Gay couple ‘thrown off London bus for kissing’

Status
Not open for further replies.
lord of light said:
no but like i said - i suspect its been inflated horribly to make a point but neither do i feel the need to join a political mass snog-in at a supermarket - jeez
Click to expand...

"The bus stopped again and he shouted and told us we were not real men and we should fuck off."

That's pretty clear abuse if true. Don't care about the rest other than to state that its not against the law to snog in public, even if it is against decorum, taste and decency. Someone is free to register their disgust but they are just as free to keep snogging.
 


Kent_Mackem said:
Careful, you'll get accused of patronising.
Click to expand...
No that wasn't patronising just good old fashioned insulting.
As always happens in these threads the left of the argument start firing the insults, the belittling and patronising. Then the tag teaming starts as they bounce off each other to try and further put down anybody who disagrees with them. Then of course out comes the ignore button even though we know he hasn't really put anybody on ignore.
I've read this so many times on here that I know the pattern and how it will pan out before it starts. The usual faces as well every time.
 
Kent_Mackem said:
If you replace the phrase with "they conduct their sexual affairs in a consensual fashion" with "they do not act upon their desires in any way" then couldn't the same be said about paedophiles? They cannot help that they are sexually attracted to children. Any crime they might commit is not the desire in the head but the action upon it.

I wonder how many paedophiles there are out there who have acknowleged their desires but know that they must not act on them.

Although different in many ways, there are similarities with the situation in which many married men find themselves when they choose not to have an affair with a girl who comes onto them.
Click to expand...

In the even this hasn't been brought up-paedophiles don't have consenting sex with children. The only way you can think paedophilia is acceptable is if you think its cool for people to just act on their own sexual interests with no regards at all as to what the other person involved wants.
 
sonson said:
"The bus stopped again and he shouted and told us we were not real men and we should fuck off."

That's pretty clear abuse if true. Don't care about the rest other than to state that its not against the law to snog in public, even if it is against decorum, taste and decency. Someone is free to register their disgust but they are just as free to keep snogging.
Click to expand...
yes - IF TRUE indeed - you said it - unfortunately there are loads of people whos ideology would led them to believe everything they read as long as it conforms to their little fantasy world. Personally as Im very cynical i suspect they have an agenda and therefore suspect them of not being truthful
 
HerdnMulhall said:
Yeah some people do hate gays ...and my understanding is that when you project hatred onto another it is about the other embodying a hidden aspect of yourself that you deny or are fearful of examining. That underpins my experience that people secure in their own sexuality have no issue with that of others that are different.
The thread also mentioned about why homosexuals exist in an evolutionary context. Remember reading some research once where it was strongly posited that there was 'a selfless gene' at work. Can't recall exactly what was said other that comparisons were drawn on the role homosexuals have had in other societies as shamans, carers, seers which might sound like a load of bollocks but you look at the contribution that has been made to Western culture particularly at the time of the Renaissance and onwards and it is significant and proportionally outweighs that of their numerical distribution in society. A line, from off the top of my head that includes John Maynard Keynes, Alan Turing way back to Michelangelo....
Click to expand...

I've read his biography by Andrew Hodges, absolutely tragic how society at the time treated such an amazing man. It's a lesson to humanity, and especially the countries where homosexuality is still a criminal act, that it is to the detriment of us a species to persecute people for they way they were born. Shame on us.
 
lord of light said:
yes - IF TRUE indeed - you said it - unfortunately there are loads of people whos ideology would led them to believe everything they read as long as it conforms to their little fantasy world. Personally as I'm very cynical i suspect they have an agenda and therefore suspect them of not being trueful
Click to expand...

Well that's your call, but its not based on anything more compelling than the reason someone might choose to believe the other side of the story.
 
sonson said:
In the even this hasn't been brought up-paedophiles don't have consenting sex with children. The only way you can think paedophilia is acceptable is if you think its cool for people to just act on their own sexual interests with no regards at all as to what the other person involved wants.
Click to expand...

I didn't state I thought a paedophile acting on his/her desires was acceptable. I was comparing being born gay with being born with a sexuality where the person is attracted to children. If we can remove ourselves from the hysteria and put down the pitch forks, the comparison is that both are natural conditions... in that the person is born that way, just like the colour of their hair, the colour of their eyes and the colour of their skn.

John Steed said:
No that wasn't patronising just good old fashioned insulting.
As always happens in these threads the left of the argument start firing the insults, the belittling and patronising. Then the tag teaming starts as they bounce off each other to try and further put down anybody who disagrees with them. Then of course out comes the ignore button even though we know he hasn't really put anybody on ignore.
I've read this so many times on here that I know the pattern and how it will pan out before it starts. The usual faces as well every time.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I see it this way. A poster is having a discussion on a message board. He has been polite but has his hands over his ears (metaphorically) when quite reasonable and logical answers to his points are provided. Hence the reason one poster asked if he was religious. There are only so many times one can reply with the same simple argument, that the poster refuses to accept but doesn't address any points raised, before giving up knowing it is pointless. I was bored with his small-minded drivel so I put him on my (very short - only 3 I think) Ignore List.

If you think it is patronising that somebody can get fed up with hearing the same weak argument again and again then so be it. Maybe just dry your eyes and address the points on the thread instead?
 
Last edited:
I tend to insult thick fuckers as it is a language they can relate to, as opposed to reasoned debate. It always starts as a fact based argument, but invariably the intellectually challenged bigots/right wingers simply wallow in their ignorance and posit ridiculous passive aggressive stances such as 'well, it's my opinion, and we're all entitled to an opinion'. Fuck that. Fuck them. And fuck you.

Edit - the quote fucked up. This is in response to John Steed.
 
John Steed said:
No that wasn't patronising just good old fashioned insulting.
As always happens in these threads the left of the argument start firing the insults, the belittling and patronising. Then the tag teaming starts as they bounce off each other to try and further put down anybody who disagrees with them. Then of course out comes the ignore button even though we know he hasn't really put anybody on ignore.
I've read this so many times on here that I know the pattern and how it will pan out before it starts. The usual faces as well every time.
Click to expand...
Man up! When did 'the right' become such whining, victimised, self pitying, hard done by, little fannies?!
 
John Steed said:
No that wasn't patronising just good old fashioned insulting.
As always happens in these threads the left of the argument start firing the insults, the belittling and patronising. Then the tag teaming starts as they bounce off each other to try and further put down anybody who disagrees with them. Then of course out comes the ignore button even though we know he hasn't really put anybody on ignore.
I've read this so many times on here that I know the pattern and how it will pan out before it starts. The usual faces as well every time.
Click to expand...

Don't bother mate its like banging your head against a wall trying to talk to these single minded fools
 
John Steed said:
No that wasn't patronising just good old fashioned insulting.
As always happens in these threads the left of the argument start firing the insults, the belittling and patronising. Then the tag teaming starts as they bounce off each other to try and further put down anybody who disagrees with them. Then of course out comes the ignore button even though we know he hasn't really put anybody on ignore.
I've read this so many times on here that I know the pattern and how it will pan out before it starts. The usual faces as well every time.
Click to expand...

Not true, he's only the 4th poster I've put on ignore.
 
Mackem Chris said:
What I have said that shows anything other than normal intelligence?
Click to expand...
You've been unable to engage in the debate on the same level as the adults on here. You stick out like a sore thumb. You sound like you're blindly repeating the views of your parents or one of your teachers verbatim so then haven't been able to respond to any counter points with anything other than childish nonsense.
 
jedi_toaster said:
Normal or natural? Enquiring minds need to know.
Click to expand...

Normal

Howard the Duck said:
You've been unable to engage in the debate on the same level as the adults on here. You stick out like a sore thumb. You sound like you're blindly repeating the views of your parents or one of your teachers verbatim so then haven't been able to respond to any counter points with anything other than childish nonsense.
Click to expand...

So because I think men and women are supposed to be together its childish?

KST said:
Christ this Chris lad is trying so hard to sound intelligent and informed that's he inadvertently making himself look as thick as a castle wall :lol:

What a f***ing arsewipe
Click to expand...

How old are you, 12? This is for over 18's only
 
Last edited:
Mackem Chris said:
Already said, because that is how the human race continues.

Is that childish? I thought that was FACT
Click to expand...

The human race is growing at a huge rate despite the fact that homosexuals have existed for millennia. Therefore one can only assume that the existence of homosexuals has no negative impact on the continuation of the human race. Any other reasons behind your opinion that stand up to any more than the most basic scrutiny?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top