will never work for them again? Why are they rewarding him?

Capetonian
23rd Jan 2015, 14:45
Adults who are not necessarily attracted to each other kiss, sometimes on the lips, something I find very awkward as I have a couple of female friends who kiss me on the lips and I'd rather they didn't. None of my gay male friends, on the other hand, would ever do that.

Reminds me of a French girl I once worked with, who at Christmas came to wish me
and as I found her rather unappealing I shook hands but she decided, in her own words : "I will give you a French kiss..........". The other person who was in my office burst out laughing, and I had to explain that what she was saying meant something quite different to what she had in mind - the French ' bise' peck on each cheek.

Of couse there is also the confusion over the noun 'baise' and the verb 'baiser', one means kiss and the other means to have sex. I'm not sure which is which, probably one of the reasons I steer well clear of French women.

Gertrude the Wombat
23rd Jan 2015, 14:49
Shows how bad the area is though if McDonalds have a bouncer!
That's what I thought. I value my safety too seriously to go into anywhere that feels it needs a bouncer.

Cyber Bob
23rd Jan 2015, 15:08
Mmmwwhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa !
http://i2.cdnds.net/13/30/618x431/showbiz-liberace.jpg

Mr Chips
23rd Jan 2015, 16:44
Who was being inconsiderate?
The guard or the gay guys kissing in an eatery?
As the security guard apparently stated it would have been ok if it had been a heterosexual couple, then it is clearly him that is in the wrong. I really thought that we as a society had grown out of these dated views on homosexuality

Tankertrashnav
23rd Jan 2015, 16:47
I once went from Exeter to Bristol by train with a young couple (M & F) sitting opposite me playing tonsil hockey the whole way. Frankly by the end if I'd had a bucket of water I'd have thrown it over them. I think a little restraint in public is called for, among hetero or gay couples. After all, we are not Italian or French!

Re the French, Capetonian, it's the noun you need to be careful with. If someone tells you that a certain lady is une bonne baiseuse they aren't saying she is a good kisser!

Although of course she might be as well ;)

Krystal n chips
23rd Jan 2015, 17:46
Reminds me of a French girl I once worked with, who at Christmas came to wish me
and as I found her rather unappealing I shook hands

Of couse there is also the confusion over the noun 'baise' and the verb 'baiser', one means kiss and the other means to have sex. I'm not sure which is which, probably one of the reasons I steer well clear of French women


Non! Qui aurait cru! , On peut se demander ce que la pensée de dame de vous .... et peut-être leur gratitude à vous manque de compréhension de la grammaire française

Capot
23rd Jan 2015, 22:25
When I said that recently in Cologne, as I was taught to do in Heidelberg in 1956, they simply fell about laughing, saying that it was delightfully quaint and old-fashioned, and very funny.

Maybe they weren't telling me everything.....

Seldomfitforpurpose
24th Jan 2015, 08:28
Mr Chips


Views on homosexuality have changed.

However, whether reasonable or unreasonable (a matter of opinion), I think it will take longer to get used to seeing homosexuals kissing in public.

I don't think views on homosexuality have changed at all, they have simply been stifled by the PC Stasi. Ask any totally heterosexual guy for his open and honest opinion on the subject of two men engaging in a sexual act and his answer will never include the line 'it's something I have been thinking of trying myself'

The problem is that when you articulate that the usual suspects are all over you like a rash thrusting the easy to brandish Homophobia card.

Lord Spandex Masher
24th Jan 2015, 08:35
Exactly Seldom, the PC brigade might have changed the way (some) people act but have they changed the way people think?

Some people have stronger minds than others.

Wingswinger
24th Jan 2015, 08:35
My views too, sffp. I've seen two homo's kissing. It turned my stomach. They're free to do what they want but not to shove it down the throats of those of us who do not share their proclivities.

Capetonian
24th Jan 2015, 09:09
I have a friend whom I long suspected was gay but he hadn't 'come out' until a couple of years ago when he 'married' a younger man. We were invited to the 'wedding' and fortunately I was away at the time, as I would have been uncomfortable about attending the ceremony.

We see them quite often and they never show any public affection towards each other. I would be most uncomfortable if they did, in fact the thought of seeing them kissing turns my stomach.

Seldomfitforpurpose
24th Jan 2015, 09:19
The sad reality is that in the eyes of the Stasi you have now openly and honestly offered opinions that to them make you homophobes.

The even sadder reality is that in this day and age of PCism you can say

I think homosexuality is perfectly natural

and think but the thought of the sexual act between two men is extremely distasteful and not something I would ever contemplate trying.........or words to that effect

But you definitely couldn't say I think homosexuality is perfectly normal AND the thought of it is so distasteful that its not something I would ever contemplate trying.............or words to that effect.

The massive irony is that because the lentil knitters and comfy shoe wearers take offence on behalf of others at every opportunity that presents itself no one will ever know the actuality of public opinion on any contentious subject.

Krystal n chips
24th Jan 2015, 09:50
don't think views on homosexuality have changed at all, they have simply been stifled by the PC Stasi. Ask any totally heterosexual guy for his open and honest opinion on the subject of two men engaging in a sexual act and his answer will never include the line 'it's something I have been thinking of trying myself'

The problem is that when you articulate that the usual suspects are all over you like a rash thrusting the easy to brandish Homophobia card.

Nothing quite like the closed mind now is there?.... not forgetting that sex is, seemingly, the only aspect of a relationship. Societal developments seem to have eluded you in many respects.

Exactly Seldom, the PC brigade might have changed the way (some) people act but have they changed the way people think?

Some people have stronger minds than others.

Very true.....those of us who live in the 21st century for example and treat the closed minds with open contempt.


My views too, sffp. I've seen two homo's kissing. It turned my stomach. They're free to do what they want but not to shove it down the throats of those of us who do not share their proclivities.

The term is gay or lesbian. However, look on the bright side. You are in good company on here with others whose minds are equally blinkered and unreceptive to progress.

Another priceless offering !......I could have sworn, that, in the many posts in the past, you have gone to great lengths to inform the world as to your tolerance and open minded views on gay people.

Alas, the winds of change are fickle, thus once the condemnation starts....quelle surprise !

I have a friend whom I long suspected was gay but he hadn't 'come out' until a couple of years ago when he 'married' a younger man. We were invited to the 'wedding' and fortunately I was away at the time, as I would have been uncomfortable about attending the ceremony.

We see them quite often and they never show any public affection towards each other. I would be most uncomfortable if they did, in fact the thought of seeing them kissing turns my stomach.

I does amaze me how many of you dashed fine white heterosexual good chaps were able to determine your sexual orientation and genetics at birth....

You could all make a fortune if you revealed the secret now couldn't you ?.

Lord Spandex Masher
24th Jan 2015, 09:55
K n C, the way I think will not be determined by anybody else. Does that make my mind closed?

Tankertrashnav
24th Jan 2015, 10:11
LSM - if you substituted "influenced" for "determined" I would say you have a closed mind, but I agree, no-one has a right to force their own views on others. The greatest socialist writer of the 20th century coined the term "thought police" for that sort of thing.

Pinky the pilot
24th Jan 2015, 10:37
I think homosexuality is perfectly natural

I do not!

My opinion.

Deal with it.

Lord Spandex Masher
24th Jan 2015, 10:49
TTN, but I may act as if I have an open mind anyway and nobody will know the difference. My point is that I may change my behaviour but not my way of thinking.

ExXB
24th Jan 2015, 11:06
A peck, even on the lips, not an issue. In fact in many cultures this is normal even between same-sex. And "il y a trois fois à Genève"

Tonsil hockey? Makes me uncomfortable, regardless of the genders.

Light, not-so light, heavy petting - please do that elsewhere, regardless of the genders.

Shagging, er can I get in line please? (very dependant on the gender)

Krystal n chips
24th Jan 2015, 11:35
" K n C, the way I think will not be determined by anybody else. Does that make my mind closed

Not at all. By the same token, neither will mine.

However, we are both influenced by others in our lives, irrespective of the context.

As I have said many times, sexual orientation is irrelevant. The more pertinent issue concerns their overall personality.

david1300
24th Jan 2015, 11:59
My views too, sffp. I've seen two homo's kissing. It turned my stomach. They're free to do what they want but not to shove it down the throats of those of us who do not share their proclivities.

An interesting choice of phrase there, 'Swinger ;)

Wingswinger
24th Jan 2015, 12:00
The term is gay or lesbian.

K&C

"Homo's" is an abbreviation of homosexuals. Anyone is free to call me a "hetero". I will not take offence. No one will dictate to me what language I shall use. That will be my choice, mine alone, and may or may not be tempered by the context and the company.

In common with many here I have had it up to my back teeth with language being changed by the PC brigade to suit the sensibilities of minorities.

oldchina
24th Jan 2015, 12:34
Language evolves all the time, by the users. No minority can decide which word is 'correct'. A homosexual may or may not be gay, but he's still a homo.

Flying Lawyer
24th Jan 2015, 13:50
Krystal
The term is gay or lesbian.

The term is homosexual: A person who is sexually attracted to people of his/her own sex. (Homo from the Greek homos 'same'.)
Lesbian is generally used to differentiate between female and male homosexuals.
Gay meaning homosexual was invented in the 1960s. It led to the centuries old meaning of the word gradually falling into desuetude to avoid any misunderstanding which, in some circumstances, might cause embarrassment or offence. Its use is optional, not compulsory. sexual orientation is irrelevant. The more pertinent issue concerns their overall personality.The pertinent issue in the incident mentioned in the first post was not sexual orientation but homosexuals kissing in public. Should tolerance/intolerance and consideration/lack of consideration apply only in one direction?


CapetonianWe see them quite often and they never show any public affection towards each other. I would be most uncomfortable if they did, in fact the thought of seeing them kissing turns my stomach.Yet you think the security guard was "wrong" (as well as possibly acting illegally) to ask the homosexuals not to kiss because it made other customers in the restaurant feel uncomfortable?


ExXB
A peck, even on the lips, not an issue. Do you mean not an issue for you or not an issue for anyone?In fact in many cultures this is normal even between same-sex.
The OP related an incident which occurred in England.


Homophobia
The term was invented by George Weinberg in the late 60s/early 70s and was immediately seized upon by certain groups and activists. It is now well established, even though 'phobia' when used in homophobia has a very different meaning from its use in other contexts.

Some people assert that language is a living thing so changes in the meaning of words don't matter. I can see the force of the general proposition but I think it does matter when words such as 'homophobia' and 'homophobic' are used without any justification, and frequently as a deliberately misleading smear, in an attempt to stifle discussion about any aspects of homosexuality or homosexual lifestyle. (The word 'racist' is often misused with the same motive.)

wings folded
24th Jan 2015, 14:09
I am very distrustfull if not down right scared of identical Staffordshire porcelain dogs at either end of the mantelpiece.

I suppose that make me homophobic.

Blokes who like blokes and girls who like girls do not bother me in the least

Capetonian
24th Jan 2015, 14:12
Capetonian .
We see them quite often and they never show any public affection towards each other. I would be most uncomfortable if they did, in fact the thought of seeing them kissing turns my stomach.
Yet you think the security guard was "wrong" (as well as possibly acting illegally) to ask the homosexuals not to kiss because it made other customers in the restaurant feel uncomfortable?Yes I do think he was wrong. Just because I feel revolted at the sight of two men kissing each other doesn't mean it's wrong for them to do so, obviously within certain limits which would apply equally to a heterosexual couple.

I see and hear things every day that I dislike, as do we all, I just have to accept them or distance myself.

wings folded
24th Jan 2015, 14:26
Hell, no. I break out into a cold sweat at the mere thought of it.

Much rather see two blokes smooching, because I am a true homophobic.:E

Seldomfitforpurpose
24th Jan 2015, 14:26
KnC,

I suspect that either the complexity of my offering or the blindingly obvious implication of my conclusion has sailed cleanly over the top of your heid. Thing is that I know from your posts that you are not stupid therefore it's a very safe bet that rather than address the issue you choose to bury your head in obfuscation.

My thoughts are that society in general will never actually know what the real opinion held by the silent majority on any minority subject because you and your ilk subdue it.

Just a thought but do you think many hetero folk would be offended if LGBT folk voiced their opinion on straight...............

ExXB
24th Jan 2015, 14:29
Flying Lawyer, I meant for me personally. Wasn't that clear from the context?

Flying Lawyer
24th Jan 2015, 15:09
ExXB

On re-reading, yes.
My error. Sorry.

FL

SpringHeeledJack
24th Jan 2015, 15:34
It used to be illegal in many countries up until relatively recently for persons of the same sex to have relations, now the pendulum has swung so far the other way that they take up a place in daily (media) life that far outweighs their number in most societies. I was watching TV the other night when a new fictional series came on featuring the lives of a gay male couple in Manchester. It was funny in places, good observational comedy/fictional narrative, but what shocked me was the overly explicit language, references and simulated sex scenes, that if it had been about heterosexual people would have been much tamer. My point is, that being homosexual seems to be more about sex and being overt about/around it than simply being a person who is attracted to the same gender. It's as though it's become the raison d'être.

I've worked with many of both flavours over the years and their different way of looking at things have brought about changes the straight and narrow either couldn't or didn't embrace and I have no problems with people living their lives, so long as it doesn't transgress on others in any reasonable sense. I do cringe when I see people being overly intimate in inappropriate environments, and it is my view that often when same sex couples are doing this, it is more about making a statement than any real compulsive need to pre fornicate :8


SHJ

Krystal n chips
24th Jan 2015, 17:51
FL,

Thank you for your inimitable contribution to this thread.

The expression "homo " , along with others from a less enlightened era, is widely perceived as being perjorative and therefore offensive when used in the context Wingswinger posted. His response in #29 would support this perception, likewise his risible attempt to justify the use of the term with "you may call me hetero"... has all the strength of a wet lettuce.

The terms gay and lesbian are now accepted as being vernacular terms and not offensive.

My comments about an individuals sexual orientation having no relevance stand. I do not, and never will, see how the overall personality of another human being can be defined by the sole criteria of their sexual orientation.

I was not, therefore, referring to the case in question, but yet again to the disparaging views of many on here who are seemingly oblivious to the fact that white Anglo-Saxon heterosexual males are but one form of the diversity of human beings.

but I think it does matter when words such as 'homophobia' and 'homophobic' are used without any justification, and frequently as a deliberately misleading smear, in an attempt to stifle discussion about any aspects of homosexuality or homosexual lifestyle

The terms may not meet with your approval, and I agree they can be used with little or no justification by some, but, the terms are very definitive when it comes to the opinions of many, not simply on this site, that people who are gay or lesbian are to be treated with contempt, disdain and also subjected to violence simply because of their sexuality.

"Debate" on here invariably centres on sexual practices. Nothing else within the overall relationship, which, from the many gay and lesbian people I know, bears a remarkable similarity to straight couples.

So what, therefore, do you feel the vernacular should be and how else would you describe those who are opposed to the gay and lesbian lifestyle ?

SFFP,

Your posts did not go over my head. They would have contained a lot more potential credence in a debate ( debates are rare on JB however ) if you hadn't included the statements about heterosexual males.... and sex.

ian16th
24th Jan 2015, 20:14
Knc

I started a point by point reply to your last, and then I realised that I would have the Mods banning me for life.

I value my membership of Pprune too much to concern myself with your views.

As an aside but relevant, as a child I used to be a regular attendee of a Variety Theatre where Larry Grayson, known then as Billy Breen, perfected his camp act and invented his catch phrase of 'Close that door', as the theatre was on the beach on the north coast of Yorkshire. If the satge door was opened, a gale was felt throughout the theatre.

So, in his words, may I wish you a Gay Day?

toffeez
24th Jan 2015, 20:40
I was feeling a little queer

Capetonian
24th Jan 2015, 20:43
Now we've started down that route .........

Why didn't Jeremy Thorpe emigrate to Australia?
He didn't want to leave his friends behind.
(You've got to deal with the apostrophe!)

toffeez
24th Jan 2015, 21:24
"The company was gay, we'd turn night into day ... "

Herman's Hermits, 1966

Seldomfitforpurpose
24th Jan 2015, 21:45
SFFP,

Your posts did not go over my head. They would have contained a lot more potential credence in a debate ( debates are rare on JB however ) if you hadn't included the statements about heterosexual males.... and sex.


Imagine that, yet another comfy shoe body swerve from a lentil knitter......


Lets back up a bit in order to enable you to enter the debate......


Folk are free to say that being homosexual is perfectly natural and think its not something I have ever considered parting in for reasons various....


where as


Folk are NOT free to say that being homosexual is perfectly natural but its not something I have ever considered partaking in for reasons various.....


Hence minorities will never ever know what people actually think because twonks like you stifle the debate.....


Just a thought, are you gay? Have you ever tried it, if not why not?

Flying Lawyer
24th Jan 2015, 22:05
Krystal
My comments about an individuals sexual orientation having no relevance stand. I do not, and never will, see how the overall personality of another human being can be defined by the sole criteria of their sexual orientation. As a general proposition, I agree.
Whether heterosexual or homosexual, it can contribute to personality.
Someone's sexual orientation may or may not be relevant depending upon context.So what, therefore, do you feel the vernacular should be
I don't. I think use of the vernacular is best avoided in this area.
Although I probably have on occasions, I don't use 'gay' because I think it's a silly word. Just a personal, and clearly minority, view. If the media (including television script-writers) use a word often enough it's quickly picked up. Is it fanciful to suggest that, in some instances, that is precisely what they intended? and how else would you describe those who are opposed to the gay and lesbian lifestyle ?
People.

I dislike labels generally and, in particular, the negative variety. They often have the effect of deterring people from expressing opinions (fearing that the label will be wrongly and unfairly attached to them) and are frequently intended by those who use them to achieve precisely that objective.

Ascend Charlie
25th Jan 2015, 00:48
For those who don't think that having sex with the same sex is not something that occurs in nature, look up the study of over-crowded rats. They had bred themselves into a mass of rodents, threatening the survival of the colony. Then the males began mating with other males. The birth rate dropped dramatically, the population came back to tolerable levels, and the balance between same sex and opposite sex relations kept the population around the correct ratios. Nature turned them to ensure continuity of the tribe. (They also did most of the artwork, piano playing and ballet in the colony.)

If "homos" is deemed pejorative or offensive, why not call them "same-os"?

It might be an indication of how society evolves, when two women getting intimate is considered erotic, but two men doing the same is disgusting. The "menage-a-trois" with 1 man and 2 women is exciting, but 2 men and 1 woman is a bit squeamish, if the mens' attention is not on the woman.

toffeez
25th Jan 2015, 16:02
If you're so desperate for a fag please go outside for a poof.

Wingswinger
25th Jan 2015, 16:33
It might be an indication of how society evolves, when two women getting intimate is considered erotic, but two men doing the same is disgusting

Not according to the females in my family. It makes their skins crawl.

Krystal n chips
25th Jan 2015, 17:57
FL


As a general proposition, I agree.
Whether heterosexual or homosexual, it can contribute to personality.
Someone's sexual orientation may or may not be relevant depending upon context.

Fair comment, although I would add there are numerous character and personal traits that also need to be taken into consideration in this respect.


I don't. I think use of the vernacular is best avoided in this area.
Although I probably have on occasions, I don't use 'gay' because I think it's a silly word. Just a personal, and clearly minority, view. If the media (including television script-writers) use a word often enough it's quickly picked up. Is it fanciful to suggest that, in some instances, that is precisely what they intended?

I can understand your personal preference with regard to the vernacular and I do in fact share your views, albeit in other contexts, many of which are used in posts on this forum and in the media / daily conversation.

Your suggestion about such expressions being deliberately included in all forms of media is far from fanciful.

The strapline in advertising is precisely for that purpose, to get your attention and relate to the product being marketed.... hopefully to enter common parlance thereafter. You could also argue that, as language is a constantly evolving medium, these expressions and phrases contribute to this evolution.


People.

I dislike labels generally and, in particular, the negative variety. They often have the effect of deterring people from expressing opinions (fearing that the label will be wrongly and unfairly attached to them) and are frequently intended by those who use them to achieve precisely that objective

I would agree that labels are used in a negative manner to discredit people.
Those who raise contentious issues in the areas of Flight Safety for example have frequently, and conveniently, been labelled as "troublemakers" until proven correct.

That said, I do feel that, when applied to those who are antagonistic towards and who denigrate others with regard to an individuals ethnicity or sexual orientation, then a definitive term is relevant.

SFFP

You aren't doing very well are you. As far as I am aware, Pavlovian conditioning has not yet become Gov't policy. You are free to think whatever you wish therefore.

To answer you question. No, and I have no emotional or sexual inclinations towards other males. I am however, perfectly happy to work and socialise with gay and lesbian people. This is because I have an open mind, and a cosmopolitan and contemporary social life.

You, on the other hand, seemingly do not.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Jan 2015, 18:50
SFFP

You aren't doing very well are you. As far as I am aware, Pavlovian conditioning has not yet become Gov't policy. You are free to think whatever you wish therefore. But are you really free to say whatever you think, the point I am making and you are quite predictably swerving round

To answer you question. No, and I have no emotional or sexual inclinations towards other males. Why, go on be totally honest and tell us why. I am however, perfectly happy to work and socialise with gay and lesbian people. How patronisingly quaint, have you mentioned this to these gay and lesbian folk? This is because I have an open mind, and a cosmopolitan and contemporary social life.

You, on the other hand, seemingly do not.



You have not a single clue as to my sexuality hence your rather lightweight response. With regards to open minds I know for a fact that mine is more open than you could ever possibly imagine :ok:

Lord Spandex Masher
25th Jan 2015, 19:00
" K n C, the way I think will not be determined by anybody else. Does that make my mind closed

Not at all. By the same token, neither will mine.


The difference is that you implied I had a closed mind.

Flyingmac
25th Jan 2015, 19:15
I'm gasping, so I'm off next door to quickly bum a fag. Back soon.

Flyingmac
25th Jan 2015, 19:24
Aah. That's better. One behind the ear for later, too.

ExXB
25th Jan 2015, 20:59
Is homosexuality a choice? Perhaps for some, but I think for many it is not. I find it difficult to hate someone for being the way they are, when it clearly isn't a choice.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Jan 2015, 21:09
Its not a choice its hard wired.

MOSTAFA
25th Jan 2015, 22:02
On the question of choice, surely all sexual conduct with the exception of rape categorically must be voluntary. Ergo, every sexual act must involve a conscious choice. Inclination toward a form of sexual conduct/orientation may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but surely the mere existence of a desire cannot justify the act. If you accept otherwise how long will it be before Government validates beastiality, necrophilia or even pedophilia, just to name a few more 'sexual orientations'. Society must have the right to require people to suppress certain desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.

Pull pin, throw, duck.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Jan 2015, 22:53
On the question of choice, surely all sexual conduct with the exception of rape categorically must be voluntary. Ergo, every sexual act must involve a conscious choice. Inclination toward a form of sexual conduct/orientation may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but surely the mere existence of a desire cannot justify the act. If you accept otherwise how long will it be before Government validates beastiality, necrophilia or even pedophilia, just to name a few more 'sexual orientations'. Society must have the right to require people to suppress certain desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.

Pull pin, throw, duck.


Bizarrely enough this came up at the dinner table this afternoon and folk that I admire struggled with my suggestion that I understand why paedophiles are as they are.


The tough question to answer is what is the solution, the suggestion here is that mandatory castration for openly honest paedophiles is the only sure fire way to keep children safe.


In principle not unreasonable but imagine the dilemma for the lentil knitters...........

G-CPTN
25th Jan 2015, 23:02
the suggestion here is that mandatory castration is the only sure fire way to keep children safe.
Would that be for all males?

I think we should be told.

MOSTAFA
26th Jan 2015, 07:56
Albeit 100% I'm in agreement with castration but I'm not so sure you could be missing my perhaps subtle point.

Now what do you do with the homosexual pædophile. Or come to that the homosexual with the pædophile?

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Jan 2015, 08:55
The tough question is what to do with people who are through no fault of their own are simply 'wired' differently to the rest of us?

As I found out yesterday an even tougher task is getting sane and rational people to understand that 'wiring' dilemma.

ExXB
26th Jan 2015, 09:30
Albeit 100% I'm in agreement with castration but I'm not so sure you could be missing my perhaps subtle point.

Now what do you do with the homosexual pædophile. Or come to that the homosexual with the pædophile?

Try understanding? From a study by UCDavis (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html)

Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

MOSTAFA
26th Jan 2015, 10:11
ExXb, I don't even know how to do the "quote thingy' but perhaps you should read your own link. Half way down it says:

It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

What is to say your link is not just pure sophistry? There's a lot of it about. Did you read Mr Daley's bit?

I have to go back to work now and I am certainly not trying to get into an argument here with you are anybody but I would like to know, precisely who you are to tell me to "Try understanding" or is that just a rule for me?

cockney steve
26th Jan 2015, 11:14
While everyone is busy waffling about the social mores which determine our acceptance or otherwise of any sort of minority behaviour, it seems the glaringly obvious is being overlooked.

The male of a species is designed to pass his seed to the ffemale.
wether it be random selection (pollen wind or insect-borne) or deliberate choice by more sentinent creatures. (the peacock with the most attractive tail-display, the baboon with the most purple bum) sexual attraction to, and passing genes to a member of the same sex is an aberration which is doomed to failure. such couplings do not result in progeny and those who are "wired" in this fashion will discontinue their gene-succession.
I can live with and accept humans with these proclivities. however, I expect in return, they refrain from overtly sexual behaviour in public.
If I go into an established "gay" venue, I have to expect to see that I don't want to see it on the streets and in normal social situations. Likewise , I don't wish to be faced with Heterosexuals behaving in a lewd manner.


Lets have civilised behaviour in a civilised society.

Vercingetorix
26th Jan 2015, 11:33
Krystal n chips

Perjorative? Tsk tsk. Pejorative silly boy, from French péjoratif, -ive, from late Latin pejorare ‘make worse’, from Latin pejor ‘worse’.

Bring back the Grammar Schools.

:ok:

MOSTAFA
26th Jan 2015, 11:52
100% in agreement with Cockney Steve. I was coming around to the 'aberration' that homosexuals need to recruit because there is not a single scrap of evidence to prove homosexuality is wired or innate anywhere.

Bye, before I really get into trouble. :=

Bronx
26th Jan 2015, 11:54
cockney steveI can live with and accept humans with these proclivities. however, I expect in return, they refrain from overtly sexual behaviour in public.
If I go into an established "gay" venue, I have to expect to see that. I don't want to see it on the streets and in normal social situations.


Thanks for trying to bring the thread back on track. :ok:

I agree. The guard said the pair were making other customers feel uncomfortable. I wouldn't say anything about it, I wouldn't dare these days, but I'd be uncomfortable as well.
If folks were complaining then it's very unlikely it was just a quick peck as one of them claims.

I think it's more difficult to cope with when it's two gays and I think a lot of people think the same way whether they admit it or not in these politically correct times.

ExXB
26th Jan 2015, 12:06
Please read the whole study, that will help your understanding.

Thank you

Mr Chips
26th Jan 2015, 18:07
Bronx
The guard said the pair were making other customers feel uncomfortable
Always possible the guard lied
I wouldn't say anything about it, I wouldn't dare these days, but I'd be uncomfortable as well.
Really? Two humans kissing makes you uncomfortable? How very strange for you./ How do you feel when ugly people kiss? Or a guy with a girl clearly out of his league?
If folks were complaining then it's very unlikely it was just a quick peck as one of them claims.
1. No evidence that it actually made anyone uncomfortable
2. From some of the attitudes expressed on this page, maybe some very very intolerant people saw it and get upset over two men exchanging a peck on the lips

Mostafa
there is not a single scrap of evidence to prove homosexuality is wired or innate anywhere.
I'm guessing you don't get out much.

MOSTAFA
26th Jan 2015, 18:34
I get out plenty perhaps before you bump your gums you'd like to present a single scrap of evidence.

Mr Chips
26th Jan 2015, 18:38
Mostafa, come with me to a bar on Friday and meet my friend Paul.

Paul is homosexual, always has been. Paul grew up in the 60s/70s when people weren't as enlightened as they are now. His own (adoptive) mother rejected him when she discovered his sexual orientation. Paul had to suffer prejudice his whole life, and legal obstacles to his sexuality.

Tell me how that life is a "choice".

Evidence? Paul tells me its not a choice, its how he is.
Same for Ian
Same for Barry
Same for Ross
Same for Bradley
Same for Tom
Same for other Tom

Yep, I know a lot of gay men. I talk to them. You should try it.

MOSTAFA
26th Jan 2015, 18:55
Precisely what I expected - none.

Mr Chips
26th Jan 2015, 19:11
What type of evidence do you seek?

Will an article on homosexual behaviour in animals help?
Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought. Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world.
Yale Scientific (http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/)
Maybe a scientific study
Scientists have found evidence to support the existence of a male genome which may influence homosexuality.

Dr Michael Bailey, from Northwestern University, studied 400 sets of twins to determine if some men are genetically inclined to be gay.


The study identified two areas on the male genome which appear to be linked to sexuality.

Bailey said: "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play and we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight."

Researchers took blood from 409 homosexual brothers and heterosexual members of their family. It is known that siblings share around 50 per cent of their DNA, but it is possible they have a chance of sharing genes associated with sexual orientation.
International Business Times (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gay-gene-discovery-suggests-sexual-orientation-not-choice-1436389)
Will that satisfy you, as lots of gay men telling me its not a choice doesn't seem to cut it for you....

MOSTAFA
26th Jan 2015, 19:31
Still absolutely none then.

There exists no truly objective method of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. They can't simply take blood or a DNA test to prove homosexuality. So all the evidence depends upon is the homosexual claim that his or her homosexuality is innate. The taint of self-interest alone makes any such evidence totally untrustworthy.

So why don't we get back to the thread as recently, sensibly requested.

Mr Chips
26th Jan 2015, 19:44
So scientific evidence doesn't count as evidence? Nothing will change your closed mind? I actually feel sorry for you.

Ok, original thread

Security guard is a closed minded bigot, there is no evidence that anyone complained except him. So he is also a liar.

MOSTAFA
26th Jan 2015, 19:50
Scientific hearsay and how rats treat one another is not evidence.

Whether you feel sorry for me is of absolutely of no consequence to me. Oops there's that bigot word again!

Bye

cockney steve
26th Jan 2015, 19:55
In case anyone misunderstood......
I ,too, am convinced that same-sex sexual attraction is nature, not nurture. they don't "recruit", more, they feel comfortable making their leanings openly known. A mincing gay in Rupert-bear trousers, used to rent a lockup close to my garage, he would come in to use the toilet and scrounge water for a brew....as he got to know me, I'd make a brew for him and we'd have a natter......One day he asserted "of course, I'm Gay and Jim's my partner"

I hammed wide-eyed surprise and said "Really, Tom, I'd never have guessed!" followed by, " it was bloody obvious from the first time you crossed the road.....so what? " And, no, they were discreet in public, despite
him being camper than a Scout Jamboree, which I told him!

It is a genetic aberration, they are nature's rejects who, in the normal course of events, will not pass on their "faulty" genes.
A "quick peck" is hardly likely, other tan meeting or saying farewell. I find heterosexual behaviour, where it becomes "petting" should be the preserve of "dim and intimate" places,- Pubs, clubs and the like. NOT in the middle of a normal, mixed environment. likewise, Lesbian behaviour is equally determined by context, as to what is acceptable.
a normal, sexually-neutral hug or peck is one thing....a full-on snog and or grope/stroke is not appropriate public behaviour.

Mr Chips
26th Jan 2015, 19:55
Scientific hearsay
Errr, I'm not sure, but I think a DNA study ranks a tiny level above hearsay.

Closed mind.

Seldomfitforpurpose
27th Jan 2015, 09:00
Really? Two humans kissing makes you uncomfortable? How very strange for you.


How bizarre, who would you find that strange?