Report on the BBC and gay issues

[hermes]

I haven't hijacked any thread. Choosing a name like 'ninebob' is telling the world that he is attracted to men.

So what?

Why? Who the hell cares what floats his boat?

No-one really, apart from you

Why is it an issue at all?

It wasn't until you made it one. If someone had chosen a name like Casenova, or Miss Whiplash, or Marquis de Sade would you have castigated them because they may be indicating sexual preference? Would you have been unsettled or upset because they may be hinting at sexual leanings that differ from yours? I don't think so.

 

[paulbrown]

I have no problem with gay people whatsoever. I just don't think that we need it parading down the street as if it's a new religion. Gay or straight we are the same - no need to create some kind of sub-culture based upon what happens in private.


joe

It looks to me like you are now trying to wriggle out of your previous postings. You obviously sympathise with paedophiles or maybe lean that way yourself. Either way, you are the one who is making it up as you go along.

No one is trying to create a sub-culture we are just trying to say that gays should be portrayed on tv as normal people.

Oh yes and no, I do not agree with 12 year olds marrying or anyone being forced into an arranged marriage either - though what that has got to do with it I just don't know

Sorry Brightness, but whether one agree's or disagree's with Joe, the highlighted part is an extremely unpleasant comment. There was no need for it.

Joe has all but said live and let live, he(quite rightly) just doesn't want it continually shoved in his face. I don't for one minute believe that report, Gay people are generally well represented in the media. In my opinion Stonewall is no doubt taking an extreme and maybe even an exaggerated stance, to make a point.

Just curious, but do they rely on donations to keep going?

 

[markie]

paulbrown

read all of Joes posts and he says himself that he sympathise's with paedophiles.

 

[paulbrown]

paulbrown

read all of Joes posts and he says himself that he sympathise's with paedophiles.

He did not say he leant that way himself.

 

[markie]

Sorry, you should of highlighted that bit only instead of the sympathise bit, my mistake.

 

[paulbrown]

Sorry, you should of highlighted that bit only instead of the sympathise bit, my mistake.

Your missing the point about what Joe is is actually saying. He doesn't care eitherway about what gays do in private. His comments about paedophilia were an attempt to put comments about people being born homosexual into to context. He is only asking why society is excepted to accept one but not the other, when neither contribute to procreation.

He has not said he agree's with paedophilia and any suggestion that he has is taking his comments out of all proportion.

What Joe (I think) means is that the time for gay people embracing in the street has not quite arrived yet. (not in many people eyes anyway) I am no prude and like Joe couldn't care less what they do in their homes.

In all fairness, homosexuality and paedophilia are not comparable and don't belong in the same discussion.

 

[Softus]

I'm a normal guy...

Oh I think we all know that's a big lie

 

[paulbrown]

I'm a normal guy...

Oh I think we all know that's a big lie

Funny things these computers. Despite their complexity they still manage to miss half the comment off.

I'm a normal guy (thankfully) I must have won God's Lottery. I don't fancy other men or children, only women my own age.

 

[Moz]

markie
you hit right fella .. if it was at all offensive like his views you would be bnnedd ... WELL DONE MODS..AT LAST

paulbrown...an surprise surprise lil troll web=**** appears whinning about him .. lol

 

[paulbrown]

markie
you hit right fella .. if it was at all offensive like his views you would be bnnedd ... WELL DONE MODS..AT LAST

paulbrown...an surprise surprise lil troll web=**** appears whinning about him .. lol

Put it in a langauge I can understand moz so I can reply.

 

[paulbrown]

Moz I am not joe and am not replying in his name either, you have it wrong this time.

It is not very often I agree with joe but I do on this issue.

Read my comment again in the morning and you may well have a different opinion.

SorryM8 you thought you knew who I was, but you are wrong.

 

[Softus]

Funny things these computers. Despite their complexity they still manage to miss half the comment off.

Very well then:

I'm a normal guy (thankfully) I must have won God's Lottery.

Oh I think we all know that's a big lie.

Has that really added the meaning that you implied was missing?

 

[markie]

paulbrown

I was stating/pointing out that Joe already said that he had sympathy with paedophiles, thats regarding your highlighted response to brightness, i know what Joe was trying to say.
You highlighted ,( YOU OBVIOUSLY SYMPATHIZE WITH PAEDOPHILES ) OR MAYBE LEAN THAT WAY YOURSELF.
You should of only highlighted the latter instead of the hole sentence, then i would not of jumped to Brightness's defence. Hope you know where i'm coming from.

 

[joe-90]

I'm a normal guy...

Oh I think we all know that's a big lie

How many times have we met? None? What do you know about me? Nothing?

You are pretty odd then aren't you Softus?


joe

 

[joe-90]

I said I had sympathy with someone that had a genetic predisposition that was unacceptable to society. It is simply a lottery, a genetic lottery.
I doubt that I could think of a worse curse to inflict a man with. That is why I am sympathetic. I also said that they should never be released into society if they are unable to manage their problems.
They are usually attracted to the same group of professions:

GPs, teachers, youth workers, clergy and such like.

joe